Tuesday 27 March 2012

Volume 542 No. 287

HOUSE OF COMMONS
OFFICIAL REPORT

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday 27 March 2012

500

 Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2012 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through The National Archives website at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-licence-information.htm Enquiries to The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk

1317

27 MARCH 2012

1318

House of Commons
Tuesday 27 March 2012 The House met at half-past Eleven oclock PRAYERS [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS TRANSPORT FOR LONDON (SUPPLEMENTAL TOLL PROVISIONS) BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER) Second Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 17 April (Standing Order No. 20).

Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab): For both end-of-life care and social care more generally, the Budget was a real missed opportunity, in that the Government did not signal what they were going to do about the future funding of social care. Will the Secretary of State now update us on the discussions that he has had with the Treasury about what will be done about the gap in the future funding of social care? Mr Lansley: On the contrary, the Chancellor set out very clearly his intention that a White Paper on the reform of social care would be published in the spring. The hon. Lady may wish to know that we are in direct discussions with the Opposition to seek consensus about the long-term reform of social care funding. NHS Reorganisation (Costs) 2. Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab): What his most recent estimate is of the cost of NHS reorganisation. [101873] 7. Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op): What his most recent estimate is of the cost of NHS reorganisation. [101878] The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns): The cost of the NHS modernisation is estimated to be between 1.2 billion and 1.3 billion. It will save 4.5 billion over the rest of this Parliament and 1.5 billion a year to 2020. We will reinvest every penny saved in the NHS in front-line services. Mr Crausby: The Bolton clinical commissioning group estimates that its budget will be about 25 per Bolton resident, or 100 for a couple with two children. Is that not too much, considering that they will get no medical treatment at all from that money, just administration money paid to doctors who should really be treating patients and not sat in the back office? Mr Burns: No, I do not believe it is. The administration figure that has been announced for CCGs throughout the country is 25 a patient, but if a CCG is more effective and efficient in providing administration and bureaucracy and makes savings, those savings can be transferred and reinvested in funding the care of their patients. That is an incentive for them to be streamlined and to ensure that that happens. Gavin Shuker: The Minister speaks of reinvesting every single penny in the NHS budget. How does that fit with the 500 million raid on the NHS budget spoken of this week? Mr Burns: If I could explain this to the hon. Gentleman, the 500 million that he is talking about was part of the savings made through renegotiating the IT contract. It is a perfectly normal procedure, because as the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) will know, the average figure for previous years was 850 million, and one year when he was a Minister at the Department of Health, it was 2.3 billion. David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con): As part of the reorganisation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decidedrightly in my viewthat the Health

Oral Answers to Questions

HEALTH The Secretary of State was asked End-of-life Care 1. Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): What plans he has to improve individual choice and [101872] standards for end-of-life care. The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley): We are developing a new patient funding system for all providers of palliative care. It will be fair and transparent and deliver better outcomes for patients and better value for the NHS. Just last week, I announced that we are investing 1.8 million in eight pilot sites to help us in that work. Marie Curie Cancer Care is also providing 2.5 million of funding to support those pilots. The new system will be in place by 2015. Andrew Bridgen: I thank the Secretary of State. Does he agree that current state funding for end-of-life and palliative care provision is at best patchy across the country and needs to be improved? Will he outline the role that he sees for voluntary and charitable organisations in the delivery of improved palliative and end-of-life care in future? Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend will know very well of the vital role that the voluntary sector already plays, whether through the hospice movement or through Marie Curie and other voluntary organisations. As he implies, we not only want to secure more consistent, high-quality end-of-life care, to which effect we are already implementing the end-of-life care strategy and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence quality standard for end-of-life care, but through the implementation of the palliative care funding review pilot schemes we want to ensure that the voluntary sector and other providers are equally able to provide the services that patients and their families desire.

1319

Oral Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Oral Answers

1320

Professions Council will regulate Chinese medical practitioners, but there is widespread concern in the community that these practitioners will not have protection of title. Will he please ensure that they do when he finishes his consultation? Mr Burns: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and, as his question suggested, there is a consultation process. I can give him an assurance that the point that he has made will be fully considered as part of that consultation process. Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Is my hon. Friend aware that the NHS reorganisation will abolish the strategic health authority in the eastern region, which will save 46 million a yearmoney that will be spent on front-line services in Harlow and elsewhere? Mr Burns: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. It is crucial that we slim down the bureaucracy and management of the NHS so that we can make savings, so that they can go where they shouldto provide more care for patients in the NHS. Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab): Last week in the emergency debate, the Secretary of State said:
Risk registersare not a prediction of the future. They set out a worst-case scenario.[Official Report, 20 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 676.]

to the Dispatch Box and talking down the fantastic work that nurses and doctors do day in and day out, why does he not read the quarter, the latest copy of which is full of facts about how the NHS is improving its performance and delivering better quality care for patients throughout England? Tuberculosis 3. Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab): What assessment he has made of progress in tackling tuberculosis in England. [101874] The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow): Provisional numbers of tuberculosis cases in England in 2011 increased by 556 compared with 2010, although the number of cases is lower than in 2009. This may indicate that TB is stabilising, but it is too early to draw firm conclusions. We expect local NHS organisations, in partnership with other agencies, to sustain their efforts to control TB. On 23 March, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence published new guidance to help the NHS manage TB in hard-to-reach groups, including collaborative commissioning. Mr Sharma: I thank the Minister for his answer. London has the highest rate of TB of any city in western Europe, with more than 3,000 cases a year. When faced with the same problem in Paris and New York, respective Governments committed to increasing resources and a clear model of care. Given the scale of the problem here, and the growing concern about drugresistant TB, will the Secretary of State commit to implementing the London model of care for TB services that was developed by TB health professionals and advocacy groups to stop this ever-worsening problem? Paul Burstow: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in this matter. He is a member of the all-party group on tuberculosis, and I believe he is meeting the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) to discuss these matters further. He is right that this is a big issue in London as well as a global issue. The Department is working closely with TB Alert, the tuberculosis charity, which is running a series of programmes to raise awareness. It is working with the NHS and the voluntary sector, particularly in communities with higher risk populations, and we are working with the Royal College of General Practitioners to develop an online resource to promote the better detection and treatment of TB in primary care. I hope that he can explore these issues further, but the Government take them very seriously and are working with other agencies to make progress. Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): It was 50 years ago that my dad moved on from being research secretary at the British Tuberculosis Association at Harefield because, in the 1950s, TB had ceased to be a killer in the UK. It is a tragedy that it has now come back, largely as a consequence of people with infectivity from overseas bringing TB into the country. What more can be done to enhance the screening of travellers from high-infection

I now have an early version of the risk register that civil servants gave him in September 2010. Risk No. 7 of his reorganisation was that Financial control is lost. That was red rated and, according to the document, likely to happen with major consequences. Is it not clear that last week the Secretary of State gave an inaccurate description of the risk registers he saw, and should he not now come to the Dispatch Box to correct the record? Mr Burns: May I reassure you, Mr Speaker, if not so much the right hon. Gentleman, that my right hon. Friend did not mislead anyone? The answer to the right hon. Gentlemans question is the same as he and his predecessors pursued under the last Labour Government and was pursued under the Thatcher and Major Governmentswhich is that Ministers do not comment on leaked documents. Andy Burnham: The rest of the world is, and we would be interested to hear the Governments views on it. Here we have it in full colour. It is not the worst-case scenario, as the Secretary of State claimed, but 43 very real and predictable risks, 21 of which are red rated and 14 likely to happen with major consequences. They include:
Emergenciesless well managedmore failuresGP consortia go bust or have to cut servicesperformance dips and key staff lost.

Is it not now clear for all to see that the Secretary of State and his Ministers have knowingly taken major risks with the national health service, ignored warnings from civil servants and kept those risks secret from Parliament in order to get their unnecessary Bill through? Mr Burns: I am not quite sure which word in my last answer the right hon. Gentleman did not understand, so I will repeat it. Like previous Governments, we do not comment on leaked documents. Instead of coming

1321

Oral Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Oral Answers Walk-in Centres

1322

areas entering the UK so that those infected with TB can be identified and treated before they infect others in the population here? Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend makes an important point about one aspect of the better control of TB and its spread. The Home Office has been running a pilot programme for some years. It continues to evaluate the effectiveness of that programme with a view to establishing whether it is more widely applicable. We know that this disease has moved from the general population to specific high-risk groups, which is why the targeted approach I mentioned in my initial answer is the key to controlling it. Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab): The Minister has heard that TB is a particular problem in Londonthere was an 8% rise last yearand he will be aware that the current difficulties concern delays in detection and referral and the variability of commissioning and service provision. Given that the Health and Social Care Bill will necessarily lead to further fragmentation, separating health protection and public health from commissioning, how will he ensure that the Bill does not make a bad situation, in respect of TB in London, worse? Paul Burstow: The Bill will not lead to fragmentation. It actually supports greater integration of health, social care and public health and, at a local level, it allows health and wellbeing boards to become the means by which to co-ordinate all the agencies that have a part to play when it comes to tackling TB, not least in ensuring that the advice of public health officials benefits not just the NHS but wider public services that also have a role to play in raising awareness of the disease and ensuring that it is properly tackled. Defective Breast Implants 4. Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Welsh Government on the treatment by the NHS of patients with defective [101875] breast implants. The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley): My officials have kept colleagues in the Welsh Government closely informed about the advice of Sir Bruce Keoghs expert group and about our plans for the NHS treatment of patients with PIP breast implants. Ian Lucas: The Secretary of State has said that private providers have a moral duty to replace faulty implants for free. Will he tell the House how many private providers have carried out that moral duty? Mr Lansley: I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the latest figures and place a copy of the letter in the Library. Overall, however, I am aware of 5,232 referrals to private providers, as a result of which 2,704 scans have been conducted. Consequently, the decision to explant breast implants has been taken in 298 cases. Some 75 such operations have been completed.

6. Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con): What the average cost has been of a consultation at an NHS walk-in centre since 2008. [101877] The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow): The average cost of an attendance at an NHS walk-in centre was 36 in 2008-09; 42 in 2009-10; and 39 in 2010-11. Dr Lee: I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. Does he agree that in the future new commissioning groups, such as those that will serve my constituency in Bracknell, might choose not to fund walk-in centres whether ones already established or those in the future based on clinical justification terms? I, for one, remain to be convincedindeed, I am far from convincedof the long-term financial justification for, or clinical benefit of, walk-in centres. Paul Burstow: There is not a nationally mandated programme of walk-in centres; rather, it will be for local commissioners to make decisions based on the evidence and their evaluation, and ensuring that they fulfil their contractual obligations. Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab): Is it not the case that the walk-in centre that opened in Rotherham a few years ago has given communities that are higher on bad health indices access to health care 12 hours a day, seven days a week? Getting rid of itit was opposed by some local doctors, because it threatened their business would be a backwards step. Can we expect the new commissioning groups to start commissioning GPs in areas such as mine, which are higher on bad health indices and do not have enough general practitioners? Paul Burstow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, because he outlines the need to reduce health inequalitiessomething that the party of which he is a member failed to do in government. I can assure him that the Bill, which has now gone through all its parliamentary stages, will place a duty on clinical commissioning groups to seek to reduce health inequalities something that his Government never did. Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): Is the Minister aware that when walk-in centres failor when any aspect of the national health service failsit is because of poor management? Does he realise that good managers up and down the country are leaving the national health service? Doctors are not trained as managers. The Institute of Management has said that 43% of our managers are not up to the job, and we are not training our managers in the national health service because they are GPs. Paul Burstow: This Government respect the contribution that NHS managers make, and we respect the contribution that the NHS Confederation makes as well. However, we also want to ensure that clinicians are at the heart of commissioning services. They are the people who understand patients most, and they are the people we are giving that responsibility to, because we think that is the way to drive improvement in the NHS.

1323

Oral Answers Private Finance Initiatives (North-East)

27 MARCH 2012

Oral Answers

1324

8. Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con): What his policy is on the rationalisation of PFI deals in the north-east for the purposes of making savings on long-standing PFI hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [R]
[101879]

consistent approach, allowing an overview of performance, which is not currently possible, and ensuring that interventions occur at an early stage. I think that will go a considerable way towards helping with the problems that have been experienced. Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): As an elected representative for a great many years, I have often been made aware of issues relating to GPs and patient lists. Does the Minister agree that there should be greater co-operation between the Health Department and GPs with regard to their patient lists, and specifically with regard to the transfer of patients? Mr Burns: With regard to the transfer of patients, we are seeking to give greater choice to patients under the modernisation programme so that they can move from one GP, or one GP practice, to another in a way that they cannot do at the moment. That will help to enhance the power of patients to get the GP of their choice and preference. Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con): I am sure that the Minister would agree with me about the importance of addressing alcohol misuse through the alcohol strategy announced last week. On the performance management of GPs, however, does he agree that we need to do more than just monitor how much people drink, and that we need to ensure that GPs are incentivised to tackle the problem drinkers who attend their surgeries? Mr Burns: Yes, my hon. Friend raises an important issue. We must ensure that every contact counts, and that there is greater working between GPs and patients to help to deal with what is a significant problem among certain sections of the community. Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): The first step that the Government should take is to start listening to doctors. Is it not the case that some senior GPs are now spending as little as one day a week seeing patients because they are too busy working on the Governments massive NHS upheaval? It is costing the NHS up to 124,000 a year to replace each of those GPs with a locum. That is why the Departments leaked transition risk register warns that GP leaders are not sufficiently developed to run consortia, and that they might be drawn into managerial processes that drive clinical behaviour, rather than the other way round. The risk rating for that is that it is likely to happen, with major consequences. When is the Minister going to get his head out of the sand and start listening? Mr Burns: Well, that interesting rant bore little relation to the facts[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) would just button it for a minute, he will get the answer. The answer is that we are constantly listening to GPs, nurses, consultants and others within the NHS health economy. As we showed during the progress of the Health and Social Care Bill, we listened and we accepted a number of recommendations from the Future Forum and from a number of others, which strengthened and improved the Bill. I have to say that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) just does not get it.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley): Any plan to rationalise a PFI contract, such as that being considered by Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, would be a local decision. Any trust will need to satisfy itself of the value for money of any proposal. Northumbria Healthcare is a foundation trust, so Monitor is also considering its plans. Guy Opperman: Many hospitals around the country are struggling under PFI debt. What plans does the Secretary of State have to ensure that other types of organisations, aside from Northumbria NHS Foundation Trust, will benefit from the new deal, just as my constituents in Hexham are? Mr Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have recently made it clear that where there is unsustainable PFI debtas is the case for seven PFI contractswe stand ready to support those trusts in meeting some of those costs, which we inherited from the last Government. Beyond that, working with the Treasury, we have undertaken a pilot project that has demonstrated how 5%, on average, can be taken out of the cost of PFI contracts through the better management of them. I hope that will be applied across the country. I welcome, as I know my hon. Friend does, the way in which Northumbria Healthcare, with its local authorities, is looking at resolving its PFI debts, and if that represents value for money, I am sure that others across the country will benefit from the experience. GPs (Performance Management) 9. Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con): What steps his Department is taking to develop more [101880] effective performance management of GPs. The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns): As set out in the Health and Social Care Bill, performance management of general practice will become the responsibility of the new NHS Commissioning Board from April 2013. This will enable, for the first time, a single, consistent approach to be developed for the assessment and management of general practice. Stephen Barclay: As with any profession, the performance of GPs varies widely. As more power is devolved to GPs, does my right hon. Friend recognise the importance of independent performance management of GPs, in order to identify outliers and improve patient care? Mr Burns: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, given his past association as a constituency MP with this subject, because of the problems in his constituency. I believe that we have a strong system of general practice in this country, but I am afraid that more can be done to address variations in aspects of the quality of provision by some general practitioners. As I have said, the NHS Commissioning Board will adopt a single,

1325

Oral Answers Care at Home

27 MARCH 2012

Oral Answers

1326

10. Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op): What steps he is taking to ensure that people receiving care at home funded by the NHS are involved in [101881] making the arrangements for that care. The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow): Our ambition is to enable shared decision making for all NHS patients. We expect people who are eligible for NHS continuing care funding to be fully involved in discussions about their care. Subject to the results of the current personal health budget pilots, everyone eligible for NHS continuing health care, including many people receiving care at home, will have the right to ask for a personal health budget, including a direct payment, from April 2014. Meg Munn: I have received a letter from one of my constituents who has had direct payments for 15 years under social services. Following a stay in hospital, she was moved on to health funding, and her life has changed dramatically for the worse. She says that she no longer has any choice in who cares for her and finds it hard to find the right people with whom she feels comfortable. She concludes:
Im tired of being bullied. Im just miserable.

Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab): There are currently severe constraints on the availability of incontinence pads and on the bed linen laundry service, which is causing immense distress to the many poor families in my constituency. Will the Minister look into the problem? Will he recognise that it is simply impossible for people who are already in difficulties, and who are poor, to find the money for those extra things? Paul Burstow: If the right hon. Lady sends me the details, I will look into the individual case. I agree with her that it is unacceptable for such products to be rationed. I think it essential to base their provision on an assessment of individuals needs, and for those individuals to receive what they need for a good quality of life. Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD): My constituent Joyce Benbow was discharged from Redcar hospital last November, but is still there owing to a failure to agree on her care package. When will the managers of health and social care budgets be more joined up so that people receive the right provision at the right time? Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend has raised an important point about the importance of joining up hospital care, community care and social care, which has often been overlooked. We have invested more than 300 million this year in developing more re-ablement services, and in January we invested an extra 150 million in support for them. We are also extending our plans for more tariff reform to ensure that local hospitals have the means to drive the development of such services in their communities. 111 Telephone Service 11. Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con): What recent representations he has received on the 111 pilot telephone service; and if he will make a statement.
[101882]

Will the Minister do something to bring forward the measures more quickly, so that people who have been directing their own care under social services can have the same quality of life and the same choices that they have become used to? Paul Burstow: I absolutely agree with the hon. Ladys constituent, and with the hon. Lady. We need to ensure that, as soon as possible, the benefits and the control that direct payments give to individuals in social care are available to people in regard to their long-term health care and particularly to continuing health care. It is realistic to say that we can roll this out nationwide by 2014, but I know that the hon. Lady is having discussions with the authorities in Sheffield, and I encourage her to carry on those conversations about the way in which people can use the current arrangements to access those facilities. Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con): Does the constituency case raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) not highlight the increasingly urgent need to achieve much more integration between health and social services, and indeed between different parts of the national health service, in order to provide joined-up care that focuses on patients needs and delivers better value for money to the taxpayer? Paul Burstow: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I urge the hon. Lady to write to me about the matter so that I can respond in more detail, but let me say to my right hon. Friend that it is not just a question of delivering more integration within health carewhich is often still too fragmentedor between health and social care; it is also a question of recognising that issues such as housing and leisure are critical to the delivery of greater well-being, and to an improvement in the health of the nation. The Health and Social Care Bill, which has now completed all its stages, gives people in every part of the system a clear duty to collaborate, integrate, and deliver better care for individuals.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley): I have received representations from the British Medical Association and the NHS Alliance, both of which support the NHS 111 model, requesting an extension of the roll-out deadline of April 2013. I am actively considering that, and will be discussing it with the clinical commissioning groups who are leading the development of NHS 111 in their areas. Miss McIntosh: Will the Secretary of State accept representations from me? I have used the 111 service on behalf of a family member, and I know that it is not working as well as it might, which is quite distressing. The call time and the script do not allow a person receiving a particular type of care to be fast-tracked to a clinician. I believe that there is a case for delaying its roll-out, and that the service would be infinitely better if the Secretary of State took my representations on board. Mr Lansley: I will of course accept representations from my hon. Friend and, indeed, from anyone else. Pilot schemes are under way in County Durham and Darlington and in Nottingham, Lincolnshire and Luton. The system is also live in Derbyshire, the Isle of Wight,

1327

Oral Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Oral Answers

1328

Cumbria, parts of Lancashire and parts of London. An evaluation will be published shortly by the university of Sheffield, but an interim evaluation suggested that 93% of patients were pleased with the service that they had received, and, most important, 84% felt that it had delivered them to the right place first time. John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab): Will the Secretary of State confirm the provision in regulation, reinforced by his new guidance, that no GPs should use 0844 numbers for their surgeries? Some patients are having to pay over the odds to contact their GPs. Mr Lansley: We have made it very clear that GPs should not be using 0844 numbers for that purpose and charging patients for them. One of the benefits of NHS 111 is that it will be a free service for patients, and will give them an opportunity to gain access to integrated urgent care wherever they are in the country. That is why we want to roll it out as soon as we can. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): Given the importance of 111 contracts, should we not delay assigning them until the clinical commissioning groups are properly in place? Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend will recall from my first answer that I am looking to discuss the timing of the roll-out with clinical commissioning groups. I do not want that to be unduly delayed, because there are clear benefits to patients in the 111 system in that it gives them a more integrated single point of access to the NHS. Nurse to Patient Ratio 12. Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab): If he will introduce proposals to require a minimum ratio [101883] of nurses to patients in hospitals. The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow): Guidance on staff ratios and the proportion of registered and unregistered staff can play a useful part in supporting local decisions about setting safe and sustainable staffing levels. Both the Royal College of Nursing and the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement have produced such guidance. We have no plans to impose centrally determined ratios, as in our view that would undermine professional judgment. Mr Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that the RCN says that nurses are overstretched, with too much reliance on cheaper, unqualified assistance? What impact does he think that will have on care for the elderly? Paul Burstow: First, let me say that we greatly welcome the survey the RCN published last week, and the work it has done for many years to highlight ratios such as the ratio of nurses to beds. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the ratio has improved under this Government. We are working with the RCN and others to identify the processes and paperwork within the NHS that occupy nurses time and take them away from the bedside, which is the priority.

Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab): When I last asked the Minister from the Dispatch Box about the loss of 3,500 nursing posts, he told the House that that was factually incorrect. He was right, and I apologise: the actual figure, published last week, is 4,096. In what will surely be one of the Secretary of States final outings in his current post, before he is reshuffled to where he can do no further harm, will he tell the House how many of those nursing posts would have been secured by the 500 million spending cut he agreed with the Treasury in last weeks Budget? Paul Burstow: Well, if the question is as put, the answer is none. Raynauds Disease and Scleroderma 13. Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): What steps he is taking to provide services for people diagnosed with Raynauds disease and scleroderma. [101884] The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow): Routine commissioning is a local responsibility, which in future will be led by clinicians, who best understand patients needs. From April 2013, the NHS Commissioning Board will have a clear focus on commissioning services for people with rare, specialised conditions. The commissioning of those services directly through one national commissioner to a national standard should ensure better planning and co-ordination of services, which will be of benefit to patients. The scope of this commissioning, and the extent to which it will cover complex rheumatology services, is still being considered. Fiona Bruce: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am very proud to have the headquarters of the Raynauds and Scleroderma Association based in my constituency. It was founded 30 years ago by a remarkable lady, Anne Mawdsley. It is still run from a terraced house in Alsager, and she has raised 12 million through undertaking some remarkable feats, including, I think, swimming with dolphins. Will the Minister commend her work and assure her that scleroderma patients will be able to access the best specialist centres for diagnosis and treatment? Paul Burstow: I pay tribute to the work my hon. Friend does and to the work the Raynauds and Scleroderma Association has done over many years in raising funds, raising awareness and making sure there is a greater focus on these issues. I can assure my hon. Friend that the work we have done in establishing the NHS Commissioning Board will mean that in future, for the first time, there will be one organisation that will be able to look at issues involving specialised and complex needs that require a national focus. Adult Congenital Cardiac Services 14. Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD): What recent progress he has made on the review of adult [101885] congenital cardiac services. The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley): The review of adult congenital heart services is a clinicallyled NHS review, independent of Government. I understand that an expert advisory group has been established and

1329

Oral Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Oral Answers Services for Older People

1330

its first task will be to develop designation standards and a model of care that commissioners can use to help determine the future pattern of services. Greg Mulholland: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but adult cardiac patients in Yorkshire are both disfranchised and extremely worried because of the review of the childrens heart unit, as if it is closed, they, too, would lose access to surgeons. Does the Secretary of State agree that it does not make sense to have two separate reviews, and that they should instead be brought together? Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend will know that no decision has yet been taken on the location of childrens or adult congenital heart surgery centres in England. Neither the draft adult clinical standards nor the proposed standards for childrens services require services for children and adults to be collocated. Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): Will the Secretary of State ensure that the relationship between adult and childrens cardiac services is properly considered as part of the review? Mr Lansley: On both childrens and adult congenital heart services, all relevant clinical factors should be taken into account in the review, but I reiterate the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland): the standards for those services do not require childrens and adult services to be collocated. Vision Screening (Children) 15. Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con): What assessment he has made of the provision of vision screening for [101886] children. The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns): The Department of Health has made no assessment of the provision of vision screening for children. However, the UK National Screening Committee, which advises Ministers and the NHS on all aspects of screening, has commissioned a national mapping exercise to look at how many primary care trusts offer vision screening. Neil Carmichael: There is some evidence of variance across the country, with some PCTs not conforming to current arrangements. What thought has been given to how to improve the situation and iron out the variance? Mr Burns: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the National Screening Committee recommends screening for visual impairment for children between the ages of four and five, and encourages all PCTs to follow those recommendations and ensure that children are screened. However, the Government are aware that, as my hon. Friend says, there are variations in the commissioning of vision screening across PCTs, and it welcomes the review that is being undertaken. We await its recommendations as regards those variations, but we hope that under the new arrangements, after the abolition of PCTs, there will be a far more uniform approach to commissioning and screening.

16. Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab): What recent assessment he has made of the performance of services for older people. [101887] The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow): A number of inspections, reports, independent audits, and investigations have revealed long-standing and unacceptable variations in the standard of care that older people receive in the NHS, and in social care. The Government are determined to root out poor-quality care wherever it is found. We have established the national Nursing and Care Quality Forum to work with patients, carers and professionals to spread best practice. Nick Smith: The British Geriatrics Societys Quest for Quality report identified that too many people in care homes were without access to NHS services, including psychiatric, physiotherapy and continence services. What action are the Government taking to ensure that care home residents get the high-quality NHS care that they deserve? Paul Burstow: In England, one of the things that we are doing is making sure that a programme of special inspections of care homes, conducted by the Care Quality Commission, looks at those issues to ensure that we provide the right range of support services for people in care homes. In addition, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has produced quality standards; in particular, it has been working on quality standards relating to issues affecting older people incontinence, nutrition support for adults, patient experience, delirium, dementia, and many others. All that is critical to delivering really good-quality care in care homes. 22. [101894] Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con): Russells Hall hospital, which serves my constituency, has reviewed recent reports, and done its own research, on dignity and care for older patients. It has elevated the qualities of care and compassion to the top of its criteria for recruiting health care assistants. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Nursing and Midwifery Council should apply similar learning to nurse training? Paul Burstow: It is important that that is applied to all who have direct responsibility for delivering care, and hands-on care in particular. The work that Russells Hall hospital is doing on care and respect, and in its responsibility programme, is a good example of that. On issues such as dementia, we are clear that we need to ensure good advice, training and support for all nursing staffwe are working with the Royal College of Nursing on thisso that they treat people who have dementia with dignity. Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab): The Government are rightly building on Labours national dementia strategy, and the Minister should know that the dementia crisis cannot be addressed without tackling the crisis in care. Yet his Government have cut more than 1 billion from local council budgets for older peoples care, services are being withdrawn and care charges for dementia sufferers are soaring. The Alzheimers Society and Age UK say that these cuts have pushed the system to breaking point. Does the Minister agree with them, yes or no?

1331

Oral Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Oral Answers

1332

Paul Burstow: The hon. Lady, of course, offers no solution, merely a problem. I say to her that this Government identified 7.2 billion of additional investment to go into social care over the life of this Parliament, and those resources are being used creatively by some local authorities to protect front-line services. I urge her to applaud the authorities that are doing that and join me in condemning those that are cutting services despite being given the resources. Health Care (Professional Standards) 17. Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con): What steps he is taking to raise the professional standards of [101888] health care workers and care assistants. The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow): The Government have commissioned Skills for Health and Skills for Care to develop a code of conduct and minimum training standards for health care support workers and adult social care workers in England. That will inform the development of a system of assured voluntary registration for this group, which will be reviewed after it has been established for three years. Caroline Dinenage: Have the Government made any assessment of the cost of rolling out mandatory regulations to health care support workers? Paul Burstow: I will write to the hon. Lady with any specific details about the precise costs of rolling out such a register. I say to her that, for the first time, we have a Government who have decided that leaving unclarified the training requirements, standards and codes of conduct for health care assistants and care assistants is unacceptable. That is why we have commissioned this work. It will involve working with unions and other health care professionals to make sure we get those standards right, because we know that that is key to delivering dignified care. Topical Questions T1. [101897] Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities. The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley): My responsibility is to lead the NHS in delivering improved health outcomes in England; to lead a public health service that improves the health of the nation and reduces health inequalities; and to lead the reform of adult social care, which supports and protects vulnerable people. Jo Swinson: An estimated 50,000 people, mostly men, are misusing anabolic steroids to build muscle, which can result in liver cancer, depression, a damaged immune system, kidney problems and cardiovascular disease. Will the Secretary of State examine the public health implications of the 56% rise in steroid misuse over five years? Will he work to address its causes, such as body image anxiety, as well as just treating the problem?

Mr Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a good and important point. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be subjecting these drugs to greater control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, restricting their illegal import into this country. Controlling supply is one part of the effort. Prevention is also important; people need to be fully aware of the risks to their health. The FRANK service, which provides advice to young people and parents about drugs misuse, will make it clear that the misuse of steroids is dangerous. I would encourage local areas to work with local businesses, such as gyms and fitness centres, to publicise those risks. T2. [101898] Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab): The Departments latest estimate shows that alcohol misuse costs the NHS 3.5 billion every year. Will the Secretary of State now champion a 50p minimum unit price? That would save more than 3,000 lives a year, rather than 1,000 a year, which is what his public health responsibility deal is expected to secure. Mr Lansley: The hon. Gentleman should have welcomed the alcohol strategy that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published last Friday. Not only did we see the Governments intention to introduce a unit price, but on that day 35 business organisations across the country collectively, under the responsibility deal, pledged themselves to take 1 billion units of alcohol out of the UK market in the course of a year. T7. [101905] Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD): Many hospitals, including the Norfolk and Norwich university hospital, have reported a dramatic increase in alcohol-related admissions over the past 10 years, so I welcome the latest alcohol strategy. But what steps is the Secretary of State taking to support the expansion of treatment and early interventions for dependent and harmful drinkers in Norfolk and elsewhere? The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and he is absolutely right to identify the priority that this Government are now placing on dealing with the harm caused by alcohol, not least because of the 1.2 million alcohol-related hospital admissions. The strategy outlined by the Home Secretary last week is about education and raising awareness; enforcement; and treatmentmaking sure that the treatment services are more widely spread. It is also about recognising that this is a cross-government responsibility, not the responsibility of any one Department. That is why the proposals to use a national minimum unit pricing policy will tackle cheap booze and the binge culture. T3. [101899] Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab): We now know that the Conservatives have received more than 8 million in donations from private health care companies since 2001. This goes beyond simply cash for access to a much more sinister issue of cash for policy influence. Ministers have said that they do not expect any increase in private sector provision in the NHS, but how will this be measured in years to come? Mr Lansley: Nobody buys influence over the policy of the Conservative party or the coalition Government. That is in complete contrast to the situation with the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and his friends on the Opposition Front Bench, who are the wholly owned subsidiaries of the trade unions.

1333

Oral Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Oral Answers

1334

T8. [101906] Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con): Could my right hon. Friend indicate how he proposes to use his welcome new duty to reduce health inequalities under the Health and Social Care Bill? The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns): I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. As he will be aware from his time on the Bill Committee this Government have for the first time in the 64 years of the NHS put into legislation a duty to reduce health inequalities. That will be done through the NHS Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups, each being under a duty to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities in access to and the outcomes of health care. The Secretary of State will also have a wider duty to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities relating to the health service. That will include his duties for both the NHS and public health. It is a great step forward and I am surprised that the previous Government did not think of doing it during their 13 years. T4. [101900] Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab): At a time of major upheaval in the national health service, the people of west Lancashire and other areas of Lancashire are being failed by the chief executive of the Lancashire primary care trust cluster. Living in Yorkshire and working from Lancaster, Janet Soo-Chung has failed to meet with me or other colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr Hoyle). Can the Secretary of State assure me that the necessary time and development is being invested in health services in west Lancashire to ensure that authorisation takes place in a timely way without conditions and that the health services provided to my constituents are good? Mr Lansley: I will, of course, ask Janet if she will meet the hon. Lady and her colleagues, but I think the hon. Lady might have noted that the NHS is performing magnificently. The quarter document published just this morning gives details of 14 performance measures across the NHS, in five of which performance has been maintained and in nine of which there has been improvement, so there has been no deterioration in performance. When the hon. Lady gets to her feet she should say to the NHS, Well done for improving performance. Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con): Currently, there is a review into paediatric cardiac services going on. I recognise that that is independent of Government, but we now have the independent analysis of patient flows, which says exactly what we have been sayingthat patients in south and west Yorkshire will not go to Newcastle. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an important development and that the options should reflect that because this is a serious problem for heart services in the north of England? Mr Simon Burns: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his persistent championing of his constituents, but sadly I cannot be drawn into a discussion about evidence, facts and figures that might come up around this issue, because as he will appreciate it is an independent review which is divorced from Ministers.
[101902] Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab): T5. Mindfulness-based meditation techniques have been deemed by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

to be more effective than drug-based therapy in the treatment of recurring depression in many circumstances. Will the Minister tell the House his views on mindfulnessbased techniques and say what other conditions and diseases he thinks would benefit from such therapy? Paul Burstow: The Government are committed to extending the range of NICE approved therapies when it comes to access to talking therapies. Certainly, we will look very carefully at how we extend it in the area he has suggested. I will write to him in further detail about this. Andrew George (St Ives) (LD): What reassurance can the Secretary of State give to Members of Parliament representing areas that have received an allocation from the formula which has been significantly below their target, given the change in arrangements to clinical commissioning groups in future? Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend will be aware that the distance from target on the existing formula for Cornwall in particular has narrowed and is only just over 2%. For the future, I hope that he and all hon. Members will take considerable reassurance from the fact that not only will the formula continue to be the subject of independent advice, but new statutory provisions will set out that it should be intended to reflect the prospective burden of disease in each area, so it should be matched as closely as possible to the need for services in each area. T6. [101904] Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op): The Government say that clinicians understand patients best, but there are doctors in Walthamstow who will not provide contraceptives to local women, and we now have one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy and repeat abortions in the country. Will the Ministers agree to meet women from my constituency and help them understand who, under the new system and the new layers of bureaucracy, they can hold to account for these problemsyes or no? Mr Lansley: The hon. Lady should first have expressed a welcome for the fact that there has been a further reduction overall in the numbers of teenage pregnancies. As she knows, in her constituency there are doctors who, as she says, do not provide contraceptives, but there are also many other practices that do17 out 18 GP practices in Walthamstow provide contraceptive services. There was a 60% increase in a decade in the number of managers in her area and the result seems to be that she does not understand how services were managed in Walthamstow. Under local authorities and the clinical commissioning groups in the future, there will be a clearer system. Mr Speaker: No one could accuse the Secretary of State of being other than comprehensive. We are grateful to him. David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con): The Secretary of State will be aware that under the allocation formula a number of PCTs have built up historic deficits, which have required us in Warrington, for example, to reduce our in vitro fertilisation services. Can the Minister confirm that with the transfer to GP commissioning, those historic deficits will be written off, which will in effect inject large amounts of money into local health economies such as Warringtons?

1335

Oral Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Oral Answers

1336

Mr Simon Burns: I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend. PCTs carrying legacy debt into 2012-13 must clear it. Clinical commissioning groups will not be responsible for resolving primary care trust legacy debt that arose prior to 2011-12. It is expected that aspirant CCGs will continue to work closely with primary care trusts and primary care trust clusters in 2012-13 to ensure that no PCT ends 2012-13 in a deficit position. Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab): One NHS consultant told me that
NHS reorganisation could mean that you are forced to spend around 10% of your income on private health care insurance.

understanding, Ian Carruthers and Sarah Pickup as champions on improving treatment and care, and Dame Sally Davies, the chief medical officer, and Mark Walport from the Wellcome Trust, as champions for research. Their objective is specifically, as the Prime Minister told them, to hold our feet to the fire, not only for the ambitions we set out yesterday, but for going further and faster. Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab): On 24 February, my constituent, Audrey Kay, died after a litany of poor treatment. Will the Minister meet her son and me to hear Audreys treatment story? Paul Burstow: Of course, I will be only too pleased to have that meeting. Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con): Is the Minister aware of the publication today of the industrial action review by the London ambulance service, which details that on 30 November, the day of the public service strikes, in the afternoon and the evening, requests for front-line staff to return to front-line ambulances were made by the London ambulance service. However, of the three unions to strike, only Unison responded to say that it would not ask staff to return to work. Three hours later, after three repeated requests for help, a patient who had been unable to get an ambulance had died. The report has called Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. I do not wish to be unkind, but topical questions are about short questions, and that was not. I am very sorry. The Minister may give a brief reply if he wishes. Mr Simon Burns: The industrial action to which my hon. Friend refers showed both the best and the worst sides of industrial relations in this country. On the one hand, it showed the worst excesses of union militancy and intransigence in failing to put effective contingency plans in place ahead of strike day, and then in refusing to call off the strike. On the other hand, it showed the best traditions of public services when the Metropolitan police, St John Ambulance and many out-of-hour providers came to the aid of the London ambulance service. Were it not for their help, the situation could have been even more serious. Mr Speaker: The Ministers power to anticipate what will be said to him is extremely impressive, and I congratulate him immensely warmly. Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab): One year on, are the pledges under the responsibility deal working? Mr Lansley: One year on in the responsibility deal we are seeing successes, including the elimination of artificial trans fats, further reductions in salt in manufactured foods, and over 8,000 high street outlets sharing and showing calorie information. The monitoring and evaluation of the deal is vital. We are committed to this and we are making up to 1 million available to fund an independent evaluation. Several hon. Members rose Mr Speaker: Order. I thank colleagues for their co-operation. I am sorry to disappoint those who were waiting, but we must move on.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the doctor is right to say that people will either wait longer for care or they will have to pay for it? Mr Lansley: That is complete rubbish. The legislation is absolutely clear that it does not lead to privatisation, it does not promote privatisation, it does not permit privatisation and it does not allow any increase in charges in the NHS. It simply creates a level playing field so that NHS providers will not be disadvantaged compared to the private sector, as they were under a Labour Government. Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con): The present Wycombe hospital consultation has proceeded with a number of hiccups, not least because of the false sense of local accountability engendered by Labours top-down system of health management. Will the Secretary of State meet me and a small delegation of my constituents to discuss how things will improve under his reforms? Mr Lansley: Of course. I will be glad to meet my hon. Friend and his constituents. I recall how he has been an advocate on their behalf in the past and a vocal advocate of services in Wycombe. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that we are looking towards not only the clinical commissioning groups, but the local authorities injecting further democratic accountability so that in his constituency and those across the country we see much greater local ownership and accountability for the design of services. Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): The Chancellors evidence to the independent pay review body chairs last week contained curious if not dubious references to nursing pay and non-nursing pay, and possible outcome linkages of those. Does the Secretary of State understand those and can he explain them? Mr Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have asked the pay review bodies to look at the aspects of pay related to market conditions, and I do not want to prejudice that. They will come back with their advice on that. Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con): I welcome the Prime Ministers announcement yesterday on dementia care. What assurances can the Secretary of State give me that this will be an aggressive strategy, looking at matters such as new access to drugs, early diagnosis and support for carers of those with dementia? Mr Lansley: Not only were there the announcements made yesterday, but as part of that there was the establishment of three sets of champions, including Angela Rippon and Jeremy Hughes from the Alzheimers Society, working together as champions to raise awareness and

1337

27 MARCH 2012

National Planning Policy Framework

1338

National Planning Policy Framework

12.33 pm The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark): With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about planning policy. I am delighted today to be publishing the national planning policy framework and our response to the Communities and Local Government Committees report of 21 December 2011. Our reforms to planning policy have three fundamental objectives: to put unprecedented power in the hands of communities to shape the places in which they will live; to support growth better to give the next generation the chance that our generation has had to have a decent home, and to allow the jobs to be created on which our prosperity depends; and to ensure that the places we cherishour countryside, towns and citiesare bequeathed to the next generation in a better condition than they are in now. To achieve these objectives, reform is sorely needed. A decade of regional spatial strategies, top-down targets and national planning policy guidance that has swelled beyond reasonover 1,000 pages across 44 documents has led to communities seeing planning as something done to them, rather than by them. As the planning system has become more complex, it has ground ever slower. In 2004 Parliament required every council to have a plan, but eight years on only around half of councils have been able to adopt one. During the past decade, starting long before the financial crisis, we built fewer homes than in any peacetime decade for 100 years. The average age of the first-time buyer is approaching 40, and rising rents mean that families have to spend more and more on housing, and less and less on themselves and their children. We cannot allow this to go on. To do so would be to deny our responsibility to young families, to tell them that the property-owning democracy was for our generation, but not theirs. Not all of that is down to sclerosis in the planning system, but some is. The British Chambers of Commerce has said that the planning system has become
too complicated, too costly, too uncertain. It discourages investment, creates mistrust and holds back our recovery.

to around 50 pages of clearly written guidance. They establish a presumption in favour of sustainable development that means that development is not held up unless to approve it would be against our collective interest. The framework guarantees robust protections for our natural and historic environment and goes further by requiring net improvements to put right some of the neglect that has been visited upon us. It raises the bar on design standards so that we have the most exacting requirement for design that the English planning system has ever contained. I have always regarded reforming the planning system as a serious responsibility. From the start I made it clear that Parliament should be central to the development of the policy. We have had three full debates in this House and in the House of Lords, and I asked the Communities and Local Government Committee to consider the draft NPPF and give me its considered advice. I put on the record my thanks to the Chair and members of the Committee, and to the Environmental Audit Committee, for the seriousness and thoughtfulness they brought to the task. I am pleased to tell colleagues that, of the Committees 35 recommendations, I have been able to accept 30 in whole or in part. In particular, the final framework makes it clear that the local plan is, as the Committee put it, the keystone of the planning edifice. It is crystal clear that sustainable development embraces social and environmental as well as economic objectives, and does so in a balanced way. It refers explicitly to the five principles of the UKs sustainable development strategy. It goes further than ever before and is clear that councils should look for net improvements on all dimensions of sustainability. It makes it explicit that the presumption in favour of sustainable development works through, not against, local plans. It makes it clear that relevant policies, such as those protecting the green belt, sites of special scientific interest, national parks and other areas, cannot be overridden by the presumption. It recognises the intrinsic value and beauty of the countryside, whether specifically designated or not. It makes explicit what was always implicit: that councils policies must encourage brownfield sites to be brought back into use. It underlines the importance of town centres, while recognising that businesses in rural communities should be free to expand. It takes a localist approach to creating a buffer of housing supply over and above five years, and in the use of windfall sites. It allows councils to protect back gardens, those precious urban oases. It ensures that playing fields continue to benefit from the same protection that they have currently. The final framework has been strengthened by the contributions of everyone who has taken the trouble to submit their views, and I am very grateful to them. It has always been my intention that councils which do the right thing and have either adopted, or made good progress towards adopting, local plans will not be disadvantaged by the change to the new policy. Accordingly, I have introduced transitional arrangements suggested by and agreed with the Local Government Association. They accord weight to plans based on how advanced they are, but I have gone further in two respects: I have allowed 12 months from today for existing plans to be adjusted in order to be in complete conformity with the new framework; and I have made it clear that weight can be given to emerging plans.

It is not as if what has made it through has made up in quality what it lacks in quantity. Too much development in recent years has been mediocre, insensitive and has detracted from the character of the areas in which we live and work. Too many of our habitats have been degraded and seen nature driven out. The effect has been that much of the public have come to assume that any particular change to our built environment will be negative and that it will tend to impair beauty, damage the environment and make our lives worse. What a disastrous state of affairs in a country that is home to some of the most talented designers and the best architects and craftsmen in the world, and which has over the years constructed villages, cities and buildings, such as the one we meet in, that people cross the world to see. Our reforms to the planning system take on each of these challenges. They enshrine the local plan, produced by local people, as the keystone of the planning system. They make planning much simpler and more accessible, reducing over 1,000 pages of often impenetrable jargon

1339

National Planning Policy Framework

27 MARCH 2012

National Planning Policy Framework

1340

[Greg Clark] Finally, this House has a particular role to play in safeguarding the interests of our successors. I will ensure that Parliament, having shaped the development of the new framework, supervises the implementation of the policies, starting with a debate on the Floor of the House soon after we return from the Easter recess. The purpose of planning is to make the way in which we live our lives tomorrow better than it is today. This national planning policy framework will help build the homes that the next generation needs; it supports growth to allow employers to create the jobs that our constituents need; and it protects what we hold dear in our matchless countryside and in the fabric of our history. It does so by taking power away from remote bodies and putting it firmly into the hands of the people of England. I warmly commend it to the House. 12.41 pm Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab): I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement, although much of it has been leaked over the past few days. Planning helps us to get the right development in the right placedevelopment which we need, and that is why it is so important to get the balance right in this, the most fundamental change in planning policy in more than two generations. It is therefore extraordinary that the Government managed to make such a mess of the process, which did nothing to inspire confidence in all of us who want an effective planning system and the right kind of sustainable development, but who are determined to conserve the intrinsic character and beauty of Englands green and pleasant landsomething that successive Governments have supported. Councils were particularly concerned about the presumption in favour of sustainable developmentill definedif they did not have up-to-date development plans, and, as we know, Ministers lashed out at those who had the temerity to express concernsuch revolutionaries as the National Trust and the Campaign to Protect Rural England, I remind the Housecalling them semihysterical, left-wing and nihilist. Ministers claim that planning is the obstacle to building homes, when 300,000 dwellings that have already been given permission have not yet been built. Why is that? Because of the failure of the Governments own economic policy. It is no wonder they have been arguing fiercely among themselves, with one unnamed Cabinet Minister I just wonder who that might bequoted as accusing the Chancellor of behaving like the Taliban on planning: a very revealing comment if a pretty inappropriate one. There has also been a lack of transparency. Can the Minister before us confirm for the House whether any of the developers whom he and his colleagues have met since last June are donors to the Conservative party? We cannot find out for ourselves because the quarterly publication of Department for Communities and Local Government ministerial meetings is now nine months out of datein clear contravention of the ministerial code. I have twice raised that issue with CLG Ministers in this Chamber, and on both occasions I have been promised that it was about to appear. It has not.

I welcome the U-turn on protection for playing fields and open spaces. Why on earth Ministers thought they could get away with removing it in the first place, I fail to understand. I welcome also the reference to the five principles of sustainable development, which we had called for. On brownfield land, why are the Government so against a national, as opposed to a local brownfield first policy, given that it is the best place to build the millions of homes that we urgently need, and the best way to protect the greenfield sites that so many Members are concerned about? Can the Minister explain exactly what the new requirements for statutory consultees such as the Environment Agency and English Heritage will involve? How will they be, in the rather menacing words of the Budget Red Book, held to account for delivering sustainable development? Will the Minister clarify the reported remarks by Professor Andrew McNaughton, the chief engineer of High Speed 2, about 100,000 new homes being built between Coventry and Wolverhampton, and about a new docklands to the west of London? Given the Governments professed commitment to localism, will he tell us when the local authorities covering these areas first knew about this, and what will be the Governments role in the development of new towns and cities to help us to build the homes that we need? On town centres, will the Minister confirm that he has accepted our proposal that offices should remain in the sequential town centre test, given their importance to the economies of our towns and cities, including through the business generated by those who work in them,? What changes is he planning to make to use class orders? Will local authorities be given greater flexibility in determining those? On the crucial question of transition to the new arrangementsthe point that Members raised more than any other in the debate that we had back in Octoberwe know that about half of councils currently do not have development plans. While the Minister has talked about providing 12 months to produce up-to-date plans, annex 1 of the framework is rather less clear. Will he produce further guidance on how the transition is going to work in practice? Where councils do have plans, who will determine whether they are silent, out of date, or indeterminate? Those words remain in the final framework, so presumably the presumption in favour of sustainable development will applythe opposite of localism. Who decides what is in the public interestthe phrase that the Minister has been using in his interviews today? In particular, who will decide when an application goes to appeal? Not only has Parliament not been given the chance to vote on the final version of the framework, but it is coming into force from todaybefore Members in the House have even had a chance to read it. The country needs a planning system that will help to produce the much-needed homes, businesses, jobs and transport connections of the future, but will also protect the green spaces and special places we value. However, this revised NPPF may end up doing neither. Far from giving us certainty, there is likely to be delay as developments are held up by appeals and by the courts having to rule

1341

National Planning Policy Framework

27 MARCH 2012

National Planning Policy Framework

1342

on a new and untested approach. In other words, there is uncertainty and chaosthe worst of all worldsinstead of the best of planning. Greg Clark: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentlemans response. His family may have forsworn their aristocratic origins, but he does the best impression of Lady Bracknells righteous indignation that we have seen in the House for some time. It is a shame that the right hon. Gentleman has not approached this in the constructive spirit in which his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), to whom I pay tribute, embarked on this process in July. She said right at the beginning that it was important that we should work together and have a constructive response to what is a shared problem to make sure that future generations continue to benefit from homes, jobs and the protections that are in place. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) maintained that approach, but it does not seem to have transmitted itself along the Opposition Front Bench. I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman has taken a partisan approach today. Let me answer the right hon. Gentlemans questions. It is important that we bring brownfield land back into use. The essence of localism is that every place is different, so it is clearly not the right approach to have a single national target that needs to be as appropriate for a country shire district as it is for an inner-city district. As he will see, the plan-making section of the framework clearly allows local councils to set a locally appropriate target for bringing brownfield land back into use. That has to make sense. On the statutory consultees, one of the innovations of the Localism Act 2011 is that it creates a truly statutory obligation on the part of consultees, including those that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, to co-operate with local authorities to make sure that they do not renege on their responsibilities. The Act imposes a legal duty to assist local councils in putting together their local plans. On the High Speed 2 proposal, I was as bemused as the right hon. Gentleman when I read about it in the weekend papers. He will know, having read the framework this morning, that the protection for the green belt is clear and unequivocal, as we have always said. That is one particular case, and I do not see its relevance. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we are insistent that our town centres should receive support to help them to revive. As Mary Portas, the retail consultant, pointed out, town centres lose out to out-oftown centres because they cannot provide the necessary car parking spaces, which were suppressed by the previous guidance. One change that we are making is to allow local councils to set the parking standards, to reflect what is required locally. Offices will remain part of the town centre first policy, but with an exception for rural offices, because the creation of jobs in rural areas is important for the sustainability of villages. The transitional arrangements begin today. They have been agreed with the Local Government Association. As of now, there is a team in the Planning Inspectorate comprising representatives of the Local Government Association, the Planning Inspectorate and my Department

to assist any authority that wants help in revising its plan or advice on any aspect of it. The team will be there for as long as is necessary. The essence of our reforms is localismto put power in the hands of people. This is the end of the central targets and top-down direction that put people off the planning system. If we want more homes to be built, we have to work with the grain of local communities, rather than against it. That is what we are doing. We are putting power in the hands of local people. I understand that that makes an old centralist like the right hon. Gentleman unhappy, but that is the direction in which we are going and these reforms are a significant step in that direction. Several hon. Members rose Mr Speaker: Order. A large number of colleagues are seeking to catch my eye, but I remind the House that there is a ten-minute rule motion to follow, and then a debate under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee that is extremely heavily subscribed. I shall try to accommodate as many colleagues as possible, but I am looking for short questions, without preamble, and short answers. Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): I very much welcome the thrust of my right hon. Friends statement and the changes that he has made to the consultation paper. In particular, I welcome the fact that he has protected greenfield sites designated as green belt, sites of special scientific interest or areas of outstanding natural beauty, of which we have some in Wiltshire. Is he not also concerned about the 60% of green land in England that has no designation? What will he do under the framework to ensure that those areas have protection equal or similar to that of the green belt? Greg Clark: My hon. Friend will be pleased that the revised framework includes a recognition of the intrinsic value of the countryside, reflecting its beauty, whether or not it is designated nationally, so it will have that protection. Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab): I welcome the fact that we will have the opportunity to debate the changes when the House comes back from the recess. However, given that the changes will take effect from today, what assurances will the right hon. Gentleman give the House about transitional arrangements for the almost 60% of local authorities that do not have local plans in place? Is it not the fact that, despite what he says, economic development will trump sustainability on every occasion? Greg Clark: I thank the hon. Lady for the contribution of the Environmental Audit Committee. It provided a serious consideration of the matter and she will see that we have taken it in that spirit. The transitional arrangements, which were agreed with the Local Government Association, give weight to emerging plans. Although only about half of the plans are close to adoption, most places in the country have plans that are well advanced in preparation. At the suggestion of the LGA, we said to the Communities and Local Government Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts),

1343

National Planning Policy Framework

27 MARCH 2012

National Planning Policy Framework

1344

[Greg Clark] that we should give weight to the policies in emerging plans, so that they can be relied upon. That will take place from today. Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): One of the monstrosities that have afflicted our green and pleasant land is the thoughtlessly over-rapid development of wind farms in the countryside. Many of my constituents fear the speed of development of such wind farms. Does my right hon. Friends framework offer any comfort to them? Greg Clark: Two factors are relevant to that question. The first is the intended abolition of the regional strategies, with their targets. That will remove the imposition on local councils of those targets, as will be the case with other targets. The policy also contains the ability for local councils to map and set criteria for where renewable energy would be appropriate, and to use those criteria for subsequent applications to determine what wouldand, by implication, would notbe appropriate in each of their areas. Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab): The Secretary of State prides himself on being a blunt-speaking, plain-speaking Yorkshireman. Will the Minister adopt some of that plain speaking and give the House a definition of the word sustainable that people in Yorkshire, Derbyshire and even Kent can understand? Greg Clark: We followed the suggestion of the Communities and Local Government Committee and used the classic Brundtland definition, which is about protecting the ability of future generations to enjoy the benefits that the present generation enjoys. We have also included the five principles of the UKs sustainable development strategy. In practice, the policies outlined in the national planning policy framework will determine, in each case, what is and is not sustainable. For example, it is not sustainable to have a shopping development outside the town centre and it is not sustainable to build in the green belt. There is a high level of definition, and the practical application is very clear in the policies. Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con): Bury St Edmunds is an unspoilt county market town, and its residents want to keep it that way. Will the Minister tell me whether neighbourhood plans can be used to block unwanted development? Greg Clark: We encourage neighbourhood plans to set out, at a more local level than the councils plan, what should be the look and feel of towns. Bury St Edmunds is a town with a great deal of civic pride and would benefit from that. Neighbourhood plans have to be consistent with the broad approach of the local plan, but it is right that specific local details, which in towns such as my hon. Friends may relate to architectural design and historical consistency, should be expressed in a neighbourhood plan. They would then become part of the formal plan and determine planning applications. Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab): I thank the Minister personally for the way in which he has dealt with the Communities and Local Government Committee and for what seems to be a generally favourable

response to our report, although we are still to see the detail. I have two specific issues to raise. Will he confirm whether the proposal that the
default answer to development proposals is yes

is in the final document? If the significantly and demonstrably test remains in the document and an application for development meets that test but fails the sustainable development test, which test has priority? Greg Clark: Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the work of his Select Committee. No development can take place that is unsustainable. That is the commitment that we give on that point. I have forgotten the other question. Mr Betts: The default answer. Greg Clark: The default answer was a variation of a presumption that everyone agreed was not terribly helpful, and we have deleted it from the document. Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): Among the plethora of policy failures under the previous Government, such as regional spatial strategies, parking and density targets, was the fact that between 1997 and 2005, 117,000 homes were built in floodplains. Does the document, which I strongly endorse and support, contain appropriate safeguards on residential development in floodplains? Greg Clark: Yes, those protections remain. Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): There is little dispute over the need for new, sensibly located affordable housing. The dispute is over whether it is the planning regulations that are preventing it. Many of us do not think that it is. The draft NPPF stated that any conditions on development proposals must allow acceptable returns to be made. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the final document clarifies who will be responsible for defining acceptable returns, and how he will ensure that company profits will not be prioritised above high environmental standards? Greg Clark: No, they will not be. Nothing that is unsustainable can override that fact by using the viability test. That is for local plan makers and local councillors to determine. On the contribution that the planning system makes to impeding the development of affordable homes, there was broad consensus in the consultation, including among homelessness groups such as Shelter and housing associations, that the excessive bureaucracy of the process was an impediment to the development of affordable housing, as well as other types of housing. Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD): I thank the Minister for his constructive listening approach. Has he been able to support existing lawful business against objections by more recently arrived residents who seem to think that they should be able to dominate the local community to the detriment of economic activity, employment and jobs? Greg Clark: It is a reasonable expectation that if a business has located in an area and traded successfully, it ought to be able to continue in its line of work,

1345

National Planning Policy Framework

27 MARCH 2012

National Planning Policy Framework

1346

especially if it is creating jobs and is part of the local scene. The new framework provides protection for businesses to continue in their trade. Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): Mike Slade, the chairman of the Conservative property forum, has given more than 300,000 to the Tory party over the past decade individually and through his property company Helical Bar. Mr Slade says:
You do run the thin line of someone saying: Im only doing this to have access and influence, but that was what politics was always about. Its a little unfair, but there must be 20 per cent truth in it.

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend will know that I have taken a long-standing interest in the matter since I was a Back Bencher. The new framework makes it absolutely clear that decisions can be taken locally. If a local council wants to protect back gardens because they contribute to the character of its area, it will be entirely free to do so and that cannot be overridden. David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP): The Minister will know that one of the greatest planning problems right across the United Kingdom has been in the consistency of planning decisions. He said that businesses in rural communities should be free to expand. How will he monitor that to ensure that there is consistency? Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the general presumption is that office development should be contained in town centres. However, we know that one of the most important sources of rural employment is the conversion of agricultural buildings to very small-scale offices, and our policy means that authorities can now allow that. The Planning Inspectorate supervises and approves all the plans through a public examination, and it is there to ensure that there is consistency with national policy, but ultimately the decisions are for local people to take. George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con): I would like to develop a little further the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley). The Minister knows that I submitted a suggestion to the consultation that communities should in very specific circumstances be able to say an absolute no to edge-of-centre and out-of-centre retail development. That was also recommended by the Communities and Local Government Committee. Can he explain why that measure was not adopted and how some of our more iconic small towns might prepare their neighbourhood plans to afford themselves some measure of protection from such development? Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is an ingenious policy maker and submitted that suggestion to the consultation. Unfortunately, it was found to be illegal. The framework that we are publishing is guidance, and it is open to anyone to submit a planning application and have it considered against the local plan and other material considerations. It is not possible to do what he requests through guidance. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): There are occasions when long-standing brownfield sites provide an opportunity for renewed open space in densely built-up urban areas. Is there not a problem that with the presumption to develop, it will be very difficult for a local community or local authority to ensure that disused industrial land can become valuable park or playing space rather than just high-density development, which would continue the problems in the area? Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. That is why we have specified in the framework that the priority to reuse brownfield land is subject to its not being of high environmental value. I know that in constituencies such as his and others in the centre of cities up and down the country, land that may be technically brownfield, having previously been in use,

It is easy to see what is in this policy for the Tory party and the developers. What is in it for my constituents? Mr Speaker: I think we got the question at the end, but I must ask Members to use their opportunity to ask a question. Greg Clark: I would never be influenced by any donation, and I am not aware of any such attempt ever having been made. It would certainly get pretty short shrift from me. Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con): Today is a landmark for localism and for consultations being listened to, because the three points that I made in the consultation, about brownfield land, windfall and the localisation of the buffer, have all been adopted. I am absolutely delighted. Will the Minister clarify for my local councillors, who will now be in charge, how the transition process for the community infrastructure levy will work? Greg Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her contribution to the consultation. We have listened broadly. I know that people are cynical about consultation exercises, but I think they will find that practical and sensible suggestions have been listened to and incorporated. The community infrastructure levy will be introduced, and we are about to publish some regulations regarding the conduct of it. I will update her in a few days about when they will take effect. Among other things, the levy will provide funding for neighbourhoods for the first time, so that communities that host developments will get to share in the proceeds at a very local level. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): My right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State touched on the fact that there are thousands of acres on which there is already planning permission for homes but the developers and builders are not building. What are the Government going to do to get them to build? Greg Clark: Two things. First, the framework will allow those sites to be included in the housing assessment that is required. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the new homes bonus is available for homes that are brought back into use as well as those that are built. That is a powerful incentive for councils to bring back into use homes that are not being used at the moment. James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con): In recent times, countless family homes have been demolished and their gardens concreted over. What does my right hon. Friends statement mean for those of us who have campaigned against garden grabbing in our constituencies?

1347

National Planning Policy Framework

27 MARCH 2012

National Planning Policy Framework

1348

[Greg Clark] makes an enormously important contribution to the well-being of residents and wildlife, and it is clear that it should be kept that way. Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con): I welcome the continued robust protection of green-belt land, but will the Minister clarify and confirm that greenfield land and ordinary countryside will not be prioritised over brownfield land, despite the pressure that might come from developers? Greg Clark: The encouragement is to reuse brownfield land. Obviously there are national protections for areas such as green belt and sites of special scientific interest, but it is entirely open to authorities where greenfield areas are very important to the well-being of the community not to give priority to housing and development, and that is very likely to happen. Local plans can now specify that without being overridden. Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): My constituency is 300 square miles in size. The Campaign to Protect Rural England came to see me and showed me that under the Ministers proposals, more than half of it could now become a building site. Is that not just another example of the coalition Government abandoning the countryside? Greg Clark: The hon. Lady has not even read the revised framework. That was never true, and she will see when she reads it that it is absolutely untrue now. If she wants to come and talk to me about it, I am very happy to see her. Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that however much power we put into the hands of local people, unsustainable immigration will continue to put pressure on our small island that simply cannot be met? Greg Clark: There are a number of causes of the requirement for new housing. Immigration contributes to it, and so does the happy fact that we are living longer than we used to. Of course, Government policy is addressing immigration to get it to manageable levels, but I gently suggest to my hon. Friend that it is beyond the planning system to do much about that. Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab): To be clear, does the national planning policy framework endorse planning policy statement 4, which recognises the importance of protecting the English countryside for its own sake? To avoid any allegations of impropriety, when will the Department publish details of the property forum? Thanks to the wonderful Peter Cruddas, we now know how policy is made in the Tory party. Greg Clark: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman takes that line. The protection for the English countryside is very clear. We have taken the words in the PPS to which he refers and reproduced them in spirit in our document. Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con): My constituents will be heartened to hear that there will now be an explicit instruction that brownfield sites should be developed before greenfield ones. What else can the Government

do to make that more practical and cost-effective, and to make developers want to do it rather than develop easy and cheap greenfield sites? Greg Clark: Of course, it is open to local authorities, in allocating the land that they have to be developed, to allocate land that is derelict, and to do that rather than allocate green fields. If that is how they specify it, that is the land that has to be developed. Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op): Much of England is now in drought across the south and east, and that problem will only be exacerbated in the next 20 or 30 years. Can the Minister say what in his policy framework will be in place to ensure that we tackle that problem? Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. This is why we need to have a plan-based system. We cannot have a plan-based system if half the country does not have a plan. If local authorities adopt a local plan, as we are encouraging every council to do, it is precisely so that they can anticipate future needs, such as the need for water, schools and infrastructure. With that in place, they have a fighting chance of ensuring that any homes that are provided have the facilities needed to accommodate them. Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): I thank the Minister for having clearly listened to the representations that he has heard from Members of Parliament. I was especially encouraged by his remark that councils policies must encourage brownfield sites to be brought into use. Should councils policies fail to do that, perhaps as a result of being overly generous in their allocation of cheaper greenfield land, how will they be made to comply? Greg Clark: As my hon. Friend knows, every plan that is put forward is examined to determine whether it is sound, in the planning jargon, and compliance with that policy will be one of the tests of soundness. Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab): Between July and December 2011, the Conservative party received more than 500,000 in donations. Will the Minister confirm or deny the amount of influence those developers had on this document? Greg Clark: I am very disappointed with this theme from the Opposition. It is the case that in the past the shadow Minister, when he was a Minister, received a donation from a property developer, a Mr Abrahams, who was somewhat controversial. I do not think for one moment that that influenced any policy thoughts in his head. I have absolute faith in the right hon. Gentlemans integrity, and it would be a service to the House if other hon. Members extended the same courtesy. Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con): I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome his intention to give communities a greater say in planning decisions, but as I encourage my local communities to develop their neighbourhood plans, can he tell the House what steps he is taking to increase the protection for community facilities and important local assets?

1349

National Planning Policy Framework

27 MARCH 2012

National Planning Policy Framework

1350

Greg Clark: There is specific reference in the guidance that councils are under a duty to protect valued local community facilities. Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab): How is affordable housing defined in the reworked NPPF and is it entirely consistent with the definition contained in PPS3? Greg Clark: Yes. Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con): The Minister has conducted this process with great courtesy and consideration. Does he share my concern that councillors have too often felt intimidated into making decisions that they would prefer not to make by the threat of legal costs, and does this new framework offer them support in that area? Greg Clark: Yes, it does, because the threat of legal costs arises at the moment from the very real prospect that a local decision can be overturned by, for example, the regional strategy imposing different policies. One of the reasons we want to rid ourselves of these unwanted strategies is so that decisions that are taken locally stay local, and people can have confidence in them. Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab): Darlington borough council does a very good job in providing for the Gypsy and Traveller community, and has done so for many years. We have two very large sites that are run responsibly and, by and large, things are okay. Why is it that Darlington is now being asked to provide more sites because it has done a good job, whereas other localities nearby are not being asked to do anything at all? Will the Minister look into that? Greg Clark: As a result of the written statement that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) made on Friday, Darlington council will be able to make its own assessment of those needs without having a number imposed on it. Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con): In Broxtowe, a LabourLib Dem council is planning to build 4,000 houses on green-belt land. People throughout this country love and value our green-belt land. Will this framework continue to protect our green-belt land? Will it strengthen, weaken or diminish the existing protection that our green-belt land has? Greg Clark: Again, one of the points of abolishing the regional bodies is to take away the threat to the green belt that they introduced. They will be removed, and decisions will be taken locally, with national protection for the green belt. Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab): Will councils be able to use the housing numbers from windfall sites as part of their core strategies? Greg Clark: Yes. Where there is evidence that windfalls are, paradoxically, predictable and there is a record of them coming through that can be relied onas happens

in many placesthey can be included in housing numbers, with the exception of back gardens, which are in a separate category. Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): May I welcome the protection that my right hon. Friend has announced for the green belt? I invite him to become a champion of a positive attitude towards the green belt across Government as a whole, so that the Government show that they understand the importance of the green belt to counties such as Hertfordshire, where the green belt prevents communities merging into one another and becoming a vast urban sprawl. Greg Clark: That is one of the purposes of the green beltto prevent sprawl and to prevent communities merging with each otherand it is one reason why it enjoys the robust protection that it does in this framework. Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): May I suggest gently to the Minister that it would have been helpful if Members had received the policy framework shortly before the statement, as other Ministers have done? On a specific point, can he confirm that once a district or borough council has decided on its plan, it will not be possible for a developer to build in an area that is not designated for development? Is that an absolute assurance? Greg Clark: On my hon. Friends first point, I thought that it was the convention to publish the document to the House with the statement, and it is in the Vote Office now. On his other point, the answer is yes. It is clearly stated in the new policy framework that proposed developments that accord with the plan should be approved, and those that do not should be refused. Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con): I welcome the transitional arrangements and local councils ability to set their own local targets, but developers wanting to build in my constituency still seem to be quoting not just the local development targets but the targets under the top-down regional spatial strategy. When will the effects of the locally set planning regime that the Government are introducing hold primacy, and when will there be no ambiguity about the figures? Greg Clark: My hon. Friend knows that it is the Governments intention to revoke the regional strategies. The courts have determined that they are in place and we are engaged in a voluntary strategic environmental assessment, which will be completed shortly, but the Governments intention to get rid of these unwanted strategies is capable of being a material consideration. Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con): I welcome references to a more localist approach when it comes to five-year land supply. Does that mean that authorities such as mine in Swindon will be able to argue that five-year land supply should take into account economic realities such as a slowdown in house building, rather than the prescriptive and rigid approach that is taken by far too many planning inspectors? Greg Clark: Yes. Economic conditions vary from time to time and it is reasonable for local authorities to take them into account.

1351

National Planning Policy Framework

27 MARCH 2012

National Planning Policy Framework

1352

Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con): My right hon. Friend has been very clear that the presumption for sustainable development does not override protections such as the green belt, SSSIs and national parks. Does that protection also apply to historic and conservation areas, such as the centre of my beautiful city of Chester? Greg Clark: It is indeed a beautiful city and we have worked closely with English Heritage, which has said that it is content with the arrangements we have put in place. Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): May I welcome what sounds like a significantly greener planning framework than the original draft, although we have yet to read the new one? One of the good things in the original draft was the designation of local green spaces, which are important not just to wildlife and the landscape, but to local communities. Has that designation survived and been weakened or strengthened, or been retained? Greg Clark: Yes, it has indeed survived, as have green infrastructure corridors that connect places. Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): One aspect of the present planning process that particularly annoys my constituents is when they see the decisions of their locally elected councillors on the planning committee being regularly overturned by planning inspectors. How will the new policy make that less likely? Greg Clark: It will do so by enshrining the local plan as the key decision-making document. Getting rid of the regional strategies and the 1,000-plus pages of national guidance will make it clearer than ever that decisions taken in accordance with the local plan will prevail. Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Will my right hon. Friend confirm that local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate, when considering whether a local authority has an adequate five-year housing supply, will take into account where planning permissions have been granted but where houses have not started to be constructed? Greg Clark: Yes. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. That has found expression in the framework. Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con): I am pleased that the many hours we spent on the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government have been reflected in the new document. One of the key thrusts that concerned us, however, was the fact that the requirement was on the developer to prove that a development was sustainable rather than on the local authority to prove that it was not if it rejected a planning application. Greg Clark: It is always for the planning authority to assess the application, and the applicant puts in what is proposed, so there is no change to that. Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): I welcome the Ministers announcement that he is allowing 12 months from today for existing local plans to be adjusted to be in complete conformity with the new framework. Will he join me, therefore, in calling for Labour-run Kirklees councils local development framework, which was

supported by the Liberal Democrats and so-called independents, to be adjusted so that it truly protects the green belt and makes any development truly sustainable? Greg Clark: We have put facilities in place for that to be done as quickly as possible. A team is standing by to give all the advice that my hon. Friends authority needs to do that. Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD): Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), developers in St Austell continue to flout local decision-making processes, causing much anger among residents. How can we prevent appeals for non-determination from happening during the transition period? Greg Clark: If there is a plan in place, decisions have to be taken in accordance with it. If no plan is in place, there is a strong reason for adopting one. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con): My right hon. Friend has performed a Herculean task in moving away from the unwanted regional spatial strategy towards a new local plan-led system. However, there is concern in the Cotswolds that 12 months will not be long enough, particularly if there is a judicial review or there has to be a local inquiry. Is he open to representations on the length of the transition period? Greg Clark: The 12 months is for plans that can be adjusted in that time. Even for plans that might take longer to adjust, however, weight is still given to the policies in the emerging plans. We have gone further than has been suggested, and there is adequate protection for policies adopted locally. It is eight years since local authorities were invited to produce a plan, which I think is time enough to give them an extra year to get their plans up to speed. Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con): My right hon. Friend rightly refers to our matchless countryside and the fabric of our history, but could those be trumped by inspectors decisions in relation to EU energy and/or environmental law? Greg Clark: Developments or proposed developments that have environmental consequences are subject to EU environmental directives. This is guidance and cannot override the laws governing it, but it gives greater power to local authorities to specify in their plans the type of development they want and where it should be. Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con): Following on from that question, I want to ask about the criteria to be built into local plans. Daventry suffers from a huge swarm of onshore wind applications. What criteria could be used? Could landscape, height and efficiency, for example, be used as local criteria to fight these things? Greg Clark: As my hon. Friend knows, I am a localist, and to set out national criteria for what would be appropriate would not respect the completely different geography and historical environment of different places around the country. We have given authorities the power to set out criteria, but what the criteria for locating renewable energy sites should be is a local choice.

1353

National Planning Policy Framework

27 MARCH 2012

National Planning Policy Framework

1354

Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con): Keystone is a reassuring word, and the Minister used it twice in relation to local plans. Will he confirm that the local plans have absolute primacy and that my constituents have nothing to fear in the period after the councils local plan has been democratically agreed, which it has, but before it has been legally adopted, which it has not yet been? Greg Clark: As I said, we have put in place transitional arrangements for plans that are in the process of being adopted, which gives weight to the policies already there, but obviously the weight increases once they are accepted and adopted. It is clear that the decisions on planning permissions always need to be given, however, whether they are in accordance with the development plan or other material considerations. Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the acid test of this framework is whether green-belt land is developed against the wishes of local residents? Greg Clark: The protections for the green belt in the NPPF make it absolutely clear that development on green belt should be refused other than in very tight circumstances similar to those that exist at the moment. Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con): In Selby district, planning permission is being sought for Traveller sites on green belt. In fact, one site has already been given temporary permission in the historic village of Towton. What action does the framework permit to be taken to protect green belt and open countryside from inappropriate Traveller site development? Greg Clark: The written statement that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made on Friday made it clear that the protection of the green belt applies to Traveller sites as it does to other developments. Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con): Residents in Churston are desperately trying to protect one of Torbays last and most beautiful green spaces. It is home to the rare and lovely cirl bunting. Will sustainable development sustain the lovely cirl bunting? Greg Clark: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a twitcher of some renown and will be better placed than I to advise on whether this is a bird that enjoys protection and therefore whether the sites in which it nests enjoy the rigorous protections available. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles) indicated assent. Greg Clark: I think the answer is yes. Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con): I welcome my right hon. Friends explanation that sustainable development covers both social and environmental factors, as well as economic development. Will he say a little more about the localist buffer for the five-year housing supply and how that fits in with the neighbourhood and local plans? The five-year housing supply often leads to councils being unable to turn down applications.

Greg Clark: The requirement for a plan is that it be a real plan. It should assess the needs of the authority in the future and allocate the relevant land. It is an important test of the soundness of a plan that it has a five-year land supply. We have said that if that is demonstrated, that is the end of the matter, but if a five-year land supply is not in place, a buffer will be needed to reflect that shortfall. Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): Will the NPPF give local people a better chance of getting rid of illegal Traveller sites when they appear in, for example, my constituency? Greg Clark: The changes in the Localism Act 2011 dealing with enforcement provide greater powers for local authorities to act on the unlawful occupation of sites by any resident or applicant. Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con): Green-belt land is often threatened as much by industrial development as by residential development. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give the House that the green belt will be protected from inappropriate industrial development? Greg Clark: Inappropriate development extends to both residential and industrial development. It is the nature of the green belt that is protected, irrespective of what is proposed. Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that the framework retains the protection for the green belt, refers specifically to development on brownfield land and supports the town centre first policy, many of the organisations opposing these proposals on the airwaves today are perhaps raising concerns unnecessarily? Greg Clark: I hope that when people have the chance to read the framework, they will reflect on the fact that we have listened seriously to the sensible suggestions made in the consultationwe have taken an open approachand that they will be reassured. Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con): What steps are being taken to protect playing fields? Does the Minister agree that it is important to protect these green spaces, not just because they are local amenities, but to support local sport? Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is right: it is important to protect playing fields; with a rising population, we will need them more than in the past. Playing fields are protected, and the loss of one will require the authorisation of Sport England, in much the same way as it does now. Andrew George (St Ives) (LD): How can we make affordable land available for affordable housing to meet housing need in rural areas when the presumption in the NPPF places an unaffordable hope value on every potential site? Greg Clark: No, the framework maintains the policy for rural exception sites, which have been successful across the country in providing affordable accommodation for people living in rural areas.

1355

National Planning Policy Framework

27 MARCH 2012

National Planning Policy Framework

1356

Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con): What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Welsh Government about the possible extension of the power and influence that he is granting to local government, particularly in relation to cross-border issues such as the proposal to cover mid-Wales with wind farms, which has an impact on Shropshire? Greg Clark: My hon. Friend knows that that is a devolved matter. The guidance applies to England only. Obviously we had discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government when the Localism Act was passing through this House. They took certain powers, but the type of planning regime that they want is a matter for them. Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): The green wedges north of Coalville in my constituency have been shown to be the most valued area of green space in the entire county of Leicestershire. Will the Minister confirm that the new planning policy framework will give more power to local residents and the local council to prevent unwanted development of that valued area of land? Greg Clark: Yes, it will remove the imposition from the regional strategies and other top-down targets, and will also allow the designation of locally valued green space, in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) specified. Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con): In welcoming the statement, let me draw attention to the fact that good local plans depend on good local information, good local analysis of economic circumstances and good evaluation of jobs, employment and how industry is developing. When we finally get rid of the regional spatial strategy hopefully it will be completely and utterly obliteratedwhat

encouragement will the Minister give to local authorities to capture all that information, use it locally and ensure that it is generated locally, so that they understand their local communities and businesses, and know exactly what the social issues are in their areas? Greg Clark: My hon. Friend makes a good point. One of the themes of the national planning policy framework is that evidence should support plans and decisions. Evidence that has been captured over time should be available to all the authorities that shared the old regional boundaries, and they will want to keep it updated so that they can benefit from it in making their plans and decisions. Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Under the last Government, villages around Harlowin particular, Nazeing and Roydonwere forced to carry an unshared burden of having Traveller sites. Will the Minister confirm that the new proposals will stop that, making things fair for everyone across the county of Essex? Will he also confirm that local people will have a genuine say over planning decisions and set out how that will work in practice? Greg Clark: The targets will be removed. My hon. Friends council would need to assess what provision it needed to make locally, and that will then be a matter for the council. Mr Speaker: I thank colleagues, and in particular the Minister, for a succinctness that enabled 58 Back Benchers to question the Minister in 41 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time. The Minister is in danger of becoming a role modelat least in this respectfor his colleagues to emulate.

1357

27 MARCH 2012

Points of Order

1358

Points of Order
1.33 pm Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will try to emulate that example. On 1 March, in response to questions about attacks by dangerous dogs, the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made an explicit and welcome promise at the Dispatch Box:
If a Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says that something will happen very shortly, it means precisely that. It certainly means before the House rises for Easter.[Official Report, 1 March 2012; Vol. 541, c. 415.]

That deadline expires today, 27 March, yet there is silence from the Department and the Government, nearly two years after the consultation ended. Nearly 100 people are treated in hospital every week. Kennelling costs are now spiralling out of control, and people in all parts of the House are rightly sickened by attacks by aggressive and uncontrolled dogs. Our sympathies go out to the five police officers from Newham who were injured in the latest attack. Dog bite incidents in the UK have risen by 79% in London and 43% nationally in recent years, according to figures from the Kennel Club. Have you received any late indication, Mr Speaker, of the Governments intention to make a statement today? Do you have any powers, as Speaker and defender of the rights of this House, to summon the Minister to explain why the Government have broken their promise again? Mr Speaker: The answer to both the hon. Gentlemans inquiries is no, but he has placed his concerns on the record. Fiona ODonnell (East Lothian) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This House, business and environmental organisations have been waiting for a statement from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs since last autumn on mandatory carbon reporting. We read in the Financial Times this morning that the Government have abandoned their commitment to MCR. We also learn that Michael Hintze, a well known climate change sceptic and funder of Lord Lawsons climate think-tank, was one of the Tory donors who had dinner at No. 10 with the Prime Minister. Surely Members of this House should have had the opportunity to question the Secretary of State about the further delay in the Government making a statement. There has been no written ministerial statement or oral statement, and a report has only just been laid in the Table Office. I would appreciate your guidance, Mr Speaker; otherwise Members of this House will be left wondering what this Secretary of State has to hide. Mr Speaker: Those on the Front Bench will have heard what the hon. Lady has to say. She will knowand the House can testifythat I attach great importance to Ministers making statements of new policy to the House, but statements arise when[Interruption.] Order. I do not require any assistance. [Interruption.] Order. Such statements arise when, and only when, there is a new policy to announce. There is not a matter that engages the Chair today, but the hon. Lady has placed her concerns on the record, and I thank her for doing so. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have given you and the Leader of the House notice of my point of order,

which arises from a question I asked the Leader of the House last Thursday about the publication of a response to the Select Committee on Science and Technology report on alcohol guidelines. I raised the matter because of a leak from the Home Office. It now appears that the leak was correct, yet the Government chose, for whatever reasons, not to separate the publication of their strategy and their response to the Select Committee, which was delayed by over a month. That is not the right way to treat a Select Committee that is doing serious work on such matters. Although the Leader of the House clearly did not mislead me, he did not tell me the full story. Will you use your good offices, Mr Speaker, to ensure that this kind of incident does not happen again, because it undermines the work of Select Committees? Mr Speaker: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. He should be encouraged by the presence on the Treasury Bench of the Deputy Leader of the House, who will have listened to him. The gravamen of his complaint appears to relate to the relationship between the Science and Technology Committee and, in this case, the Home Office, but perhaps the Government more generally. I can say only that these are not matters of order on which the Chair can rule. The Select Committee should pursue these questions with the Government, and if the Committee is dissatisfied with the response, it should in the first instance take the matter up with the Liaison Committee. Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope you will be able to guide the House on what we shall do with the Finance Bill when we get back. Two daysWednesday and Thursday immediately after Easterhave been set aside for a Committee of the whole House, but the Bill has not yet been published. Todays Order Paper provides that amendments to the Bill may be tabled in advance of Second Reading, but we do not yet know what subjects will be considered on the Wednesday and Thursday. Those subjects are usually agreed by the Opposition and the Government, and I am party to neither. When will we find out what those subjects will be? What can you do through your good offices, Mr Speaker, to ensure a timely response to questions that are pertinent to the Finance Bill? I have tabled priority notice questions that have a direct bearing on the issue of child benefit, yet they have remained unanswered for over a week. What can you do to ensure that Ministers respond to them quickly? Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I shall make two points in response. First, I should imagine that it is the responsibility of the Government to table a committal motion in regard to the consideration of the Finance Bill, and to do so before the rise of the House tonight. On the assumption that the hon. Gentleman remains as keenly interested in the matter throughout the day as he is at the momentthat is a confident expectation on my partI suspect he will be beetling into the Table Office to discover at what point the Government have tabled that motion. I hope that that offers him some reassurance. Secondly, in relation to the prospectivebut, as far as he is concerned, delayedanswers to his substantive questions, the Deputy Leader of the House will have

1359 [Mr Speaker]

Points of Order

27 MARCH 2012

1360

Small Business Administration

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) 1.44 pm Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Small Business Administration with the remit of acting as an ombudsman and advocate within government for small businesses, promoting a regulatory environment appropriate for small businesses, providing advice to those wishing to set up small businesses, improving access to finance for small businesses, developing and monitoring small business-friendly procurement policies and working with small firms to assist their export potential; and for connected purposes.

heard what he has said. It is important that there should be timely and substantive responses to parliamentary questions from colleagues, and I would say only to the hon. Gentleman in the friendliest possible spirit that not to provide timely responses to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) is almost as hazardous a mission for any Minister as to treat in a similar way the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman). Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It has been brought to my attention today that the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) has been charged with contempt of court because of comments he made in daring to criticise a judge in Northern Ireland. I understand, however, that that law is obsolete and no longer applies in England and Wales, and that the right hon. Gentleman will be charged in Northern Ireland. Have you been informed of this matter, Mr Speaker, and if not, why not? Are you able to make a ruling or to comment on it? Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that I had not been informed of the matter to which he refers. Ordinarily, the Speaker would be informed only in the case of an arrest of a Member, and that is not what is involved here. Beyond that, I would say that I understand the seriousness with which the hon. Gentleman treats this issue, and how perturbed he is by what he has learned, but the interest and authority of the Chair would be engaged only if the comments concerned had been made in the Chamber. My understanding is that the comments by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) were made outside the Chamber. I cannot say more than that at this stage, but if the hon. Member for North Antrim wishes to communicate with me further on this matter outside the Chamber, I will always be interested in what he has to say. Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you had any indication that a Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions will be coming to the House to talk about the new policy of means-testing access to cheaper postage at Christmas? Today, we have received notification by e-mail from Royal Mail of a 20% hike in postal prices. We also understand that a concessionary scheme will be introduced, but that it will apply only to pensioners in receipt of means-tested benefits, who will receive cheaper stamps at Christmas. This clearly involves benefits, and it merits a statement to the House to enable Ministers to explain how they will prevent large-scale fraud through individuals buying the cheap stamps and reselling them at a lower rate than the full price. This is a serious matter, and a Minister ought to have come to the House to make a statement. Mr Speaker: No, I have received no such indication. The hon. Gentleman might think that, as a consequence, I have been sorely deprived, but that remains the position.

Before I start, I had better declare an interest: I run a farm in my constituency, so I am a small business owner and I understand the challenges involved in establishing and growing a small business. Let us start with some statistics. There are 4.5 million small businesses in the UK. In Wales alone, we have 210,000 businesses, of which 45,000 are incorporated and 165,000 are non-incorporated. Small and medium-sized enterprises employ an estimated 13.8 million people and have an estimated combined annual turnover of 1,500 billion. As we can see from those numbers, small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, and they will drive our economic growth. I commend the Government for their work in this area. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable) and the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), have already done sterling work for small and medium-sized enterprises. Just last week, the Business Secretary announced a 125 million advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative, which will open for applications from 29 March, and a new Focus on Enforcement campaign to identify any inappropriate or excessive enforcement of regulation that is holding companies back. The Government have also helped business by lowering corporation tax again, but we must not forget the many non-incorporated businesses that will not benefit from that measure. We need to bring forward measures to help those businesses as well. Despite such measures, the Federation of Small Businesses argues that successive Government Administrations have failed to appreciate the particular needs of the UKs small businesses, and it has proposed the creation of a small business administrationa department to champion small firms at the heart of Government. That proposal is based on a United States model that has proved incredibly successful in reducing burdens on small business through its role as an advocate and ombudsman. In 2011, it stripped out $11.7 billion of costs that would have been incurred by businesses in their first year of existence, and created ongoing savings of $10.7 billion annually by reducing the burden of regulation. Through its many programmes, small businesses have grown to become household names: Nike, Staples, Apple, FedEx, Ben and Jerrys, Outback Steakhouse and Hewlett Packard, to name but a few.

1361

Small Business Administration

27 MARCH 2012

Small Business Administration

1362

The UK small business administration would help to reduce Government burdens on small businesses by having two roles. First, it would be an advocate in Government for small businesses needs. It would act as an ombudsman when problems arose with other Government Departments. As with the US model, the UK small business administration would operate in five core areas, all of which are already Government priorities. In the first instance, it would help with access to finance. Small firms in the UK are still struggling to get the finance that they need to grow. The small business administration would be able to give assistance to small businesses by offering a facility of loans and venture capital. Credit easing is a welcome step that will make credit less expensive for many businesses, but above all we need to improve access. Alongside measures to support competition within the banking sector, support for nonbank models such as community development finance initiatives, peer-to-peer lending, asset finance and an SME bond market, the small business administration would be better placed to look beyond the big banks and to provide finance in a way that would make it accessible to small companies. Secondly, the administration would give advice on business start-ups. During my time in Parliament, many constituents have told me that they have great business ideas but do not know how to go about turning them into reality. Obtaining the right advice at the start of a business is crucial to its survival. The administration would provide mentoring and training through a network of partners. Thirdly, the administration would encourage exports. While I commend the Government for their work in supporting UK exportsfor instance, we are a net exporter of red meat for the first time in many years, and exports are rising in many sectorswe can and must do more. The administration would be devoted to promoting exports and supporting the interests of small businesses in trade negotiations. Fourthly, the administration would promote access to Government procurement contracts. The coalition Government have set a target for small and medium-sized

businesses to gain 25% of Government contracts. I welcome that, but we have more to do if that is to be achieved. The administration would help businesses to reach the target, and could also help to ensure that small business-friendly policies were embedded throughout the public procurement process. Finally, the administration would have a crucial role in the distribution of funds to small businesses at times of special need such as natural disasters. That would be invaluable during flooding or severe weather, and would have been useful in rebuilding business communities after the terrible riots that we saw last summer. An excellent report by Tim Breedon on access to finance for small businesses, published just before the Budget, recommends
A single brand and delivery agency to increase awareness and enhance delivery of the governments range of SME finance.

The small business administration would do that and more by combining all aspects of government that affect our small businesses. The last time I presented a ten-minute rule Bill, I did so from the Opposition Benches. Six months later the Government had implemented my idea, and I hope to achieve a similar success from the Government Benches. There is nothing ground-breaking or radical in this Bill, which brings together many strands of Government that already do some of the work involved, and provides common-sense measures to give small businesses the best possible chance of flourishingfor if they flourish, so will our economy. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Roger Williams, Loreley Burt, Anne Marie Morris, Gordon Banks, Mr Mark Williams, Stephen Lloyd, Mark Durkan, Brandon Lewis, Stephen Williams, Annette Brooke, Caroline Lucas and Julian Smith present the Bill. Roger Williams accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 326).

1363

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1364

Backbench Business
UN-ALLOTTED DAY

Assisted Suicide
Mr Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) to move the motion, it may be useful for the House to know that I have selected amendments (a) and (b), and that Dame Joan Ruddock will be invited to move amendment (a) during the debate. I should warn the House that it will be possible for amendment (b) to be moved only if it is reached before 7 pm, after the House has disposed of amendment (a). That warning is for the benefit of the House. The House can make its own judgment in the handling of these matters. Members will be aware that, because of the huge interest in speaking in the debate, I have imposed a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, which will apply after the proposer and seconder of the motion have spoken. 1.54 pm Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con): I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the Director of Public Prosecutions Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide, published in February 2010.

In the wider debate, there are many differing positions. There are those who support a change in the law to allow some form of doctor-assisted dying within up-front safeguards. Equally vocal are those who do not favour a change. Between those differing positions is the pressing issue of how the current law is applied by the DPP and the courts. Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): The hon. Gentleman has listed the matters that the debate is not about. Does he acknowledge that a letter was sent to Members indicating that he would welcome comments on all those matters during the debate? Has not the debate been rather confused by his own note about it? Richard Ottaway: Let me say to the hon. Gentlemanfor whom I have the highest regardthat it would be slightly nave to think that the House will focus precisely on assisted suicide for five hours. One or two Members may stray on to the subject of assisted dying or voluntary euthanasia, if only within the scope of the amendment on palliative care, with which I shall deal shortly. Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): My hon. Friend opened the debate by saying, quite properly, that this was an issue not just for courts but for Parliament. To what extent is the discretion of the DPP to prosecute an issue for Parliament? Richard Ottaway: The guidelinesabout which I shall say more in a momentare a model of clarity. They reflect the way in which the DPP is applying the existing law. I hope that, if a majority in Parliament endorses the guidelines today, they will be strengthened because the debate has taken place. Until the Suicide Act 1961, suicide was a criminal offence, and some of those who attempted suicide were prosecuted. Most were discharged, but the records show that in 1956 some 33 were sent to prison. In 1961, Parliament caught up with public sentiment, and both suicide and attempted suicide were decriminalised. That was done not to condone suicide, but to recognise that it was primarily a medical rather than a legal issue, and therefore better dealt with by health-care professionals than by the police. Assisted suicide was a new offence, designed to protect against abuse. It created a unique legal precedent in that this was a criminal offence of being an accessory to a non-criminal act. It carries a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. What our predecessors did not do, however, was to distinguish between the types of assistancebetween the person who irresponsibly and maliciously encourages a suicidal person, and the loving spouse who fulfils a dying partners request for help to die. This is the question we are addressing today: should both actions be treated equally under the law? The problem was, in part, recognised by the 1961 Act, which gave the DPP discretion, so that even when sufficient evidence existed, prosecution would not automatically occur. That recognises the delicate balance that needs to be struck in respect of motive, compassion, coercion and circumstance. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on addressing these issues so clearly and in such a measured way. Does he acknowledge that

The motion will be seconded by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). The fact that the debate is taking place today is significant, and reflects the willingness of Parliament to address societys concerns in this area. It is more than 40 years since the subject was debated on a substantive motion, and I am extremely grateful to the Backbench Business Committee, without which I strongly suspect todays debate would not be taking place. This very sensitive area of law evokes deep emotions. I take the firm view that, in these circumstances, Parliament and not the courts should have the last word on prosecuting policy and the criminal law. I think it appropriate to put on record at this point that I have the highest regard for Mr Keir Starmer QC, the current Director of Public Prosecutions, who drew up the policy that we are debating as he was asked to do by the Law Lords. Let me begin by explaining what the debate is not about. The motion welcomes the DPPs Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide. This is not a debate on the recently published report of the Commission on Assisted Dying. The House is not being asked to express a view on voluntary euthanasia, which requires a change in the law of murder, and it is not being asked to support assisted dying for the terminally ill, which requires a change in the law on assisted suicide. Whatever our views, the debate is not about the application of Mr Tony Nicklinson to the High Court for assistance in ending his life, and whatever the outcome of the debate, assisted suicide will remain a criminal offence. This is a debate about the application of the existing law of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is not an exact equivalent in Scotland, which has an offence of culpable homicide and no guidelines.

1365

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1366

some of us support people in situations like that of Diane Pretty, my former constituent, who died 10 years ago? She went to the highest courts possiblethe House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rightsto seek the right to assisted suicide and was refused, but there was massive public support for her at that time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that public support should be taken into account in our deliberations? Richard Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there is huge public support, and I shall talk about that shortly. Turning to the policy itself, records show that more than 180 Britons have travelled to Switzerland to die in the last 10 years. No one has been prosecuted for accompanying them or assisting them with their arrangements, even when there has been sufficient evidence to prosecute. However, before the 2010 policy document, precisely what criteria were used was never publisheduntil Debbie Purdy asked for clarity. Debbie Purdy has primary progressive multiple sclerosis. In 2009, she took her case to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. She wanted to know whether her husband would be prosecuted if he accompanied her to Dignitas in Switzerland. In their judgment, the Law Lords instructed the DPP to make clear the factors he took into account when reaching a decision on whether or not to prosecute. Lord Browns judgment made it perfectly clear what was required. He said that we need a custom-built policy,
designed to distinguish between those situations in which, however tempted to assist, the prospective aider and abettor should refrain from doing so, and those situations in which he or she may fairly hope to be...forgiven, rather than condemned, for giving assistance.

Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): As my hon. Friend has pointed out, what we are debating is simply an interpretation of the law by the DPP that distinguishes between wholly compassionate assistance and malicious assistance, which will continue to be prosecuted. We are being asked to endorse a reasoned, rational approach that many of our constituents support. Richard Ottaway: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That approach is supported by many of our constituents. Compassion is at the heart of this debate. The key question is whether someone should be prosecuted for minor assistance, within the terms of the guidelines. Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): To date, have there been any cases, or suspected cases, of malicious assistance? Richard Ottaway: As far as I am aware, there have been no prosecutions for escorting someone to Dignitas in Switzerland. I shall have to write to my hon. Friend with a precise answer to his question, but I am not aware of any prosecutions for assisting suicide in recent years. Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con): I shall support the motion; indeed, I am a signatory to it. The DPP is merely doing his job. This House passed the 1961 Act, which explicitly states that a person may be prosecuted for assisting suicide only
by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions,

The DPP did just that, with a clarity and precision that is to be welcomed. In February 2010, following extensive consultation, the DPP published the guidance. I have sent a copy to every Member of this House. The policy recognises the reality of prosecuting practice in cases of assisted suicide: that in certain circumstances, compassionately motivated assisters will not be prosecuted. There are 16 factors weighing in favour of prosecution, including the assisted person not having mental capacity, and if the assister is a doctor or other professional caring for the assisted person. There are six factors weighing against prosecution, including that the assisted person made a voluntary, informed decisionin other words, they were of sound mindas well as that the actions were of only minor encouragement or assistance, and that the suicide was reported to the police. The policy reiterates that there can be no immunity from prosecution before a crime is committed. Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): The guidance lists six circumstances in which prosecution would not take place. How does my hon. Friend reconcile that with his statement that this does not represent a change in the law? Surely it does? Richard Ottaway: That is a fair point, and some people think it does represent a change in the law. However, the guidelines are set out as offering clarity on the application of the existing law, and not as changing the law. In the Purdy case, the House of Lords asked the DPP to set out how the existing law would be applied.

who must decide whether or not prosecution is in the public interest. He was asked to draw up these guidelines, and he has done so. He is not acting outside his statutory obligation; he is merely following it. Richard Ottaway: That is right. Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), every single case is investigated by the police, and there has been no derogation from the existing law of assisted suicide. I invite the House to address how we as legislators should approach this difficult subject. When a person makes the decision to end their life, that draws on the depths of human experience and is intensely personal. The responsibility on parliamentarians to make a judgment on the rights and wrongs of assistance in such decisions is enormous. The view of the British public is emphatic. In 2010, a YouGov poll found that 82% agreed that it is a sensible and humane approach not to prosecute someone who helps a close relative
with a clear, settled and informed

wish to die. The same question is before the House today: should someone who is wholly motivated by compassion, and who has behaved within the parameters of the DPPs policy, be prosecuted for assisting a person of sound mind who has made a clear and settled decision to end their life? Is it right to prosecute Judy Johnson, whose husband, Ken, was diagnosed with terminal cancer and, after a long battle, decided to end his life? Judy helped Ken make the arrangements and, with his three children, travelled with him to Switzerland. Is it right to

1367 [Richard Ottaway]

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1368

Richard Ottaway: This is the last time I give way. Sir Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and may I say how much I welcome what is on his website, which explains some of the issues? On the motion and amendment (a), the original motion that the House thought it was to consider included a reference to putting matters on a statutory basis. The motion was changed, and the amendment was brought forward. The first, and possibly only, vote this evening may put back into the motion what was taken out and put in amendment (a). Is that coincidence, or clever parliamentary practice? Richard Ottaway: I make no secret of the fact that the original motion included the words in the amendment, but in discussion with colleagues on both sides of the argument, people rightly pointed out that there were two separate arguments in the motion, and one part might be successful, and the other defeated. The part that people agreed with might be defeated because of the bit that they did not agree with. It seemed perfectly sensible to separate the two bits. I confess that I had a conversation with the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford, and she has bravely undertaken to move amendment (a) today. I turn to the other amendment selectedamendment (b), on palliative care, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I am happy to accept the amendment. I would have signed it, if it would not have looked odd to sign an amendment to my own motion. I pay tribute to those working in the area of palliative care, and in particular to St Christophers hospice in south London, which works closely with a number of people in my constituency. The previous and current Governments deserve credit for the progress that they have made towards greater access to care, notably through the end-of-life care strategy. We all recognise the first-class palliative care services provided by hospices, and we should be united in hoping that it can be replicated across all care settings. I give a warm welcome to the additional funding for end-of-life care announced last week by the Secretary of State for Health at the Marie Curie Cancer Care reception, but we should recognise thatas was acknowledged by Baroness Finlay, the renowned palliative care professor and passionate campaigner against a change in the law on assisted dyingsuch care is not a panacea to all the suffering that the dying process can cause. Some people, regardless of the care available to them, will seek to control the time and manner of their death. Melanie Reid wrote about that in a moving column in The Times today, which I commend to the House. She is not terminally ill; she is a tetraplegic, following a riding accident. She admits to contemplating ending her life regularly. She wrote:
Knowing that I have a choice is a huge comfort to me; it sustains me on the days when I make the mistake of looking too far in the future. But the point is, I am blessed precisely because I have a choice.

prosecute Susan McArthur, who sat with Duncan, her loving husband of 42 years, and held his hand as he ended his life? Duncan had motor neurone disease, and decided to take control of his death while he still had the physical capability to do so. In my heart, I cannot believe it is in societys interest to prosecute them and to convict them of a criminal offence, and to give them a prison sentence. It is not in the public interest to do so. That has been the approach taken by the DPP for many years, and I believe it should be supported by the House. Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): How is it possible to be sure that somebodys motivation is entirely compassionate, and that they are not affected by other factors? Richard Ottaway: At the end of the day, that has to be a judgment made by the police and the prosecuting authorities. I have confidence in their ability to make that judgment. Of course there is a human element to that, but the guidelines are perfectly clear, and there is plenty of guidance on the approach taken by the prosecuting authorities. Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con): My hon. Friend is introducing the debate in a very measured way. I support greater patient choice at the end of life. It is absolutely right that there should be parliamentary oversight of prosecuting and sentencing policy, but does he agree that we must never leave far behind the notion that at the core of the debate is compassion, both for the patient and their immediate family? We must not lose sight of that. Richard Ottaway: Yes, it is about compassion for those facing an experience that, obviously, none of us has had. This is the most difficult of subjects, which is possibly why Parliament has been resistant to debating it for many years. May I turn to the amendment by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), which calls on the Government to consult on whether the code should be put on a statutory basis? The law is clear: if someone assists a person in ending their life, it is a criminal offence. However, the Director of Public Prosecutions has made it clear that in a narrowly defined set of circumstances, he will not prosecute. The crux of the point is that it is quite possible that, sometime in the future, the guidance will be changed without parliamentary approval. Parliament should be consulted before any further change, and the amendment ensures that. There is another point: putting the policy on a statutory basis would address the charge that this debate is the thin end of the wedge, or the slippery slope. It is the complete opposite. The policy exists, and can be amended without parliamentary scrutiny. If we enshrine the policy in statute, it would take another statute to amend the law. Members will have their say on all sides of the debate, and will then vote. That is how we make laws in Parliament, and the public expect no less. In my opinion, the amendment deserves support. Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con): Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?

In other words, even if we can provide universal access to good-quality end-of-life care, some Britons will still seek to end their lives. The law must be equipped to deal with such cases and to help the vulnerable.

1369

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1370

I was struck by a recent debate in the other place on the DPPs policy, secured by the former Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Jay. In that debate, there was a clear division between speakers on whether the law should change to allow doctor-assisted dying, but there was unanimous support for the DPPs approach, with Baroness Finlay describing the policy as clear, firm and compassionate. Furthermore, in a recent Synod debate that overwhelmingly rejected a change in the law, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has repeatedly made clear his opposition to a change in the law, said:
We can be realistic, we can be compassionate in the application of the existing law.

swallow. Dr Turner was determined that she was not going to end her life in the same way as her husband. Understandably, her children tried to change her mind, but in the end she decidedI believe she had already tried unsuccessfully to commit suicideto make the journey to Switzerland. In order to publicise her plight and other such cases she invited the BBC to film her journey to Switzerland, and a film was made later about her position. I can understand the situation that Dr Turner faced. Let me say straight away that I am a late convert to this position. There was a ten-minute rule Bill on euthanasia in April 1970, and had there been a vote nearly 42 years ago, I would have voted no. Indeed, I would have voted against such a Bill not only then, but today, because I am against euthanasia as such. If I was not, I would say so. I do not normally conceal my views, however much they may be in a minority. I am in favour of a change in the law, but only a very sharply defined change and one that is certainly very different from euthanasia, which, to some degree, occurs in Belgium and the Netherlands. It is sometimes said that those of us who want a change in the law are doing a disservice to the disabled. It is pretty obvious that that is about the last thing I want to do. I have no desire to encourage disabled people in any way whatsoever to end their lives. At every stage in my parliamentary life, I have, obviously, supported every measure to support the disabledit would be odd if it were otherwise. I believe that that would be the position of all Members of the House, regardless of where they stand on any change in the law. Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con): The hon. Gentleman is making the point that one particular disabled individual should be given the right to make this judgment. Is he not, by definition, therefore making the case that a particular form of disability inevitably makes a life not worth living? Is that not a dangerous utilitarian judgment to make? Mr Winnick: That is the very opposite of my view. As I said, I have supported every move to support the disabled in every conceivable way. It is an advance for the House of Commons that we have disabled Members and that we do not just represent disabled people who happen to be constituents. One of my colleagues is confined to a wheelchair and it is right and proper that she should be here. There is an idea that, in some way, those of us who want a change in the law would wish to harm the disabled, but the very opposite is the truth. However, I take the point that to the extent that disabled peopleor, at least, the organisations that speak on their behalfhave concerns about any change in the law, people such as me, who want a change in the legislation, should certainly bear that very much in mind. Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): On five separate occasions my hon. Friend has talked about changing the law and about his desire to do so. Will he confirm, for the sake of everybody in the House this afternoon, that support for the motion is not support for a change in the law, but an acknowledgment that the Director of Public Prosecutions has done his job?

I hope that today, whatever view individually we may take on the law, we can agree that the approach taken by the DPP is both realistic and compassionate. If there is a majority in the House in favour of this motion, we will have done the nation a service. If there is a majority against it, we will have a problem, as the DPP and 82% of the public will be saying one thing, and the peoples elected representatives another. I urge the House to support the motion and show compassion to those facing this terrible dilemma. 2.16 pm Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab): It gives me much pleasure to second the motion moved by the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway). I welcome the debate. It has been a very long time since the House of Commons debated the whole issue, and whatever view we take, it is only right and proper that the House should have an opportunity to debate the subject. The guidelines are a considerable advance on what happened before. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Debbie Purdy. I pay tribute to the way that she, faced with a terminal illness, was determined to fight through the courts to find out what the position would be if her husband accompanied her to Switzerland should she at some stage want to go there. For someone without influencea private individual without a private incometo do what she did, albeit with the help of an organisation and sympathisers, is remarkable. Even those opposed to a change in the law would agree that she should be praised for her sheer determination and will-power in fighting her campaign. Of course, there were others before Debbie. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) mentioned one of his constituents who, unfortunately, is no longer aliveDiane Pretty. She did not want to end her life in a way that was painful and humiliating, and did not want to be in a situation where she was almost suffocating. She did not succeed in her aim; she had the painful illness, and the ending that she so desperately wanted to avoid. There were other such people. There are some whose cases we do not know; they, and their loved ones, would not wish their case to be publicised. One case that was particularly publicised was that of Dr Anne Turner, a medical doctor who knew full well from her work what was in store for her. Apart from anything else, her late husband, by a terrible coincidence, died from the same sort of illness that she faced, which would deprive her of all movement; at the end, she would not even be able to

1371

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1372

Mr Winnick: Absolutely. I prefaced my remarks by saying that the DPP guidelines can be supportedthe debate is actually titled Assisted Suicide by those who are very much in favour of the existing law and by those who are opposed. No contradiction is involved, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend has had the opportunity to make the point. Sir Peter Bottomley: That response to that last intervention was helpful to the House. May I ask the hon. Gentleman kindly to give the House a little more help? He is arguing that he would like to see the law changed. An amendment is to be moved which says that the guidance should be put on a statutory basisit talks about whether that should happen, but it, in effect, proposes that it should. Will he be supporting that amendment or is he against it, given that he wants the law changed? Mr Winnick: I want the law changed, but that does not mean that if the time comes for a vote on the amendment I will not make up my mind accordingly. If I were asked what sort of change I would like, if change were to occur, I would reply that it would be very much along the lines of what happens in Oregon in the United States. In Oregon, which has all the necessary safeguards in place, those with a terminal illness who wish to end their livesthey must have a terminal illnessare allowed to do so. Some may argue that that is a sliding slope, but palliative care was mentioned by the hon. Member for Croydon South and we should bear in mind what has happened in Oregon, where assisted dying has existed since 1994. The number of people who have died naturally in hospices has actually doubled there. So the argument that hundreds or thousands of people would go to their deaths if we were to change the law and allow assisted dying for the terminally ill is a total fiction. Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con): Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that such an approach would change a fundamental principle, which is that doctors do not kill their patients? Mr Winnick: It is a point that the hon. Lady, a medical doctor herself, has made with great sincerity. The British Medical Association makes the same point, but presumably there are other doctors who take a different view from her. I do not know how many of them there are, but, as we know, there must obviously be certain doctors whose view is that, out of compassion,

the law should not prevent them from doing what they consider to be appropriate. Of course, that would all be debated at length and in detail if any measure were to change the law as such. Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Many of us have had the experience, as have many people in other countries, of doctors saying to them when their loved ones are suffering greatly that they will make sure that she or he will not suffer. What does my hon. Friend think doctors mean by that? Mr Winnick: I think that we could all come to the same conclusion. Are we to take it that doctors in Oregon, Belgium or the Netherlands are not concerned about their patients, that they are potential Shipmans and that they could not care less whether or not their patients die? Although I accept the sincerity of the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), I must, as my hon. Friend has indicated, accept that some doctors, however much they may be in a minority, take a different view. I simply say to the House that whether or not we agree to any change in the law, this issue will not go away. The hon. Member for Croydon South said that more than 180 British citizens have gone to Switzerland in these circumstances. Perhaps there are others who would like to go, for they do not want to face an unbearable death, but do not have the financial means to do so. I hope that the House will not only agree to the guidelines, but be willing to explore the dilemma faced by these people. This could happen to any of us, as nobody is exempt from the possibility of having a severe illness of the sort that Anne Turner was facing and was determined to avoid at all costs, and which resulted in her going to the clinic in Switzerland. I hope that we will have a very good debate. The issues are very important and I hope that at the end of it the guidelines which the Law Lords instructed the DPP to produce will be fully supported on all sides and by all the opinions in this House. ROYAL ASSENT Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts: Health and Social Care Act 2012 London Local Authorities Act 2012.

1373

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1374

Assisted Suicide
Debate resumed. 2.30 pm Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab): I beg to move amendment (a), at the end of the Question to add,
and invites the Government to consult as to whether to put the guidance on a statutory basis..

amend the code? It would drive a coach and horses through section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which gives the DPP complete discretion to draft his own codes. Dame Joan Ruddock: I completely disagree. First, the amendment invites the Government to consult, which could not possibly contravene an Act in itself. Furthermore, the Act that gives the discretion is not overturned by putting the guidelines into statute. What the statute would then say is, These are the circumstances but it would not remove from the DPP the discretion he has in existing statute. Several hon. Members rose Dame Joan Ruddock: I am not going to give way again because I have used up my time for interventions. I am sorry but I will run out of time completely if I give way. There is also a question of accountability to consider. The DPP is, of course, answerable to the Attorney-General and in this way is accountable to Parliament, but we as Members of Parliament are accountable to our constituents. Public interest in the law on assisted suicide and related issues is extremely high. As the hon. Member for Croydon South has told us, a YouGov poll in 2010 for The Daily Telegraph asked 2,000 people whether they agreed with the DPPs policy. For the benefit of the House, let me repeat the outcome of that poll: 82% agreed with the compassionate treatment of people as laid out in the DPPs guidelines, only 11% disagreed and 8% said they did not know. As it stands, the policy could be changed by the DPP, who is after all an individual who holds the role of DPP for a term of five years. It is unlikely that a future DPP would make significant changes to the policy, but it is always possible. That is why placing the DPPs policy on a statutory footing would mean that this sensible, humane and popular policy could be changed only by Parliament. In conclusion, I welcome the DPPs policy and this debate. The policy is sensible, humane and provides clarity on how the law is applied in assisted suicide cases. The public strongly support that approach, which is why I believe the Government should consult on whether they want the clarity provided by the policy to be placed on a statutory footing. I have always known that in compelling circumstances I would assist a loved one to die. That is why I think it is so important that the DPPs policy should be placed in statute. I urge hon. Members to support this amendment and the motion. Several hon. Members rose Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. I am now going to call Fiona Bruce to speak to amendment (b), but it will not be moved at this stage. I remind hon. Members that there is a limit of five minutes for all Back Benchers. 2.37 pm Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak to my amendment. I understand that although I am not able to move it yet, other Members may speak to it throughout the afternoon.

I very much welcome this debate and the fact that the Backbench Business Committee has found time for it. I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on the very considered way in which he presented the motion. The amendment, which stands in my name and those of the hon. Members for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and for Solihull (Lorely Burt), invites the Government to consult as to whether to put the policy on a statutory basis. I believe the time has come to give the public and stakeholders an opportunity to comment on the Director of Public Prosecutions policy in practice. The amendment invites the Government to place the DPPs policy on a statutory footing but does not demand that. The final version of the policy on assisted suicide has now been in place for more than two years. The draft policy was the subject of heated debate, particularly in relation to the health or disability status of the assisted person, the actions of health care professionals and the relative weight to be given to the motivation of the assister. However, there are still some areas of concern in relation to the policy, most notably its impact on doctors where there is less clarity. A patient with a terminal condition may wish to discuss with a health care professional their desire for assistance to end their life. Similarly, a patient who has come to a decision may wish to obtain their medical records in order to be assisted to die overseas. If the Government were to hold a consultation on whether the DPPs policy on assisted suicide should be placed in statute, I am confident that we would learn much from the response of the public and the stakeholders working with the DPPs policy. Essentially, placing the policy in statute would reinforce not only that the DPP has discretion in deciding on prosecutions in assisted suicide cases, which is already plain in the wording of the Suicide Act 1961, but also the factors that must be considered in taking these decisions. Placing the policy in statute would signal in the strongest possible way that Parliament agrees that those who maliciously or irresponsibly encourage suicide should be prosecuted, but that it is not normally in the public interest to prosecute an otherwise law-abiding citizen who helps a loved one to die on compassionate grounds. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): It is clear that the DPP has discretion. How does placing something on a statutory footing show that the DPP has discretion? Dame Joan Ruddock: Clearly, if the existing guidelines were put into statute they would lie alongside existing statute. I will go on to explain why I think it is very important that they should be in statute. Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): Would not one of the implications of the amendment, if it were passed, be to fetter the discretion of the DPP to

1375 [Fiona Bruce]

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1376

I support the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and I oppose the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock). Britain has been ranked first in the world for quality end-of-life care in a survey by The Economist intelligence unit of 40 OECD and non-OECD countries, including the USA, the Netherlands, Germany and France. We should be proud of and support services that are providing care to enable patients to live as well as possible, while accepting natural death and doing everything to keep patients comfortable during dying. Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con): Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to organisations such as the Prospect hospice in my constituency, which offers world-class palliative care, not only in-house but within the community that it serves? Fiona Bruce: I will, and I pay tribute to the entire hospice movement in this country. The care and treatment of patients provided by such services embodies the culture that we have in this nation of prioritising care at the end of life, and does not prioritise foreshortening life by months or years at the end-of-life stage. The DPP has said that the guidelines that he operates are working well; indeed they are. Prosecutorial discretion is part of our criminal law and applies across a wide range of crimes. We cannot fetter it in law because each case is different. The law gives a clear message that one person should not encourage or assist anothers suicide. Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): I am proud to be supporting my hon. Friends amendment today. Does she agree that this is not about choice, but is about people being forced to make choices? Does she also agree that rather than having debates about assisted dying it would be much better if we had more debates and discussions about how we could improve palliative care? Fiona Bruce: I do, and that is entirely the intent of my amendment. Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con): Will my hon. Friend give way? Fiona Bruce: I will continue now, if I may, to allow for the many other speakers who want to speak this afternoon. If encouragement or assistance is given for others to commit suicide, individuals are answerable for their actions, but when appropriate, the law takes a compassionate approach. Patients at the end of life are very vulnerable to influence, particularly from those providing care. Just yesterday a specialist consultant in palliative care told me of his concerns about any change in the law in this area. He told me of an incident which, he said, was not isolated, but typical. He said: I had a single male patient who was dying of cancer. Life was difficult for him; he had an estranged daughter who confided in me that her father had asked to be taken to Switzerland because his life was not worth living. His daughter had left home quite early in life and they had lost all contact. I talked with him and he told me how proud he

was that she had become a head teacher, he himself having been a teacher earlier on in his life. I encouraged him to get to know his daughter again, to tell her he loved her, and that he was proud of her. They did so and they spent the last two weeks of his life together in the hospice having these conversations, which meant so much to both of them. Is not that the approach that we should take towards those at the end of their life? The consultant continued, Wethat is, doctorshave real concerns that it would place us in a very difficult position if the law is changed, since at the heart of what we do is the tenet that we should do no harm to our patients. So for someone to have their life terminated would place our relationship on a very different footing. Doctors do not want the relationship of trust between doctor and patients fractured. That surely is why the DPP guidelines tend towards prosecution if assistance with suicide is given by a doctor or nurse as part of their clinical relationship with the patient. Several disability groups have told me that they would be extremely concerned should there be any change in the lawthat is, in this relationshipa change which could well occur should doctors, such as the consultant I mentioned, have the option to killas he put ittheir patients as one of their choices. Unlike Oregon, where assisted suicide was made legal in 1997, we have specialist palliative care in the UK, with a full four-year training programme. Oregon has had a four and a half-fold rise in assisted suicides since it legalised the practice in 1997, a practice that would result in over 1,100 assisted suicides in this country on a population basis. And Oregons safeguards are paper-thin. The Royal College of Physicians has stated that physician assisted suicide
would fundamentally alter the role of the doctor and their relationship with their patient. Medical attendants should be present to preserve and improve lifeif they are also involved in the taking of life, this creates a conflict that is potentially very damaging.

Help the Hospices says:

It is right that actions by a care professional are treated differently from actions by a friend or family member.

Baroness Campbell of Surbiton, speaking on behalf of disabled groups, has said that a change in the law
wouldnt just apply to the terminally ill, no matter what the campaigners may say. It would affect disabled people too, not to mention the elderly. A change in the law. . . would alter the mindset of the medical and social care professions, persuading more and more people that actually the prospect of an easy way out is what people such as me really want. Well, the vast majority of us do not.

The motion should keep the DPP guidelines as they are, and support improved care at the end of life. 2.43 pm The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on initiating this debate. His motion and the amendments tabled to it reveal not so much a political issue as a legal and an ethical or moral question, but either way it is here in Parliament, a place that must be at the very centre of our countrys political deliberations, that we should debate these questions and shape the laws that provide the background to and the boundaries of the criminal law.

1377

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1378

Parliament makes our laws and has a vital role when the courts can no longer develop or reveal the common law. When a Government take the initiative to change the law, when Parliament on its own initiative decides to change the law or when the judges in our higher courts can no longer develop the common law, we come here, to Parliament, to deliberate on what the law should be and, where appropriate, to make the necessary changes to our law. Let me make a few preliminary points. First, it is the position of the Government that the substantive law on assisted suicide is a matter of conscience and not a matter of party political controversy. If the House divides today, right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches will voteor abstainas their conscience dictates and not in response to the advice of the Government Whips. I dare say the same applies on the Opposition Benches. Secondly, I acknowledge the variety of views held on assisted suicide, euthanasia, and the care of the terminally ill, and quite understand that many will use this debate to express their opinion on matters that may be outside the strict confines of the DPPs guidelines on assisted suicide prosecutions. I do not intend to express any personal views this afternoon. Rather, I shall make some dispassionate points about the role of the DPP and of prosecutors under his leadership and about the law on assisted suicide. Thirdly, as a Law Officer, I want to emphasise the importance of the independence of prosecutors and the undesirability of statutory guidelines for prosecutors in any area of law, not least this one. Fourthly, I repeat what I said a moment agothat ultimately Parliament is supreme and may legislate in this area if it wishes to do so. Fifthly, I will briefly outline the Governments strategy for end-of-life care. A good many right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House have added their names to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) to encourage the development of specialist palliative care and hospice provision. No doubt every Member of Parliament knows of a hospice that is deserving of particular praise for the work its staff do in bringing care and sensitivity to the dying and the bereaved, and of doctors and other medical staff who specialise in palliative care. In Leicestershire we are fortunate to have the LOROS hospice for adults and the Rainbows hospice for children, both of which do so much to help their patients and the families, and I cannot commend them highly enough. Let me now turn to the Suicide Act 1961. Until that Act was passed, suicide, and thus attempted suicide, were crimes. As late as the 1950s, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South told us, a few people who had failed in their attempt to commit suicide were imprisoned. The 1961 Act decriminalised the act of suicide, but section 2 of the Act made it an offence to assist the suicide or attempted suicide of another person. It is, therefore, a highly unusual offence. I cannot think of another example where it is a crime to assist someone in doing something which is not itself a crime, but given that assisting another person to commit suicide is an area potentially open to a good deal of abuse, it was thought right to make it a criminal offence.

Dame Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to the Minister. I want to take him up on that point, because he has made the seminal point that this is a very unusualperhaps uniquecircumstance, in which assisting is a criminal offence, but suicide is not an offence. Because it is such an unusual case, it may be reasonable for the Government to consult on whether the guidelines should go into statute. The Solicitor-General: I listened to the right hon. Ladys speech and although I understood it, I am not convinced by her argument. None the less, she is perfectly entitled to make it. Assisting or encouraging suicide is an offence and the maximum penalty for it is 14 years. It should not be thought that the law is not clear. We are talking about the application of the law when it comes to a decision about whether to prosecute or not. Those are discrete issues. It cannot be acceptable to permit people to encourage others to kill themselves. Most often the people concerned would know each other, but the growth in suicide websites means that the person doing the encouraging could well be wholly unknown to, and not even present with, the person being assisted or encouraged to kill himself. To clarify the position the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 updated section 2 of the 1961 Act. That change was made amid growing concern about misuse of the internet to promote suicide and suicide methods, and to reassure the public that the internet was not outside the law. It is now clear on the face of that 2009 Act that it is not necessary for a person committing the offence of assisted suicide to know the person whom he is encouraging to commit suicide, or even to be able to identify him. The change to section 2 came about via the Coroners and Justice Act, and any further changes to the law must, I suggest, be a matter for Parliament to decide. Although todays motion does not call for a change in the substantive law, and the amendment tabled by the right hon. Lady calls for the DPPs guidance to be put on a statutory basisno doubt following consultation, but I think I can paraphrase in that acceptable wayshe does not ask for a change in the statute itself. I have no doubt that some may suggest during this debate that there should be a change in the criminal law relating to assisting or encouraging suicide. I do not advocate a change in the law, nor do I think it sensible to place the DPPs guidance on a statutory footing. Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op): The Solicitor-General has come to a point that concerns me. Does he agree that passing the amendment would appear to be doing something that is very close to changing the law, and it would be a pity to give that impression? The Solicitor-General: I think that I am entitled to look at the amendment proposed by the right hon. Lady on its face value, and it proposes to change the current arrangements. It proposes that there should be a consultation as to whether the policy and the guidelines should be placed on a statutory footing. However, I think that I am entitled to infer from that that those who support that aspect of the amendment wish the DPPs guidelines to be on a statutory footing. I disagree with that. I do not think that that is sensible.

1379

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1380

Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD): Can the Solicitor-General think of another example where we expect people to commit a crime knowingly, and only find out later whether they will be prosecuted or not? The Solicitor-General: I do not think that I will answer that question, because, to be honest, I am not entirely sure I understand it. I apologise if my failure to understand is entirely my own fault. The DPPs guidance relates to the framework within which prosecutors apply the law as it currently stands, and I suggest that that is a framework that should remain in place as it currently stands. As Law Officers, it is for the Attorney-General and for me to superintend the Crown Prosecution Service and to account to this House for its activities and performance, but prosecutors have always had discretion to consider what the public interest might be when they bring criminal proceedings, and it is for prosecutors to decide how to exercise that discretion. That is set out in the code for Crown prosecutors, the document issued by the DPP that provides guidance on the principles that prosecutors should apply when making decisions on whether to prosecute in any particular case. The test requiresI paraphrasethe prosecutor to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to convict and that it would be in the public interest to prosecute. Sometimes a statute requires that either the DPP or the Attorney-Generalfor these purposes that means the Solicitor-General as wellmust consent to the prosecution, and in the case of a prosecution under the Suicide Act 1961, as amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, it is the DPP who has to consent to the bringing of criminal proceedings. However, it has been clear for many years that it is not in every case where the evidential test is passed that a prosecution must be advanced. In 1951 in the House, the then Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, said:
It has never been the rule in this countryI hope it never will bethat suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution.[Official Report, 29 January 1951; Vol. 483, c. 681.]

need to put this policy into statutory form. It will create a form of sclerosis and lead to all sorts of problems that may not be intended. Therefore the better position is to leave the thing as it is. If my hon. Friend, either as a Member of Parliament or as a private citizen, be he a former prosecutor or a former defender, wishes to advocate the consultation process, he should go ahead. I will not stop him. I will just simply not support him. Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con): Whereas the guidance at paragraph 6 is clear that it does not decriminalise the offence, if the remainder of the guidance were put on to statute, would that not therefore decriminalise assisted suicide, and is not that the crucial difference? The Solicitor-General: There is a growing confusion perhaps it was there alreadybetween the guidelines, which are the DPPs policy statement on when it is and is not thought appropriate to prosecute and the factors that he will consider, and the substantive law that is set out in section 2 of the Suicide Act. The two are quite different. As I mentioned to the right hon. Lady, it is a criminal offence to encourage or assist the suicide of another, and if people are prosecuted and convicted, they are very likely to receive a prison sentence measured in years, the maximum being 14 years. But the DPPs guidelines are not the law. They are a public document that informs us how it is that he considers whether or not it is right to bring a prosecution in any given case. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South in commending the DPP for producing a document that is notable for both its clarity and its compassion. The House is fully entitled to consider the way the criminal law it enacts is applied in practice, but I hope that by considering the guidelines, the House will not only commend them, but also note that they are based on the principle of independent prosecutors exercising their discretion in their decision making, which, ultimately, must be in all our interests. Dame Joan Ruddock: I am really grateful to the Solicitor-General for giving way. Will he just acknowledge that a future DPP could overturn the guidelines, and does he think that that would acceptable? The Solicitor-General: If a future DPP overturned the guidelines, he would be judicially reviewed for behaving in a rather whimsical way. I also suspect that the right hon. Lady would be one of the first to stand up in the House and censor him for doing so. I can assure her that placing things on a statute will not assist her cause. She and I share the view that the DPPs guidelines are a good thing. Why not leave them where they are and let them remain a good thing? As I said, I hope that by considering the guidelines the House will not only commend them but also note that they are based on the principle of independent prosecutors exercising their discretion in their decision making, which, ultimately, is in all our interests. The guidelines inform others how he will exercise his discretion, but as with any guidance or policy issued by the DPP, it is subservient to the law of Parliament and the decisions of the higher courts. If the law changes, any relevant prosecutors guidance must also change. It will change the more flexibly if it is not ossified in statute.

Those words underscore the essential independence of our prosecutors from Government, from Parliament, from newspapers and their readers, from religious leaders, from the expert and ignorant, and from all who would seek to interfere in their discretion and independence. As Law Officers, the Attorney-General and I support and protect the independence of prosecutors in their decision making. With that in mind, I will turn to the DPPs policy document. Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con): I make a declaration as a former criminal prosecutor. It was frequently said that we were often consulted but often ignored. In these particular circumstances, given that there may be a presiding view of the Government, what is to be lost by having a consultation and finding out what is the view of the people? The Solicitor-General: I suppose that it is a matter of attitude. I happen to think that the Government were elected to take decisions. I have expressed my view on the matter. No damage will be done to the constitution, and the world will not come to an end, if we consult on this issue. I happen to be of the view that we do not

1381

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1382

I make a trite point, but the law cannot do everything. We need flexibility in its application, and to be able to apply the law and to make decisions about whether or not to prosecute on the facts and the surrounding circumstances of each case and on a case-by-case basis. In this area of law, perhaps almost if not exclusively above all others, we need to approach the question of whether to prosecute with sensitivity and with care. Indeed, the High Court, in its judgment on 29 October 2008 in the Purdy casethe very action that, once it had been considered by the House of Lords in 2009, gave rise to the guidelinessaid that the nature of the offence created by section 2(1) of the Suicide Act is such that
the variety of facts which may give rise to the commission of that offence, and therefore which may result in a person being prosecuted, is almost infinite.

The section 2 offence is very widely drawn. It covers all situations and creates no exceptions, which is why, I suggest, the DPPs consent to a prosecution is so necessary, and why the House of Lords directed the DPP to publish the policy that we now have before us. Guidelines or a policy statement are not required in every criminal case, but I invite the House to consider that such guidelines are best issued by prosecutors and for prosecutors, although available for public inspection and comment. Quite apart from the propriety of guidelines for prosecutors being a matter for prosecutors, there are some practical considerations to guidelines remaining on a non-statutory basis. Surely to place them in statute would be to attempt to confine the infinite. Policies and guidance are there to provide practical assistance to prosecutors on how particular categories of cases should be approached and the internal processes that should be followed. Therefore, there needs to be a certain amount of flexibility, not least because, as case law develops and public opinion and our collective moral view alter, the law changes and these guidelines and the policies will need to change in response, often quickly. I therefore urge the House, as a matter of good practice, to conclude that the current flexible andI admitpragmatic approach should be retained. That said, we are all entitled, inside and outside the House, to comment on the guidelines themselves or on a decision to prosecute or not prosecute in any given case, subject to any temporary constraints imposed by the law of contempt and defamation. We should not build into the process a sclerotic arrangement that will not improve the application of the law from year to year. The CPS has published a number of policies and guidance documents over the years. They are available on its website and are there to help the public understand how decisions are taken by prosecutors. During the past two years or so, that has included policies on prosecuting human trafficking cases, public protest cases and cases about perverting the course of justice when victims in rape and domestic violence cases make false retractions. Should these policies be codified, too? Should they be placed on a statutory footing? As my noble Friend Baroness Berridge said in the other place when this matter was debated last month:
It is imperative that DPP policy and decisions are free from, and seen to be free from, Government interferenceIf the House were asking how the Government are assessing the application of DPP policy for prosecutions in cases of phone-hacking, constitutional alarm bells would, I believe, have gone off immediately.[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 February 2012; Vol. 735, c. 629.]

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South said that the application of the existing law and, by implication, the application of the guidelines in this area is a pressing issue. It is not so much the application of the existing law that is the issue, but what the substance of the existing law is. I leave others to decide how pressing the issue might be. At the risk of repeating myself, I will say that if Parliament wishes to change the law in this area, that is a matter for Parliament, but we should not confuse the way prosecutors apply the law with what the law is or should be. As I draw my remarks to a close, I will briefly address the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton and supported by a great many right hon. and hon. Members. She is encouragingI assume the Government to develop specialist palliative care and hospice provision further and, in responding, I transmogrify my role as a desiccated, boring and apolitical Law Officer to that of a thoroughly exciting political Minister. The Government recognise that many people, their families and carers do not receive the quality of end-of-life care that we would all wish to receive. Hardly a month passes without our reading in the national or local press or hearing in the broadcast media of some terrible episode of personal suffering endured by an elderly person at the end of their life. Every such story demands of us that something more should be done to ensure that the care of the terminally ill, no matter what age they are, should be improved. The Government are committed to developing and supporting end-of-life and palliative care services to ensure that the care people receive, whatever their diagnosis, is compassionate, appropriate, of good quality and permits the exercise of choice by patients. That choice is, of course, within the current legal framework. For many, that means being able to choose to be cared for and to die at home, or in a care home when that has become someones home. However, we know that most people die in hospital, the place where they would least prefer to be. Although realistically many people will continue to die in hospital, we know that more people could be cared for and die at home. We want services to be set up to help people make that choice, and commissioners and providers need to ensure that the right services are available in the right places and at the right time. Much needs to be done to make that happen, and we will review progress in 2013 to see how close we are to being able to offer that choice. It is very much part of the work to implement the Department of Healths end-of-life care strategy. Published in 2008 under the previous Government, the strategy received cross-party support. It aims to improve care for people approaching the end of life, whatever their diagnosis and wherever they are, including enabling more people to be cared for and to die at home. Fiona Bruce: I am extremely pleased to hear my hon. and learned Friend say that. It will build on what is a very high standard of care in many parts of the country, as I have already mentioned. The point I was seeking to emphasis, in particular, was that evidence shows that where there is a high standard of palliative and end-of-life care, there are fewer requests for assisted suicide. That is why it is so important that we focus on supporting and developing further end-of-life care specialism and treatment in this country.

I agree with her.

1383

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1384

The Solicitor-General rose Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. I take it that the Solicitor-General is coming to the end of his speech, because we are up against time and many Back Benchers wish to speak. The Solicitor-General: With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will avoid answering my hon. Friends question in order to save time. If we are to continue to provide care where and how people want it, to expand this work into the community and to care for people with conditions other than cancer, hospices and other providers of palliative care need the right support and the right funding. We need a funding system that can last, that provides stability and security in the long term and that actively encourages community-based palliative care so that people can stay at home or in a care home as they wish. Of course, this has to be affordable within the constraints of the current financial climate. The independent palliative care funding review looked at options to ensure that the funding of hospices and other palliative care providers is fair and covers both adult and childrens services. When it reported last summer, it recommended that a number of pilots be set up to collect data so it could refine its proposals, because of the lack of reliable data currently available. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced the seven adult and one childrens palliative care funding pilots selected for this important work. They will start in April and run for two years, and our aim is to have a new funding system in place by 2015, a year sooner than the palliative care funding review proposed. I did not wish to be rude to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton. I do not know whether there is a correlation or a causative link between the two points she drew to our attention in her intervention. None the less, if the matter comes to a Division, I urge the House to accept the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, to be deeply sceptical about the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) and to look with interest and care on the matter proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton. 3.7 pm Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) not only on persuading the Backbench Business Committee to make time for this debate, for which I am grateful, but on his thoughtful contribution, which set the tone for the debate. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on their contributions. In my view, the debate is one of the highlights of this parliamentary term, and it is such a shame that there is unlikely to be a great deal of interest from the media, as I think that the debate shows the House at its best. Assisted suicide is certainly a difficult issue, and I do not believe that anyone has an immediate and obvious answer to that difficulty. Personally, I am always slightly

suspicious of those who believe that there is a ready answer. The issue is perhaps made more difficult by the fact that, as politicians in a democracy, it is our job to reflect public opinion, and when it comes to such issues the public far too often behave like ostriches, wanting to bury their heads and forget about it. No one wants to believe that they or those whom they love would ever be so ill that they would want to die. The truth, however, is that many of us will find ourselves in that situation. Despite the fact that we have an increasingly ageing population, we also fail to address additional, related problems, such as the problems of pensions and long-term care, which have led to the social care crisis. Again, that is because none of us wants to believe that we will have difficulties in old age or that we will be seriously ill and need assistance. Therefore, it is not terribly surprising that we have failed to address the issue of how we ought to have a good death. Some of us will die peacefully in our sleep, but many of us will not. With advances in medicine, many of us will live with a medical condition that, even 10 years ago, we would have been unlikely to survive, and which would likely have resulted in a speedy death, so many of us are likely to live longer. Many of us, however, are likely to live with a painful, debilitating disease that will shorten our lives. Some of us believe that that is the will of God; some of us believe that life comes from God and it is for God to take that life away; many of us believe that Pope John Paul II was an inspiration, given the dignity he showed in dealing with his Parkinsons; and some of usI am one of thembelieve that if more hospice and palliative care was available to those coming towards the end of their lives, they would wish to live as long as they could, so long as they could remain pain-free and continue to live with dignity. I was very moved when I went to Trinity hospice, and I would consider myself fortunate, if necessary, to see out the end of my days in such a hospice. Others, however, do not believe that such an approach is sufficient. Diane Pretty and Debbie Purdy, for example, do not wish, even with the greatest assistance, to live until the time when God, if there is a God, takes that life away; they wish to have some control over the end of their life. Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): Does the hon. Lady agree, however, that the essence of the Director of Public Prosecutions advice is to give dying people the ability to live? It is precisely the knowledge that they have control over when they are able to die that allows them to live more fully and, often, for longer. Emily Thornberry: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who in fact takes me to my next point, which is that no one could fail to be struck by the clearly unaffected joy of Debbie Purdy and her caring husband, Omar Puente, when they believed that there had been clarification of the stage at which they might jointly have been able to decide when she could die. The fact that they seemed to be overjoyed by that showed an essential truth in relation to them and to the decisions that they personally needed and wanted to makeand wanted the law to allow them to make. Having rattled through the difficulties in relation to the issue, may I move on to the motion and to the amendments before the House? The motion welcomes the Director of Public Prosecutions guidance on cases

1385

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1386

of encouraging or assisting suicide, and it is certainly my view that, as others have said, the guidelines are sensible and proportionate. The hon. Member for Croydon South rightly said that they are compassionate, and many members of the public believe that they are. When the public saw that Diane Pretty, despite all her efforts, eventually did suffocateexactly what she did not want, because she wanted to be able to end her life before that with assistance, if necessarythey found the DPPs response to the case of Debbie Purdy a few years later was proportionate, and it had their broad support. The motion does not seek to change the law. Amendment (a), in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford, would not change the law, either. It
invites the Government to consult as to whether to put the guidance on a statutory basis.

guidelines on when a prosecution for assisted suicide should begin, because it is appropriate for the Crown Prosecution Service and the DPP to be informed by a wider public debate. For the reasons that I set out at the beginning of my remarks, I believe that the public would not necessarily like to have a debate, unless they have coming up in front of them cases such as Debbie Purdys, which they cannot avoid, but it is our responsibility as elected representatives to listen to the public and to encourage and engender debate, and that is the good sense behind amendment (a). Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab): I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but equally she should not attribute too much to the Commission on Assisted Dying, as it was a self-appointed commission that was funded mainly by a pressure group that holds a very clear view of the existing law and how it wishes to see it changed. I also point out to my hon. Friend that this House at the very beginning of this Session argued for e-petitions, and that the same House is now arguing that e-petitions should be abolished because they produce absolutely nothing other than hundreds and thousands of e-mails. Emily Thornberry: I take on board the points that my hon. Friend makes, but they do not sway me from my path, which is to argue that we should encourage a real debate with and among the public, and that we should learn from their views. Amendment (b) is clearly nothing but good sense and very important. The vast majority of the public wish to die at home, but on the whole people do not do so because they are afraid that there is insufficient support for them to die pain-free and supported there. If I may step away from being a desiccated lawyer for a moment, I must say that it was such a shame that the Health and Social Care Bill spent so little time dealing with that vital issue, and instead dealt with many other issues that the public did not want. In a more general debate, another issue that could come up is that of giving information to members of the public who might want to know how they could kill themselves or assist others to kill themselves. Again, that is controversial, but it is important that we politicians are informed by the publics views on the matter. For those and other reasons I welcome this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon South on having ensured that we hold it here. Let us hope that it spreads to involve people outside this place. 3.18 pm John Pugh (Southport) (LD): This is an issue where life, rather than logic, will change peoples minds, but I will have to rely on logic for the moment. In 1961 the act of suicide was legalised, for whatever reason but in a wholly unqualified way, and, cutting through the fine words, what we are considering is legalising not a person killing themselves but, under defined circumstances, a person participating in the killing of another. This debate, to some extent, is a proxy for that, but, we seem to be arguing around and, possibly, avoiding arguing about whether an individual can claim a right in law to request that someone, possibly

When looking at amendments and at quasi-legal documents, I think that the safest way to interpret them is to interpret what they say as meaning what they say, and the amendment simply asks the Government to consult on whether the DPPs guidance should be put on a statutory basis. Sir Peter Bottomley: The hon. Lady is helping the debate. If the Government were forced to hold such a consultation, would it be based precisely on the DPPs guidelines as they are, or would it open up the debate to state that some of the guidelines are wrong, that there should be not just assisted suicide but death on request, or that the situation ought to involve the chronically ill and some of the physically handicapped? Would the consultation be constricted, because if it were not, why would we hold it? Emily Thornberry: The hon. Gentleman, too, anticipates what I am going to say next, because having clarified what I believe to be the purpose of amendment (a), which is to invite the Government to consult, I believe also that it would invite the public to become involved in a debate, and no one in this House, given the difficulties in relation to the issue, should be afraid of that. There are issues related to the current guidance, but there are wider issues, too, and we should not be afraid of debating them. There are the results of the Commission on Assisted Dying, which recommended permitting a doctor to assist suicide for the terminally ill and defined who the terminally ill are, and there is the issue of whether that recommendation would assist people who suffer from locked-in syndrome, or even Debbie Purdy, who suffered from multiple sclerosis but might not have been considered terminally ill. We should not run away from debating those issues, and it is important in these circumstances that there be a debate. That is why there is some good sense in amendment (a). Sir Peter Bottomley: The unofficial commission started, it might fairly be described, with a majority of commissioners who believed in some of the results that they came out with. Emily Thornberry: I do not wish to apportion any motives one way or the other to people who want to be involved in the debate; it is best that we have the debate and that the public are encouraged to be involved. The DPP has, in my view, come up with very sensible

1387 [John Pugh]

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1388

a state agency or a private individual, assists them in ending their life. It is not clear whether giving people this right puts anyone under an obligation, but it is clear that anyone acting in a way that enables a person to exercise the right would not be committing a crime if the law was changed, just as there are people in Switzerland who kill and volunteer to kill many people but are clearly distinguishable from murderers. The legality of suicide, as presented in the law, is unqualified, but I think that we would all accept that the right to assist suicide has to be qualified to distinguish it from more heinous behaviour. I do not believe that there is any satisfactory way of doing that in law, and there is no evidence that it has ever been done satisfactorily in practice, because the right to assisted suicide is qualified in different ways in different countriesfor very good reasons, but normally in an unsatisfactory fashion. In my view, there is no way in which we can qualify this right that will make the potential benefits outweigh the potential harm, even if we set aside the wider potential alleged social harms that may come from embodying euthanasia in our society, such as pressure on the elderly and diminishing respect for disabled people and for life itself. Those are very persuasive arguments, but I would like to concentrate specifically on whether we can free assisted suicide, as a proposition, from all taint of harm, however we qualify it. Most people vigorously assert that consent must be a condition, and there are obviously cases in which it would be nonsense to deny that a person does not fully and knowingly consent. However, it is also abundantly clear that free consent is never a sufficient condition to claim the right for assisted suicide, nor to excuse a person who assisted them. Otherwise, we would tolerate assisted suicide in cases of people who enjoyed tolerable health but may have a range of reasons for wishing to be dead, not all of them laudable. Euthanasia on demand is not, I think, a proposition that anybody in this House cares to advance. In fact, we would all agree that it would be a wholly inappropriate response for people who are mentally ill or temporarily depressed. Consent by itself is never a sufficient condition unless it is coupled with something else, which is usually the possibility of suffering or loss of dignity that an individual is unwilling to bear. It is also usually anticipated as being something that occurs in the last stages of terminal disease, but logically it need not be so. One cannot support euthanasia on the grounds that a level of indignity and suffering characterises a short period before death, and not support it if a lifetime of similar indignity and suffering lies ahead. One cannot easily argue for euthanasia for the terminally ill and not, at the same time, for euthanasia for those who are permanently suffering. It is the character and the extent of the suffering and indignity that counts, not where it is placed in someones life cycle. Thus, free consent plus great suffering would, on the face of it, appear to make a minimum case for a civilised version of euthanasia. However, there is a sting in the tail. If we allow euthanasia for those who are either in great pain or unwilling to face the probability of great pain, why should those who are, for whatever reason, incapable of giving consent be denied mercy if they are thought to endure exactly parallel circumstances?

In other words, why privilege those who are compos mentisthose fortunate enough to have their wits about them? Thus, by force of argument, one moves from being unsure about whether consent is a sufficient condition to being unsure about whether it is a necessary condition. 3.23 pm Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op): Let me say at the outset that I am prepared to accept the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), particularly because he indicated that he might be prepared to accept the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I cannot support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), particularly because of the advice from the Minister, which I have received on a previous occasion. I am vice-chairman of the all-party group on dying well, which is chaired by Baroness Ilora Finlay of Llandaff, who is professor of palliative care at Cardiff university and a former president of the Royal Society of Medicine. I am totally opposed to the legalisation of euthanasia, assisted suicide or assisted dyingwhatever one calls it. It is referred to at the moment as assisted dying. I say at the moment because over the past few years full-blown and up-front debates on euthanasia have been held in the House of Lords, led by Lord Joffe. The campaign has changed from being one on euthanasia to one on assisted suicide, and it is now known as assisted dying. The trick, so often, is to soften the language throughout the campaign to gain public support. Therein lies a strategy. I welcome the DPPs revision of his guidelines for prosecuting in cases of assisted suicide. As we know, this follows a lengthy consultation. The new guidelines are focused more on public safety and, to my mind, on the protection of people with disability and serious illness, who are, as the guidelines say, of equal worth and therefore must have equal protection under the law. I highlight the issue of elder abuse within families and remind the House that not all families are loving or empathetic. It hardly needs to be stated that vulnerabilities such as physical dependence or mental health problems are not a reason for assisting suicide. Although there is much to welcome in the guidelines, they leave me with some concerns. The use of judgmental aspects on individual cases is inherently problematic. There needs to be complete transparency over decisions to prosecute or not to prosecute. Without this, we will fail to protect the people who care for those who are dying and leave the person who is dependent and ill in a very vulnerable position. The guidelines make it clear that immunity from prosecution is not guaranteed for assistors of suicide. The danger is that the parts of the guidelines that have been published, plus the spin given in the media by those who support assisted dying, could well lead to people getting involved in illegal acts. Having said all that, there is a general welcome for some aspects of the DPPs guidelines. In the context of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Congleton, I now put the case for the antidote to assisted suicide. I do so by declaring that two of my grandsons live with serious disabilities. They are brothers, and they have a neurological muscle weakness that is controlled by medication. They are both wheelchair

1389

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1390

bound and require one-to-one support at home and in their education. From time to time, they have required life support systems. I do not want them, or any other person living with a disability, to experience pressure in a system whose law suggests that their lives might not be worth living. That important point was made in the Lords debate by Baroness Campbell of Surbiton and others who spoke on behalf of those with disabilities. As I have said, the antidote to assisted suicide is palliative care for people suffering from terminal illness. I include all types of terminal illness in that. In 2006, I introduced a private Members Bill on palliative care for the terminally ill. That is another reason why I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Congleton, of which I am a signatory. Palliative care is about enhancing quality of life and Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. I call Mr Stephen Metcalfe. 3.28 pm Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for inviting me to speak so early in this important debate, which was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway). I never thought that I would speak in a debate in support of some form of assisted suicide. However, I have been on a journey and would like to share a little of it with the House. I have a very good friend called Nicky, whom I have known for 30 years. She is in the Gallery today with her husband, David, whom I have also known for 30 years. During that time, Nicky has developed secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Although at this point it is not terminal, at some point it will be. For many years, Nicky has expressed the view that in the future she will want the right to choose the time and manner of her death. She wants dignity in dying. Nicky and I have disagreed about that issue for many years and have had many heated debates. However, I am a pragmatist. I want to support my friend in her desire to choose the time and manner of her death, but I also want safeguards. I know Nicky and David well. I believe that I know what Nickys wishes are. I know that if she were to take her own life, with the assistance of David, she would be doing so of her own free will. I would be able to vouch for David and say with confidence that his only motivation was compassion, but how can I be assured of that in other cases, perhaps involving people more vulnerable than Nicky? I cannot be assured, and so we have the law. At times, though, the law can be a blunt instrument. They say that justice is blind. On occasions, perhaps the blindfold should be lifted just a little, so that justice can see that the same actions may have different motives. I fully support the development of palliative care provision and I welcome amendment (b). I also recognise that such care, no matter how much we wish, cannot remove all suffering at the end of life. There will always be people, such as Nicky, who may request the assistance of loved ones, such as David, to help them end their lives. That would be an act of compassion, not malice. I therefore welcome the common-sense approach taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions and prosecutors

in distinguishing between wholly compassionate assistance, which is highly unlikely to be prosecuted, and malicious assistance, which will be prosecuted. That policy provides clarity and peace of mind for people who are facing such difficult decisions. It also allows them to focus on living now. My friend Nicky welcomed the DPPs policy when it was published. She described it as a great comfort. She said that it will extend lives
because people will not have to act prematurely, knowing that they can be helped I dont have a death wish, I just want the right to a dignified death, when I wish that to happen.

That is what is so crucial about the policy. It gives people a degree of security in the choices that they can make, and gives them a sense of control over their own lives. It means that they can enjoy the present. As Nicky says, it is not about wanting to die, but about wanting to live with the comfort of knowing that a choice is available. I reiterate that this debate is not about changing the law. It is about providing much-needed clarity on the application of existing legislation. The DPPs policy sensibly distinguishes between malicious and compassionate assistance. However, it is important to note that it does not grant immunity. If there is evidence of malicious or irresponsible practice, it can and should be prosecuted. Finally, as a committed Christian, I believe strongly in the sanctity of human life. I believe that human life is intrinsically valuable. Although I recognise the importance of debates such as this, I have many concerns regarding a wider change in the law. I keep an open mind and do not believe that it is for me to force my beliefs on others. I wholeheartedly appreciate that for many people dealing with a terminal illness, life becomes intolerable. Until we can guarantee that we can achieve the correct balance between allowing personal choice and providing complete protection, I am happy to accept the DPPs guidance, but not further changes to the law. 3.33 pm Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe). I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee on allowing it to take place. I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his excellent speech. I do not think that we have agreed on much over the years in this place, but on this we are of one mind. More importantly, I congratulate the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, on publishing the guidance and the balance of public interest test that the hon. Gentleman covered in his speech. I welcome the debate, and the mood of the House seems clearly supportive of the motion, if not yet of amendment (a), tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), although there is still time to persuade colleagues. Even supporting the motion will demonstrate that we are in tune with public opinion. Just as the hon. Member for Croydon South said that the House caught up with public opinion in 1961 by passing the Suicide Act, it will catch up by agreeing to his motion today, whether or not it approves amendment (a). Amendment (b) will obviously command universal support.

1391 [Jim Fitzpatrick]

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1392

I should put my cards on the table: I support the campaign Dignity in Dying. There is a photograph on its website of a supporters poster, which states:
My life, my choice, at the end of my life,

and end is underlined. The emphasis is on personal choice to end not only suffering and loss of dignity but the deterioration in quality of life when individuals know that the end is near and want to be in control of their own death. I say they, and our decisions here always have an impact on our fellow citizens, but this is also about us. We need to ask ourselves, what if it were our loved one seeking a less harrowing end to their life? Would we welcome the DPPs common sense more or less? Would we want them to have the chance to choose? I believe strongly that it needs to be recognised that there is some pain, some misery and some indignity that cannot be ameliorated or made more bearable by palliative care, and that being reduced to a vegetative state by increasing recourse to continuous sedation is not how some people want to end their lives. They want their own choice, and they do not want loved ones to suffer because of that choice. The DPPs guidelines are helpful in offering both victim and family some protection. Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con): I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says. Does he agree that there are some people who, by virtue of their affliction, illness or disease, do not have the choice of ending their lives because they physically cannot do anything for themselves? Are not those people a very important consideration in this debate? Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. I am sure all Members in the Chamber will have read the briefings by a variety of organisations and testimony from family members who have been worried even about filling in the forms to send their loved ones to Dignitas, if they could afford it. They have been worried about whether that constitutes illegality which could lead to their being prosecuted. The Debbie Purdy case in 2009 helped us get here today. As the hon. Member for Croydon South mentioned, we owe her and her family a great debt. She did not want her husband prosecuted for helping her along the lines that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) has just mentioned, and I do not believe most opponents of assisted dying in any form want loved ones prosecuted for a one-off, compassionately motivated act. I believe and hope that the DPP guidance will bring common sense to bear. I personally believe that we need a change in the law to allow assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults in specific circumstances, so I support amendment (a). Let me personalise the matter. Most colleagues know that I was in the London fire brigade before being elected here. Every firefighter from the 1970s and before, but not after the early 1980s, used asbestos equipment. Asbestos was and is known for its heat-resistant properties, but it has been lethal for many thousands of people. Tens of thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands, in other industries and businesses have also been exposed to it. Asbestosis and mesothelioma cause very unpleasant deaths. They cause an end that is nasty, painful and distressing not only for the victim but for their loved

ones and the medical staff who have to treat them. I have been with colleagues and families who have been through that. The issue, therefore, is this: what kind of end? The DPPs policy provides much-needed clarity and, as many colleagues have said, sensibly distinguishes between malicious and compassionate assistance. It does not give immunity. The public interest criteria safeguard the public interest and provide to some degree that there should be a right to choose. Therefore, I support the motion and amendment (a), as well as amendment (b), because the latter is not at all in conflict. As the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, most people who go into decent palliative care would choose to extend their life for as long as possible, but not everyone. Those who do not want to stay to the bitter end, and who think that they have a better option for a more dignified end, should have the right to choose. 3.40 pm Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con): I did not originally plan to take part in todays debate, but such is the range of emotion and also the quality of some of the contributions that many hon. Members have madein the columns of the press and in debateI felt it important to make a contribution. I am not someone who has ever worked closely with the hospice movement, but I appreciate the work that it puts in. That is why I was heartened to see the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). Palliative care should not just be an option when it comes to the decision to seek assisted dying. Instead, it must be at the heart of how we look after those who are nearing the end of their lives. In Fylde, we have several nursing homes that adopt what they refer to as the golden pathway. Every time I visit I leave feeling distressed, having seen people who are clearly getting to the end of their lives, some of whom do not have the benefit of loved ones to take care of them. However, they receive the highest level of nursing care possible in that environment to ensure that when they do leave this earth, they do so with as much dignity and as little pain as possible. Anyone who knows someone in the harrowing situation of facing terminal illness, whichas we knowcan come in many forms, knows that it is important that such care is available in whatever form we can give it. That should be not just through the work of the hospice movement, excellent as it is, but through care in the community and allowing people, where at all possible, to live in their home and to die with dignity in as pain-free and comfortable a way possible. Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance): I had the privilege of nursing my mother at home with the help of Marie Curie and the Macmillan nurse service. Two weeks before she died, there was still dispute among her medical team as to whether her condition was terminal. Some people have made the point that this only applies at the end of life, but who can determine the end of life? Mark Menzies: The hon. Lady makes a very important point and, when she was nursing her mother and was in a state of distress, the last thing she needed was the pressure and the uncertainty of questions about whether it was the end of life or something else. Every step of

1393

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1394

the way, we have to ensure that the care that is provided is of the highest quality, especially for those people whom we think may be entering the end of life. I commend the hon. Lady on the care that she gave to her mother. I also ask that when we think of palliative care, we also think of the carers. Some people have a relative or loved one in a hospice, for example, and want to visit as often as possible, sometimes more than once a day, but they are trying to juggle family commitments, looking after children or other dependent relatives, and trying to hold down a job. When we consider amendment (b) we should think not only of those reaching end of life, but of those caring for them. We also have to recognise the work that doctors do, and I know that many hon. Members who have been in the medical profession have reservations about anything that looks as though it moves us closer to assisted dying, because they do not want doctors to have the pressure and burden of being the person who instigates the act of bringing someone a step closer to death. Many other right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak and I do not wish to take any more time, other than to say that I am very proud to be a signatory to amendment (b). I will continue to listen to the debate and I may well support amendment (c), but I cannot support the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock). 3.44 pm Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), when she rightly said that the House is at its best today. The view of the House in the public eye over the past 24 hours is one thing, but today the House has risen to its very best when debating an issuea solemn issue and one that touches on the hearts of everyone. We have to start by declaring boldly and clearly that this House is not God. The House does not have the right to determine and should not take upon itself the right to determine what God determineswhen life begins and ends. The House would be foolish to take that role, that desire and that power upon itself. This debate sets on its course the notion that we, this Parliament, can put in place a law that will determine when people in this nation should lose their lives. Think of it! Think of how foolish the House is, in the great scheme of things, when it puts itself in that God-like position! It is not God. The law works well in practice. Those are not my words but the words of the DPP, who has spelt out clearly that the law is compassionate when it has to be compassionate. The guidelines from the DPP demonstrate that the law is independent, as it has to be, and flexible when it has to be flexible. We should recognise that that is the norm and accept that the guidelines do everything they need to do without the House taking it upon itself to unbolt the door and open the floodgates to euthanasia. That, essentially, is what we are trying to do, or at least what some in the House are trying to do. Let us consider what happened across the sea after Holland decided to change its law and encourage euthanasia. We now have reports that it has specialised roving medical teams that take upon themselves the

right to go and help patients end their lives. Since they have done this, they have assisted in more than 3,100 deaths a year. The number is more than 10,000 at present. We are opening a floodgate tonight, and we should draw back from turning the key and opening that gate by supporting something that will allow for this law to be introduced. That is exactly where it would take us. We are told by some Members that change is necessary because it will put the patient in control. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) put her finger on it: we are not actually in control of these circumstances. Indeed, the practice of medicine is well called a practice because it is exactly thata practice, not an art. I want to quote from a letter from Patrick Pullicino, professor of clinical neurosciences at the university of Kent:
The crux of its problem

euthanasia
is that it is not possible, even for an experienced specialist, to diagnose with any accuracy when someones illness is imminently going to be fatal.

We should recognise that we cannot give the patient what they want and put them in control because we do not knowwe, this House, this people are not in control of the circumstances. We should sharpen up and wake up to our own humanity. Many people are right in what they have said about their own personal circumstances. I had the honour of nursing my father-in-law seven months ago, as I watched life ebb from him. I count it an honour to have been there with him and to have watched him die with dignity, but not to have encouraged it. The House should recognise that we are not God and we do not have the right to do this. 3.49 pm Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and to listen to him speak with the same passion with which his father frequently spoke, and from exactly the same place in the Chamber. It is not the Governments job to micro-manage the Director of Public Prosecutions. We make the laws; it is the job of the DPP, and the DPP alone, to decide whether to prosecute. As it stands, the law has a stern face and a kind heart. It tempers justice with mercy. The current system is clear-cut and easy to understand. The law works to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected. The power that the DPP holds in reserve acts as a powerful deterrent against those who would wish to exploit or abuse, while providing him with the ability to moderate justice with mercy. It is interesting to note that at the time of the Purdy ruling, there were 20 recorded cases a year of people travelling abroad to clinics such as Dignitas to take their own lives with assistance. At the time, those seeking to liberate the law predicted and hoped that the number would increase. In fact, two years on, the figure remains 20 a year. It has not increased at all; what has increased is the number of people being reported to the DPP, which clearly shows the level of public concern about this issue. At the moment there is a definite, clear line between where the law begins and where it ends, and it is managed by the DPP. It might not be as clear as some would like, and as amendment (a) would make it. One of my colleagues I think it might have been the Solicitor-General

1395 [Nadine Dorries]

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1396

described the law as one of those wonderful things, a great British muddle, but it works well in the interests of everybody concerned. Over the last three years, two British Parliaments have refused to change the law, for two simple reasons: to protect the vulnerable and to acknowledge the fact that doctors frequently get it wrong: they often make the wrong judgment. In support of that, I cite the case of Stephen Hawking, who was given a few months to live when he was first diagnosed with motor neurone disease, but who has just passed his 70th birthday, having contributed a vast amount to the total knowledge of mankind over his lifetime. Indeed, there may have been periods of illness over the course of his life when he might have been deemed to be nearing the end of his life, but from which he in fact went on to contribute even more. Sentiment is beginning to grow around the concept of a loving family member assisting in the final act of a loved one. However, those at the end of their lives do not always have a relative or a loved one; indeed, the loved one may, in fact, be the state or the care home, or wherever they are being cared for. No matter how we dress it up, there are people across this country in nursing homes being cared fordisabled people, vulnerable peoplewho feel very protected by the law as it stands. If it were changed, they would suddenly feel very vulnerable, because they could imagine a point in time when they are aware of what they cost the NHS, the state or wherever they are being cared for. At the moment they may feel a burden, but they know that they are protected. However, there may come a point when they become depressed because of their illness and feel that one day the state will adopt the role of the person assisting in their suicide. As one disabled lady said to me about three years ago, I can see the day when a doctor comes to me with a little pink cocktail and says, You know youre costing the state about 10,000 a week at the moment? Would you like to end your life? We may think that is ridiculous, but to people who are disabled and vulnerable it does not seem quite so ridiculous. I fully support amendment (b), in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), on palliative care, which is an area that I would have liked to talk about if we had more time. However, I think that the law as it stands and the DPPs role in interpreting it should be left exactly as they are. 3.54 pm Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op): My starting point is that I want our law and our legal practice to be clear but flexible. In his excellent introduction to the debate, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) said that decisions about the law should be made by Parliament and not by the courts, but these decisions are not court decisions. They relate to how to decide whether it is right, necessary or humane to pursue a prosecution according to the circumstances of a particular case. I support the motion, but I regard the amendment as an unfortunate attempt to hijack the debate. It is a Trojan horse attempting to change the law, and I do not want the law to be changed in either direction. There is a certain amount of pull from people on either side who are often, understandably, informed by specific cases,

to reinforce a point of view that comes from that specific case. The fact remains, however, that we cannot avoid the need for people to make a judgment in difficult circumstances. The doctor, the relative, or the person who must decide whether his or her moral responsibility is to assist another or to take a particular course of action, are the only people who can weigh all the facts and come to a judgment, balancing the sanctity of human life with the suffering and the personal wishes of the individual concerned. After the event, another judgment has to be made as to whether the individual involved broke the law, and whether there ought to be a prosecution. There was a case in my constituency of a mother who killed her severely disabled son. The public reporting of that case suggested to me that nothing was gained by the prosecution; it simply served to make even more painful, in public, the period of intense suffering that she experienced over a long period. We cannot legislate against that, but we can offer guidance on how a judgment should be made on whether to prosecute. That is what the Director of Public Prosecutions has done, and in my view he has got it right. This is an issue of judgment, which is absolutely crucial. I shall make a comparison with data protection. People often want a safe haven, which is expressed as If in doubt, dont share data, when in fact there is a legal responsibility to consider the public interest and to balance the pros and cons of sharing specific data. A judgment has to be made in accordance with the law. Indeed, the law requires a judgment to be made. That is why we bring the balance of judgment required into a single judgment by talking about data management, rather than about data protection or data sharing. I hope that that helps to illustrate the fact that, in relation to assisted dying, to say Never prosecute or Always prosecute would be equally wrong. The motion does not seek to change the law, but the amendment would take us further down that road by suggesting that the guidance should be subject to a decision of Parliament. Surely the hidden agenda is that we could disapprove guidance in the future, or even require a change in the guidance by resolution. That would be wrong. I have had letters from people who believe that the guidance is already subject to Parliament, but it is not. Some have implied that passing this motion would make subsequent changes to the guidance subject to Parliament, but that would be wrong. The guidance tells prosecutors how they should seek to make an appropriate judgment within the law, and we should not interfere with that. If we wanted to change the law, that would be a matter for Parliament, but the interpretation of the law is something that we should noteperhaps with approval, as the motion doesbut not seek to determine. Let us leave it there. On both sides of the argument about whether we should go further or be more restrictive, people argue from a point of view of compassion, and I respect the opinions on both sides. Newspapers and hon. Members who are dealing with individual cases argue for compassion for an individual in a particular set of circumstances, but our laws have to be universal and they therefore have to allow room for compassion and for the protection of the vulnerable. That means that the law should not be too specific or inflexible. I believe that the courts have been right in reflecting the decisions of this House

1397

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1398

on what the law should be. I also believe that the Director of Public Prosecutions, in responding to the pressure on him to produce guidance, has got it right within the law. I am happy to support the motion, and to endorse the policy set out by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The present policy appropriately protects those who want to act out of compassion in helping the terminally ill while safeguarding against the dangerous prospect of legalising assisted dying or putting pressure on the ill and the vulnerable. 3.59 pm Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak in this very important debate. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael). We do not always agree, but I agreed with every word that he said on this occasion. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on the tone that he adopted: I thought it just right for the introduction of such an important debate. I should declare an interest. I am a member of the board of Living and Dying Well, an organisation that commissions evidence-based research into end-of-life care. I have regular conversations with Lord Carlile, who chairs it, and with Baroness Finlay, who has already been mentioned today. I too have received several letters from members of Dignity in Dying. I write back disagreeing, but I always do so with a great deal of respect, becauselike other Members who have spokenI think that opinions on both sides of the debate are motivated by compassion, and I do not think it right to be critical of those who take a different view if compassion is what motivates them. I am rather concerned about some of the media coverage that appeared before todays debate, which seemed to suggest that we were contemplating, and perhaps moving towards, a change in the law. That is not the case. All that we are discussing today is a reaffirmation of the current position in law, which is why I am happy to support the motion. I am probably unusual here in having had an interest in assisted suicide for as long as it has been an offence. I was 17 in 1961, and an active member of my young farmers club. As young farmers clubs do, we discussed the issues of the day in debating competitions, and I supported the decriminalisation of suicide. A key point, however, is that that simply would not have happened without the inclusion in the Suicide Act 1961 of section 2, which introduced the offence of assisting a suicide and was seen as an absolute protection allowing the offence of suicide itself to be abolished. My view remains exactly the same today. Over the last few days I have received many representations and briefings, as have many other Members, and over the months during which I have been a member of Living and Dying Well, we have commissioned several research papers. There so much information that it is almost impossible to engage ones mind clearly with all of it, and because the time limit on speeches today is so tight, I shall make just one fundamental point. In 1961, I just knew that assisted suicide was wrong. I thought that it was extremely dangerous, and I still think that. If the DPPs guidance became statutory we

would be legalising assisted suicide, and I believe that that would have a very negative impact on the frail elderly, the terminally ill, the incapacitated and the seriously depressed. I have never believed that the malicious assister is the biggest problem, although that is probably an issue. What has always concerned me is the likelihood that the normalisation of assisted suicide would lead to uncertainty about their own worth among the groups whom I have listed. It would cause them to ask questions about their own value. They would see themselves as becoming a burden on society. When we talk to elderly people who are nearing the end of their lives, we often find that they are concerned about not being able to leave assets to their grandchildren, and I believe that that concern would be expanded greatly if assisted suicide were legalised and normalised. My view is that it was and is wrong, and that only in very special circumstances should it not be prosecuted. Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con): I think that there is a clear distinction between allowing discretion for a prosecution that says It is wrong to assist someone in committing suicide, and potentially widening the number of people who may be put under pressure by codifying assisted suicide in any form in law. Glyn Davies: I firmly believe that assisting in suicide is wrong and should be a criminal offence, but, as with all criminal offences, the DPP or the prosecution service must always have the discretion to apply a degree of common sense and make judgments about what motivated the person concerned to commit that criminal offence. Since the guidelines were issued two years ago, the DPP has made a sensible judgment in every case. Where he has been satisfied that the crime was motivated by compassion, no prosecution has taken place. The system is working well. It is delivering exactly what we want in law; it supports what this Parliament has judged we should have in law. If we were to put things on a statutory basis, we would damage the current law, which is working so well, and it would result in pressure being put on some of the most vulnerable people in society, which would be plain wrong. Finally, I want to say something about palliative care. For decades, all Governments have spent a huge amount of money on extending life and curing disease. We have not spent nearly enough time ensuring that that extended life is a life of quality. 4.6 pm Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab): I wish to sound a note of dissent in this debate. Member after Member has risen to congratulate the House on the quality of the debatethey have said that it shows the House of Commons at its best. I want to put an alternative view. I think there has been a considerable amount of cant and deceit. The only speaker who has spoken honestly about the other debate that has actually been taking place is my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). Given the contributions of many Members, we can say that this has been the debate that dare not enter its name on the Order Paper, as it is, in fact, a debate about euthanasia.

1399 [Mr Frank Field]

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1400

In response to an intervention, the mover of the motion, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), made the extraordinary admission that it was not really the motion he wanted. The motion he wanted was moved as an amendment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock). My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) seconded the motion, yet he hardly mentioned it; instead, he talked about the alternative debate, although not in quite such a forthright fashion as my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse. I wish to make two points, in order to bring the debate back to the topic that the public believe we are discussing. The Attorney-General, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr Garnier), gave us a very gentle lesson in the different approaches to politics. He said that sometimes we can formulate and legislate and put things in neat, tidy little boxes, but the Attorney-General then added that there was another way of approaching politics[Interruption.] Yes, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is, in fact, the Solicitor-Generalbut he should be the Attorney-General. He said another approach was necessary when issues are immensely difficult. We kid ourselves that we have the most brilliant human minds, but it can be difficult to conceptualise situations adequately; hence the compromise of the DPPs approach. I praise him, as many other Members have, for the work he has done in navigating a path through what is, as it were, a minefield. So far, he has done that successfully. The second point I wish to make is that we seem to think this country is populated exclusively by husbands who love their wives, and wives who love their husbands, and grannies, uncles and aunties who all gather around to do the right thing. I sometimes also see a nasty side to life, however. I know perfectly well that in certain circumstances some individuals would have no hesitation in trying to persuade a person that the decent thing to do is to end their lifeand especially where money is involved. Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps missing from the debate is a concern about the rights, needs and feelings of patients, including their right to change their mind if they wish? Mr Field: I certainly agree with all those points. Sadly, we do not live in the garden of Eden; we have been expelled. Perhaps one day we will reach that garden, but so far, we are on the outside. Mrs Laing: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has enlivened the debate, but does he agree that although some people will always do the wrong thingthere will always be such a minorityit is always up to the House and Parliament to create laws that allow the vast majority of people to do what is right? Mr Field: That is precisely the situation that we have, and that situation has been clarified and developed further by the DDP; that is why we are, totally correctly, praising him in this debate. However, to think that the world is populated by people of great charity who think

only of the person on the receiving end is to mislead ourselves, look foolish before our electors, and do vulnerable people harm. I disagree with the second point that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse made; I do not believe that we are autonomous. I find it amazing that those who are clearly on the centre left should have an individualistic view about human life. We are dependent on one another, and one persons actions can affect another person. One might have a slightly different view if there had not been a whole series of reports about the horrors done to old people in hospitals and euphemistically named care homes. We tut, nod the reports through the House, and do damn all about them. We as a nation allow very nasty things to happen to many of our vulnerable constituents, and we do nothing, or very little, to prevent them. Todays debate, if I have understood it, is not really about the motion, or how it was seconded; it is about the amendment that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford, tabled, not because hon. Members wanted to talk about euthanasia, but because they believed that the amendment would be seen as a staging post on the way to gaining that objective. Although we are now confused about what we are supposed to be debating and what we are voting on, I hope that the House will agree with what the outside world thinks the debate is about, and what I read the motion on the Order Paper as being about. Dame Joan Ruddock: I must make it absolutely clear to my right hon. Friend and the House that the amendment only asks the Government to consult on putting the guidance into statute. If it was in statute, the DPP would still have discretion, and assisting suicide would still be a crime. Mr Field: Nobody in this debate has said, in concrete terms, how making that move would better protect more vulnerable people. As that case has never been made in this debate, I hope that when we vote tonight, we will vote for what we thought was the main motion, and vote strongly for the amendment in the name of my very honourable Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and many other Members of the House. 4.14 pm Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con): Some excellent points have been made on both sides of the argument, but no one has mentioned the effect on the person who is asked to assist. I wonder how many Members have been asked to take, or assist in taking, someones life. I am not talking about taking a life in the way that some Members have been trained to in the armed forces; nor am I talking about watching someone close who is in a terminal plight, and wishing that one could change places with them. I am talking about being asked by a loved one to help them take their life, or a loved one insisting that one takes their life for them. We have all seen loved ones in their final stages of life, and when we see a young person or a child in that situation there is not one of us who would not swap places, but physically to take someones life or be a party to taking someones life is a totally different thing.

1401

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1402

Almost 28 years ago to the day, my family were asked to do just that. My youngest brother, who was just 17 and suffering from terminal cancer, asked all of us, as a family, to help him take his own life. My family are Christians and we struggled with the morality of what was being asked. As I said, not one of us would not have swapped places with him, but we were just a normal, ordinary family; we had no medical experience and we all have a strong belief in life and the reasons for life itself. My brother passed away on 20 April 1984, incredibly loved and incredibly comfortable, having received excellent palliative and hospice care. Here we are, 28 years later, and the guilt, under whatever guise, still eats away at us. My father, who passed away only five years ago, spoke to me briefly about it just before he died. He felt guilty that he could not bring himself to give to his dying son what he had asked him to do. The guilt of his perceived failure ate away at my dad until his dying day. There is, however, another side to this story, which is incredibly important for why we need to consider seriously what we are doing. What I have described took place in early 1980s Australia, where there was not an NHS equivalent. My father had been made redundant 18 months prior, and, being an incredibly proud mansome would say stubbornhe would not take state benefits. My brother had gone from being covered medically at school to being uncovered at 16. No insurance company would take him on because of his illness. My parents were thousands of dollars in debt, and our family home was on the market in order to pay the medical bills. My brothers treatment was more than 100 miles away, in Sydney, because there was no other provision close by, and we did not get any help with travel. Thankfully, the situation in Australia today is very different from what it used to be. I am absolutely convinced that the only reason why my brother asked us to help him take his life was because he perceived that he was a burden to his family there was no other reason. I say that there was no other reason because, although this was a very long time ago, the level of palliative care offered by our local Catholic nurses was excellent. Nowadays we have so much more modern technology and drugs that there is absolutely no need for people to suffer, whatever their condition, prior to death. Thankfully, we could not do what my brother asked. I ask this House not to put the guidance on a statutory basis. Our doctors, nurses and health professionals work daily to save lives. This House prays on a daily basis for wisdom and the life of our great nation. If we do change the guidance, that will without question be yet another slippery slope for society in a civilisation where we cherish life. There is no need to change the legislation; what we need is much higher investment in palliative care and hospice provision. 4.18 pm Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab): This is not an easy contribution for me to make, and I have thought long and hard about it. My father took his life last July and my emotions are still a bit raw. I was deeply shocked at the time, although I should not have been surprised, as he had always said that he would rather end it than face a distressing and lingering death. He was 87 and he had lived his life to the full, right to the

end, but he had watched many of his friends go. He regularly talked about one who had been confined to bed, doubly incontinent and, having become both deaf and blind, unable to communicate with anybody. My father saw no point to that kind of life. My father was a strong man who had had a tough east-end childhood. He was an RAF pilot in the second world war. He had his share of health problems and faced them all positively. He was not afraid of pain but he could not face the indignity of that lingering degrading death. I am sure that he made up his mind soon after receiving a terminal diagnosis of lung cancer but he still died prematurely. I am sure that what drove him to end his life when he did was the fear that if he did not act while he could he would lose the opportunity to act at all. If the law had made it possible, he could, and I am sure he would, have shared his plans. He would have been able to say goodbye and to die with his family around him and not alone in a carbon monoxide-filled garage. He and many more like him deserved better. I was in two minds about whether to share this experience, and what made up my mind was the attitude of my fathers friends, who had clearly thought about their own future and had nothing but respect for his decision. One contacted me only yesterday and asked me to share his experience of his daughters death. She was a young woman with everything to look forward to who was diagnosed with an aggressive cancer in her mid-20s. She fought it in every way she could, with everything to look forward to and undergoing all the treatments available, but ultimately they all failed. He said that even when there was no hope left for her and the hospital had withdrawn her food, they had to watch her die the most horrendous, slow death over several weeks from graft-versus-host disease, a consequence of a failed bone marrow transplant. They were deeply scarred by that experience, and still when they think of her that memory overshadows all the happy times. They thought it would have been so much kinder to have brought her life to an end as she would have wanted at an earlier point when everybody recognised that all treatments had failed and there was no hope. I welcome the DPPs guidance but I think that ultimately we will need to go further. Of course there must be safeguards and constructing them robustly will be difficult, but the challenge of the task should not put us off the need to do it. This issue will not go away. As medical technology advances, more and more people will face these decisions and more will be pressing at the boundaries of the law. I think this is a question not of whether we should go further and legalise assisted dying but of when. The longer it takes us to act the more needless suffering we will have consented to. 4.22 pm Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) spoke with great emotion. Like his father, my mother died at the age of 87; it is very difficult for us to speak about these very personal matters. I know that my mother, like many elderly people, wrongly felt that she was a burden. Of course she was never a burden, but I think that many people feel like that; there might be absolutely no pressure on them, but they feel that they would make it easier for everybody if they were to ease their path out of life. We must never allow old people in this country to feel that they are a burden. That is where I come from.

1403

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1404

[Mr Edward Leigh] My views have progressed on this matter over the time I have been in Parliament. I freely confess that when I first came here I believed that the state had the right to take life and I voted, like many of my colleagues, in 1983 to restore capital punishment. I now think I was wrong and I have come to the conclusion that the only logical and right course of action is always to proclaim life. As it happens, at the moment I am reading a history of Stalins Russia, and one cannot understand the attitude of a society in which life is held so cheaply. I know that we are a million miles from that but in my view the end never justifies the means. That is why I personally voted against all the recent warsor certainly did not vote for them. I believe that life must come first and that we must proclaim life. That does not come from my religious views; it is a matter of absolute certainty and belief and is incredibly important for society if we are to create a society of light and hope and not one in which people ultimately feel they are a burden. That is why I have consistently voted, opposed, spoken against and moved amendments on abortion and I would vote against capital punishment. I am totally opposed to euthanasia in any shape or form. Some people will say, Thats all very well for you. At the moment you are reasonably healthy. What if you are faced with the appalling difficulties and problems that we have been talking about today?, and my answer is that I do not know. All I know is that we must proclaim this truth, and the House of Commons should proclaim itthat anybody, however young, unborn, crippled, hopeless, diseased or idiotic, has as much right to life as anybody else, and all life is precious because the external human body is simply a mirror of the soul. If we renege on that moral certainty and if we start on a journey, it is a very dangerous journey indeed. Mr Winnick: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Every life is of value and the idea that because someone may be disabled or elderly and so on their life is less valuable than other peoples is totally alien to me, as it is to him. But I gave as an example Dr Anne Turner, who was so terrified of facing a death like her husbands, where all physical movement would have ended. Does he recognise that she had the right to decide, and she took that right, though she could not do so in Britain? Mr Leigh: I recognise that point of view and that is why, although I have expressed myself so far, some would say, with too much moral certainty, I realise that we are in a moral maze here. It is not for us to lecture people on what they may or may not do at the end. That is why the guidelines are a fair compromise. I do not think anybody wants to prosecute and send to jail somebody who acts out of the depth of love and compassion when they are faced with a close relative who is suffering. Nobody wants such a person to be sent to prison if they assist their loved one out of this life. We have a compromise, but it is not legalised euthanasia. I tabled an amendment, which was not selected. Why should it have been? I wanted to express the point of view that the House of Commons must firmly and unequivocally state, as it has done up to now, that for

the absolute avoidance of doubt, it is opposed to voluntary euthanasia. There is a world of difference between the desperate situation in which a relative helps somebody out of this world, and a situation where a doctor, as part of the legal process, kills somebody. That is what so many of us on this side of the argument believe so passionately. It might be a clich to talk in terms of slippery slopes, but it is there in Holland and in Oregonin only about six jurisdictions throughout the world. We do not want this country to embark on this road. I was with my best friend, a former Member of this House, Piers Merchant, as he lay dying. He was riddled with cancer, in great pain, and I with him as he was dying. He was filled with morphine. I could see the morphine going through his body all the time. He was no doubt killed by the morphine, not by the cancer, and I respected that judgment. He was in a wonderful, caring hospice. Everybody was looking after him and everybody was loving him. At the end of the day his doctors, I suppose, killed him because the pain would have been unendurable, but that is not legalised euthanasia. That is allowing doctors to take an informed decision on the basis of what they know to be right. Naomi Long: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a subtle but important distinction between treatment that is administered by a doctor in order to ease pain which, as a side effect, may hasten death, and a doctor setting out to hasten death? Mr Leigh: That is the point that I am trying to make, and that is the absolute principle that I hope this debate will proclaim. We want the law to recognise the appalling moral difficulties that people face. None of us in the Chamber speaking in this debate has yet embarked on that journey. We all will. That is the only thing we know with absolute certainty. There will come a moment when we are dying, in pain, and those around us have to make appallingly difficult decisions. I want to live in a country where there is a moral assumption that although, at the end of the day, my passage into the next world might have to be eased, and the easing might be the killing of me, that decision will be taken in the final analysis by doctors who are simply trying to relieve pain, who have recognised that I am dying and who do not accept the principle that the state, the law, doctors or even relations have a right to come to an individual and say before their time is up, Yes, you are a burden on society. Yes, you must go. That is a moral principle, that is what the debate is about, and that is what we must abide by. 4.30 pm Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab): I pay tribute to the brave and outstanding speech given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). Assisted suicide, terminal illness and human suffering are not easy to talk about. Many of us would rather not think about them, hoping that when the time comes for us and our loved ones we will pass away swiftly, peacefully and painlessly. But the harsh reality of life teaches us that that cannot always be the case. I believe that, on balance, assisted dying should be legalised in this country. Before I say why, I want to deal with the specifics of the motion.

1405

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1406

The motion is not about changing the law; it is about welcoming the policy produced by the Director of Public Prosecutions on how the law is applied in cases where suicide has been assisted or encouraged. The policy performs an exceptional balancing act. It is written in clear, accessible language; a document that is as much for the public as it is for CPS lawyers. Assisting someone to die is a criminal offence. I do not believe that our law should remain that way, but the DPPs guidelines provide some clarity and comfort to people who are faced with a loved one asking for their help to end pain and suffering. The guidelines are not perfect, but on the whole they are to be welcomed. Our law ultimately needs to change. I say this because people should have a choice: a choice that would enable them to end their lives in a dignified way, if that is possible and if that is their wish; and a choice that does not put their family or friends at risk of prosecution. About 10 years ago, I remember watching the TV with my mum, and her turning to me and saying, Heidi, if I ever reach the stage in my life where I am suffering like that, I would want you to take me to Switzerland. It made me feel uncomfortable. My mum is as fit and healthy as the next person, thankfully, but there she was talking about the end of her life, and saying, by implication, that she would want me to break the law. The DPPs guidelines have improved matters since then, but we cannot get away from the fact that someone who helps another to die, even if it is purely out of love and compassion, is committing a criminal offence. My mum does not usually express opinions on the laws of our land, and she certainly does not spend much time talking about them, but I am not surprised that she has a view on this. It is one of the most intensely human questions that anyone can ask, and it is one that Parliament should attempt to answernot the DPP, but elected representatives. Parliament has a duty to discuss these issues in a mature, rational way. We know from opinion poll after opinion poll that 80% of the population support assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults. It is not good enough for Parliament to stick its head in the sand and think that the issue will go away; it will not. It cannot be right that in our country some people are left with little option but to attempt suicide alone in order to protect their loved ones. It cannot be right that someones dignity and the love and presence of family and friends can be stripped away from them at the very time when they need them most. Some will argue that world-class palliative care is the answer. It will be for many, but it will not be for everyone. I just want people to have that choice. This morning, I met Neil McClelland, the brother of Geraldine McClelland, who died at Dignitas last December. Geraldines last wish was for people to talk about her death, and I want to give her the last word today. In an open letter, she wrote:
I am not sad that I will die today. I am angry that because of the cowardice of our politicians I cant die in the country I was born in, in my own homeIf you feel anything at all when you read this letter then please turn it into a fight to change the law so that other people dont have to travel abroad to die, and that those who are unable to because they cant travel, or cant afford the fees dont have to attempt suicide at home or continue to suffer against their will.

She went on to say:

I appreciate that it is a difficult subject, but when dying cannot be avoided, let us be compassionate enough and tolerant enough to respect choice.

I could not say it any better. 4.35 pm Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): I welcome the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway). I respect what the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) said, but I will not plead guilty to cowardice here today and do not believe that hon. Members are putting their heads in the sand. If one looks, one sees that there has been parliamentary scrutiny. There was an extensive Select Committee inquiry and there have been debates in both Houses. Indeed, as recently as January there was a debate on care for the dying, in which more than 20 hon. Members took part and spoke up for clarity on improving palliative care as the best way of improving care for the dying. There are probably more than 40 hon. Members present today who I am sure would want to coalesce around and speak up for a similar message, which is supplemented by the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). That message on respect for life is shown properly in the fine words of Jean Rostand, the French biologist, which I hope will resound across the Chamber. He said:
For my part I believe that there is no life so degraded, debased, deteriorated, or impoverished that it does not deserve respect and is not worth defending with zeal and conviction.

Certainly, I believe that a whole days debate today shows that there is a respect for and a defence of those lives that are difficult, complex, costly and seemingly burdensome, but which are worthy of as good a life, and indeed death, as possible. The debate, and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, provide the opportunity to support good-quality palliative care and the hospice movement, which many Members have spoken about. Indeed, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General spoke about the value the Government place on that, which is shown in the eight pilots that will support quality palliative care, and I see that many Members are wearing the daffodil to support Marie Curies matched funding of 2.5 million to help ensure that more people in the UK can access high-quality palliative and end-of-life care. Todays debate is specifically about the DPPs policy. It is among a number of policies that range across criminal law, from domestic violence to bad driving. Some might find it curious, perhaps even a touch mischievous, that Parliament is concentrating on this policy. It is important, with regard to public interest, that we confirm our support for the principle that is the foundation of the DPP policy: the law must give equal protection to all, irrespective of their state of health. The policy, and therefore todays debate, is not primarily about whether terminally or otherwise seriously ill people should be able to access legalised assistance with suicide. Crucially, the state of health of a victim of an assisted suicide is not a factor that tends either to prosecution or not in the DPP guidelines.

1407

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1408

[Mr David Burrowes] Like many Members, I welcome the DPPs policy, which is firm, fair and compassionate, and which was subject to extensive consultation and revision. Parliament should respect that process and the independence of the DPP in formulating policy. That crucial guidance showed that there is no distinction between assistance with a suicide given to a terminally ill person and assistance given to a healthy person; that medical assistance should be included as an aggravating factor; and that hospices are right to say that actions by a care professional are treated differently from actions by a friend or family member. I am cautious about Parliament delving into the DPPs policy and trespassing on his territory, and certainly about any moves to place it on a statutory footing, which should be vigorously opposed by the House. The House of Commons Library has confirmed for me that no other DPP policy has been put on a statutory footing. Indeed, no other has been sought. We must ask ourselves why that is, and other hon. Friends have spoken about other motives. We should not put such guidance on a statutory footing for three reasons that have applied historically but still apply today. First, Parliament needs to ensure that it does not fetter any future DPPs discretion to amend the code for prosecutors. Secondly, Parliament needs to protect the independence of the prosecutor, which should not be dictated by Parliament. Thirdly, Parliament needs to protect the constitutional position of the Attorney-General, who is answerable to Parliament in relation to prosecution policy whereas the DPPs discretion to prosecute certain offences is not primarily a matter for Parliament. Although it might be a matter for debate, it certainly should not be dictated to. Today we can properly uphold the law as it stands and in no way see from the front door, or indeed from the side or back doors, any change to it and stand up for respecting life and improving palliative care. 4.40 pm John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who I think led the Adjournment debate in January, about which he told the House, and spoke very clearly this afternoon. I pay tribute to the Backbench Business Committee, because as far as I can see, notwithstanding the hon. Gentlemans debate, this is the first substantive debate that we have had in the House, probably since the Suicide Act was passed in 1961. We are asked to welcome the DPPs policy for prosecutors on assisted suicide, and I do. I also strongly support the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), which stresses the importance of better palliative and hospice care, and we need to look at and go further with the law in this country, but the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) is, in my view, not necessary and not sufficient. We are blessed in Rotherham with a superb hospice, 15 beds, day places and a community hospice team. The hospice is supported by a dedicated team of staff, by more than 330 volunteers and by residents throughout

Rotherham, who raise more than 2 million a year to support its work, but no care, however good, can entirely relieve suffering at the end of life, and some will choose to hasten their own end and will require and request assistance in doing so from those closest to them. That is the subject of todays debate, and of the DPPs policy, which clarifies and does not change how the law is applied. Before the policy, we did not know how the DPP used his discretion on whether to prosecute under the 1961 Act, but we do now, and I hope that this House will strongly endorse that policy, because it is compassionate and reasoned. Thinking about this debate, I remembered Debbie Purdy, to whom tributes have been paid, and that it was the power of her personal arguments, as much as her legal arguments, that had such force. At the time, she said:
I was preparing to lose and was in the middle of organising to go to Dignitas. Winning was like being given permission to be alive I was reliant on somebody loving me enough to risk his liberty in order to support my choices. Now, I know I am not dependent on that.

She reminds us that this issue is as much about living as dying, as much about independence as dependence and as much about the family as the person facing the decision on their own death. But above all it is about control over what is perhaps the ultimate act and decision, to end ones own life, taken by people who are mentally competent to decide but physically incapable of acting to do so without assistance. My concern, despite the policy, is that we are left in this country in a legal no-mans land. For those looking to travel abroad to die, we have a policy of non-prosecution for compassionate assistance but a law that still makes it a criminal offence, and that law, in circumstances in which it exists but is not enforced, is flawed. In circumstances in which someone does not have the means to travel abroad to die, we are not just in no-mans land legally; we have a clinical and ethical fudge. Doctors do hasten the end of some patients lives in some circumstances, and they get around the prohibition on doing so through continuous sedatives, excessive sedatives, dehydration and starvation. Discussion on that treatment and care is often clouded in ambiguity, is disguised by the Doctor knows best attitude, is not open, is not honest and is not properly recorded. We deprive those who need such assistance of being able to obtain it in this country; we deprive ourselves of the propersufficiently strongsafeguards against it being misused; and above all, because of the situation we are in, we deprive too many people of control and dignity in dying, and it is high time we changed that. 4.45 pm Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD): I would welcome a debate about a change in the law on assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults. However, todays motion is about the application of the existing law on assisted suicide, and I was pleased to add my name to it. I fully support the ongoing development of outstanding palliative care provision, and I welcome amendment (b) in that regard. I praise the great work of Zoes Place childrens hospice and Teesside hospice in my constituency. I am glad that the Government are taking more of a

1409

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1410

lead in providing top-quality palliative care and not having to rely so heavily on bands of local enthusiasts to raise the enormous sums of money that they do. I recognise that, no matter how much we wish it to, such care cannot remove all suffering at the end of life, and some people may request assistance from loved ones to help them to end their lives. The danger and controversy of such a debate is that its purpose can be misinterpreted. It goes without saying that those who cruelly or recklessly encourage suicide should be prosecuted. Of course, that also includes all those who cause the death of another by their own hand. This does, however, leave sad cases such as that of Tony Nicklinson with no satisfactory resolution; he is not physically capable of committing suicide. I do not believe that it is in the public interest to prosecute a usually law-abiding citizen who helps a loved one to die on compassionate grounds. As other speakers have said, there will also be many health care professionals who have an occasional sleepless night after a wholly illegal act of deep compassion. I hope that the motion will be supported, as it will give parliamentary endorsement to a flexible and compassionate approach to prosecution. While the policy is welcome, it is not perfect. Only 38% of GPs feel that there is enough guidance for doctors on what to do if a patient asks for help to die. The uncertainty about how the policy applies to doctors could affect their willingness to engage in discussions about the desire of patients to end their life. Since 2002, 182 British citizens have ended their lives at the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland. We cannot bury our heads and pretend that this is not happening. We should have a law applied in this country that encourages open, transparent, frank and safe conversations about a decision that should never be taken lightly but never taken in the dark. Let us also remember that only the wealthier can afford to go to Switzerland and pay the fees and other costs, and if they wish to die surrounded by loved ones it is even more expensive. The law as currently drafted works as well as it can, but it does not provide a safeguarded means of assisted dying. We must ask whether people are truly protected by a law that investigates the motivation for someones request, and that of their assistant, after the person is dead, and whether it is right that people have to travel to an anonymous suburb of Zurich to receive medical assistance in dying. We should be examining what would happen legally if a Dignitas-style clinic were set up in this country. Let us remember that the need to be well enough to travel all that way might, in itself, influence people to make the decision earlier. The policy has not prompted a rise in the number of British people who are being assisted to die overseas. It has led to greater openness, with more people who have assisted a suicide now choosing to self-report to the police. It should be welcomed for setting out the common-sense taken by the DPP and prosecutors in distinguishing between wholly compassionate assistance, which is unlikely to be prosecuted, and malicious assistance, which will rightly be prosecuted. I also support amendment (a), as it cannot be right that otherwise innocent people must, prima facie, break the law and then wait to see whether they will be prosecuted. Nor can it be right that we are relying on the DPP to interpret a law to this extent instead of having

the interpretation fixed here, in the legislature of this country. I believe that only by Parliament giving clarity will health care professionals, the courts and the public know for sure how to deal with each case. It should not be only the rich who can buy dignity in death; everyone should have that basic right. In the words of the 1972 play on this subject, Whose Life is it Anyway? 4.49 pm Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): I will devote my time to reading a message that I received from a constituent who was unknown to me until he wrote. I will not mention his name, but he might well decide to identify himself. The most powerful speech that I have heard today was the courageous speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who talked about his personal experience. My constituent has asked me to pass on his experience, because he wants to challenge this House. He is of a great age and regards the policy that he lives under, and his understanding of it, to be the responsibility of a younger generation. He asks many questions. He asks whether we have the experience, as he does. My constituent states: I have had to watch my dear wife, very old, very much in pain, very weak and desperately wanting peace, but she continued to suffer because I couldnt do the one thing she really wanted. I was helpless to assist her to die. Her words were, I dont want to leave you, my love, but Im very tired and I want to go now. I know you understand. Please help me to die. Every day of her life she said prayers for other people, but when she pleaded, Please God, take me now; for once in that long life, she prayed for herself, but there was no one to answer. Such a simple, humanitarian act is just not permitted, so I watched my dear wife starve herself to death for three weeksthe only way she could help herself to die. I watched a lovely lady struggle without food until she grew so weak that she was unable to lift her arms, to even squeeze my fingers. She had strangers to change her, but she grew to the state where the shame and the humiliation were no longer an embarrassment. But she remembered the humiliation of those last weeks. I held her close in the days when I could no longer understand her mumbled words. I could only reply, hoping she would hear when I said, I love you darling. I understand. I hope she knew that I was there with her. I held her when her eyes no longer opened, when she could no longer see. I knew she could hear my words when a tear dropped from the corner of her eye. I held her until she had no touch, no sight, possibly no hearing, but I still said, I know darling. I love you. I understand. I watched her beautiful face become a skeleton. I held her when this poor love finally died. I hope she knew that I was there, but I doubt it. And now for the rest of my life, I will remember the poor wracked body and the once so beautiful face, which became a hollow mass. My constituent rightly says that there is a gulf of misunderstanding between his experience and the law, between his sufferingthe way that his memories of his beloved wife have been poisoned by her final daysand our understanding of what is required. We have to recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central said, that we all fear the possibility of a loss of control and autonomy in our final days. We would want some say over the manner of our dying and, in some circumstances, over the time of our dying.

1411 [Paul Flynn]

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1412

I believe that we should finally follow the path that has been taken in Oregon, which is very popular and thoroughly accepted, and in the Netherlands. That is the way ahead. We have failed to tackle this problem. The word cowardice has been used. That is a strong word, but there is truth in it. Some 80% of people in this country want us to change things. It is up to us, as their representatives, to bring in reforms that will give people the peace of mind that they can die with dignity. 4.54 pm Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): I rise to contribute to this very important debate. First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) for bringing the issue before the House, and to others who have tabled amendments allowing us to have a wide-ranging discussion. I say at the outset that I am not in favour of assisted suicide. The reason is a strong personal belief in the sanctity of life, which includes not allowing one person to help another take their own life. I appreciate, however, that these are difficult issues, and that decisions are taken by people who are in terrible positions as they watch, and have to live with, the suffering of someone they love. It is hard to put ourselves in that position and know for sure what we would do, whatever our position on the sanctity of life. With that in mind, I understand the motion and amendment (b), not because I welcome such guidance on prosecution but because I believe there are a very few exceptional cases in which we must show compassion, so I unhappily accept that it may be necessary. The alternatives would be prosecution in every case in which there is enough evidence, or seemingly arbitrary decisions by the DPP, neither of which would deliver justice. My fear is that when exceptions are made to laws, people find ways to exploit those exceptions and commit acts that are intended to be unlawful. A timely example is the recent revelations about practices in abortion clinics, which seemingly ignore the safeguards in the Abortion Act 1967 to prevent abortion on demand. That is akin to changing the law by the back door. We must ensure that in anything we do in this House we protect the vulnerable from those who would abuse any change in the law on assisted suicide. I believe that, for the time being, the very difficult and rare cases in question should first be judged on an individual basis by the DPP. The numbers indicate that they are so few that that would not be difficultonly 18 cases of assisted suicide have been in court in the past 10 years. I have grave misgivings about assisted suicide in any circumstances, but I believe that we must show our support for the wider availability of, and developments in, specialist palliative care. I want to pay a short tribute to the Earl Mountbatten hospice on the Isle of Wight. Like hospices up and down the country, it does an amazing job. Comfort, composure and compassion should be the default setting for those who are dying and those who wish to die, and expert palliative care can help to achieve that in the majority of cases. I want to thank all my constituents who contacted me, on both sides of the argument, before the debate. They have given me much food for thought. I originally

intended to vote against the motion in its entirety, but the wise words of my constituents and my own experience of watching a close friend die last year have taught me that things are not always black and white, however much we wish they were. No Government could spend enough money in this area, and it is likely that none ever will, but we must do the best we can for those who are dying and those who love them. I believe that to consider the option of assisted suicide is morally wrong. I believe that the law is the law, and that people break it with an understanding that prosecution may follow. However, unless every case is to be prosecuted whatever the circumstances, there have to be some guidelines. I apologise to those of my constituents who feel that I have let them down. 4.59 pm Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and congratulate her on bringing it to the House for consideration today. The topic is a very emotive one and I will not pretend that it is ever an easy situation for people to live through, but I was taught that not every right decision is an easy decision. We have to make right decisions sometimes that are not easy ones. Today we are tasked to take a moral stand for people who are very ill and in more pain than many of us can even begin to imagine. We in this House are commissioned to look at the bigger picture. The law is far more than an enabler of prosecutions and convictions. It is also a symbolic system and an indication that we are protecting people. That is what we will be doing here today, legislatively in this House. The BMA has said:
Doctors have a duty to try to provide patients with as peaceful and dignified a death as possible but the BMA considers it contrary to a doctors role to hasten death deliberately or assist in a suicide, even at the patients request.

The first precept in the physician code is First, do no harm. This should also be the first section in the parliamentarian handbook. The Hippocratic oath includes the affirmation,
I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest such counsel.

That is crystal clear. I read an interesting article by a doctor recently. He wrote that
a woman in her 40s with advanced multiple sclerosis, no longer able to speak, and completely dependent on family and carers for all her activities of daily living was regularly admitted to hospital with chest infections, and on this occasion had been admitted with pneumonia that was not responding to antibiotics. Her husband said she would never have wanted to be like this. The palliative care team were called to provide specialist care and advice for what was likely to be the last days of Alices life. Against all odds, Alice pulled through and left hospital.

Her husband met the doctor afterwards and said that the involvement of the palliative care team meant that she and her family had received specialist care and support in the community. The doctor continued:
This goes to the heart of the debate about assisted suicide. I have sometimes wanted to have done things a little differently, to help my patients with the benefit of hindsight. With assisted suicide, death is final. No changing of decisionsand the potential for a lifetime of guilt and regret.

I do not believe that anyone could be so callous as to judge those who come to the end of their tether and

1413

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1414

cannot bear to suffer or see their loved ones suffer, but by the same token it is my belief that the state cannot interfere and decide when and if it is okay to end someones life. Naomi Long: Several hon. Members have talked about the difficult decisions that people may face and the fact that if they choose to end their life, they should be enabled to do so. Is the difficulty not that if we accept that premise we must go on to the people who do not have family support to make that decision, so it ends up being the doctors and nursesthe people who are relied on for carewho have to make that intervention? Surely that is a step too far for even the most compassionate. Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Lady for her wise words, with which I fully agree. When I was at school, history was one of my favourite subjects. The history of pre-war and wartime Germany shows a clear policywhen people were old and infirm, they just got rid of them. I am not saying for one second that that would ever happen here, but when legal abortion was introducedas the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) saidit was never thought that 189,574 abortions would be carried out in one year, 2010, in England and Wales. That is a fact. Things escalate as time progresses and my greatest fear is that people would begin to think that rather than cause their family pain, they should end their own life or have someone do that when there could still be hope of recovery or a good quality of life. My brother was a motorbike man, and he raced bikes. He came off and was seriously injured. He was in a coma for 19 weeks and a machine kept him alive. The prayers of Gods people, the skills of the surgeon and the palliative care given kept him alive. He does not have full capacity, he cannot ride a bikewhich he would love to dodrive a car or work, but he is at home and can interact with his family. Macmillan, Marie Curie and Northern Ireland Hospice were all very active in delivering palliative care for my brotherand do so for others as well. I have been contacted by Care Not Killing and read through much of its information which struck a chord with me. The European Association for Palliative Care has affirmed that assisted suicide is extremely rare when patients physical, social, psychological and spiritual needs are properly met. It says that the vast majority of people dying in the UK, even from diseases such as motor neurone disease, do not want assisted dying. The 1,000 MND patients who die annually in the UK do so, in the main, comfortably and with good palliative care. A good friend of mine is dying. I have known him for many years, and I am well aware of the palliative care that he is getting. Our key priority should be to build on the excellent tradition of palliative care in this country and to make the best-quality palliative care more readily accessible. Given the choice, most people would prefer to die at home. By 2020, over-50s will comprise half the adult population, so it is essential that we rethink current service provision and end-of-life care to ensure that it can meet the demands of an ageing population. In 1994, the last House of Lords Select Committee to report on euthanasia unanimously recommended no change at all. Its chairman later said that
any liberalisation of the law in the United Kingdom could not be abused. We were also concerned that vulnerable people - the

elderly, lonely, sick or distressed - would feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death.

It has been said that hard cases make bad laws, and no law allowing assisted dying could ever be controlled. I fully agree with that and urge the House to support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Congleton. I understand the emotions around the subject, but I cannot support the introduction of a law that will continually evolve and could leave our elderly and infirm working out the sums to see if the cost of the care justifies the continuance of their life. Some may say that will never happen. I say we have to keep the legislation as it is to ensure that it never does. 5.5 pm Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con): The House has certainly been at its best today, with some remarkable speeches being made. I enjoyed the contributions by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and the Solicitor-General. I found their speeches and arguments compelling. I also enjoyed the speech by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who decided to take the gloves off. The subjects of death and dying are taboo in the House and for most people. We tend to shy away from mentioning them. Like many of us, I have been to far more funerals than I care to remember, and I have visited too many sick and dying loved ones. I am not seen as a Mother Teresa figure in Southend. I am told that when I go visiting the sick at Southend hospital, the call goes up along the wards, Look out, Amess is about. Pretend youre dead. Many past Members have now died. Lord Newton died yesterday, and Lord St John of Fawsley died last week. Also, tragically, a number of our colleagues have committed suicide since I have been here. One only wishes that one had said something to try and talk them out of their decision. As has been said, however, it is right that Parliament talks about this subject and that we take a view on it. I am content with the DPP guidance as it stands, and I agree with Keir Starmer, who has said that we have a law with a stern face but an understanding heart. That says it all as far as I am concerned. I acknowledge the DPPs report setting out the guidance. Since it was produced in 2010, I understand that 31 cases have been referred to the DPP but there have been no prosecutions. In every sense, it has worked very well indeed. It is interesting that the debate has been centred on that report as opposed to the findings of the Falconer commission, which was badly flawed because every one of its members had a particular view. That seemed unfortunate to me. Let us be clear that this issue impacts on the most vulnerable people in society who, despite their undoubted dignity and bravery, are in most need of our help. That is why the law is there to protect them, and in its current format, that is what it does. However, any changes would undoubtedly put the vulnerable at risk. Any proposed safeguards against abuse of assisted suicide would not work and would be a dangerous path to travel on. Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con): Not only does the law protect the vulnerable who might be dying or at the end of their lives, it also protects their loved ones, who

1415 [Mrs Anne Main]

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1416

may feel pressured into helping them do something that they are deeply unhappy about. There is therefore a double protection in the law as it stands. Mr Amess: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who I know cared for her husband, and therefore has a real feel for this issue, which she might have time to share with the House. When I was the Member for Basildon, we did not have a hospicewe had very little money, because we are true working-class people in Basildon. We built a hospice from nothingI laid the foundation stoneand Princess Diana and the Duchess of Norfolk came along to open it. Today, the demand for that hospice is greater than ever. I now represent Southend West, which is a little more well-heeled. We already have a successfully financed hospice, Fair Havens, and we also have Little Havens, which supports a wide area of Essex. The life of Dame Cicely Saunders should be an inspiration to every one of us, because as she made clear, people do not go to a hospice to die; they go to a hospice to live. I agree with every hon. Member who says that we as a House should do everything we can to support the hospice movement and ensure that everyone who needs access to that care has it. I do not want to dwell on Harold Shipman, but I recall that I was on the Select Committee on Health at the time. When we think of all the things that were in place then, it is absolutely extraordinary that that doctor was responsible for finishing the lives of 214 people. We should never, never forget that. I end inspired by the words of Dame Cicely Saunders:
You matter because you are you, and you matter to the last moment of your life.

Indeed, she observed that the guidelines put in place by the DPP have made it possible for doctors and patients to have better conversations, saying that
conversations are now more open than ever before, ensuring that healthcare professionals work with their patients to improve living, to cease futile treatments and to support patients during dying. The vast majority of hospice doctors do not want physicianassisted suicide. The policy is clear, firm and compassionate.[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 February 2012; Vol. 735, c. 632.]

5.11 pm Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Having heard pretty much all the speeches this afternoon, I think there is an almost unanimous consensus on the DPPs guidelines. On the one hand, the current law expresses and safeguards the fundamental principle of respect for lifeeverybodys lifeand on the other hand, the guidelines express the principle of compassion. I think there is a general agreement that the present situation gets the balance between law and compassion just about right. During this debate a number of right hon. and hon. Members have said that the law should change and that assisted suicide should no longer be a crime. However, they should reflect on the role of doctors in all this, and what a difficult position any change in the law would place the medical profession in. The medical profession is clear on that point. In its evidence to the Commission on Assisted Dying last April, the Royal College of Surgeons made two clear statements:
The law is it currently stands should not be changed and no system should be introduced to allow people to be assisted to dieThe College does not recognise any circumstances under which it should be possible for people to be assisted to die.

In so far as it is humanly possible to get this right, it would seem that the law, taken together with the DPPs guidelines, manages to achieve that. We have not, however, spent sufficient time reflecting on the role of palliative care in easing the difficulties of people when they are dying. The fact is that, at some point, we are all going to die. The difficulty is that hospital medicine these days sees death as a failure, but we are all going to have to recognise that it is a reality. I suspect that, given the choice, we would all like to die at home. That is not always possible, but we spend very little time working out new ways of providing palliative care. That is why I was pleased that so many right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House were able to attend the event in the House last week for Marie Curie Cancer Care, at which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced that the Government were funding a number of new pilot projects for innovative palliative care. That shows that the Government recognise that palliative care is not as good as it should be, and that a lot more needs to be done. Most innovation in this area in recent years has been done by the hospice movementan excellent movement that is usually funded and run by volunteersbut we need to ensure that the national health service and all of us spend a lot more time focusing on how we can all, as far as is humanly possible, die well. I salute my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for tabling her amendment, and I think Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Order. To facilitate more Back-Bench contributions, the time limit is being reduced to four minutes. 5.16 pm Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): I very much welcome this debate, and I commend the Backbench Business Committee for giving it time, and the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) for tabling the motion. I am a vice-chair of the all-party group on choice at the end of life, and I am personally supportive of a change in the law on assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults. That said, I want to reiterate that todays debate is about the application of the existing law on assisted suicide, and not about a change in the law. Of course, I fully support the development of palliative care provision, and I welcome the amendment tabled on that. I am encouraged that the evidence from countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands, as well as from states such as Oregon, shows that a change in law to support greater choice at the end of life often goes hand in hand with improvements to palliative care. Fiona Bruce: Are those improvements not due to the progress made on scientific and medical developments in recent years?

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, who has been a hospice doctor for a number of years, reminded the other place that the Royal College of Physicians had made it clear that the doctors role
does not include being, in any way, part of their suicide.

1417

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1418

Caroline Lucas: They might be partly to do with that, but the Economist Intelligence Units research into palliative care across the world found that the pressure brought to bear on policy makers in public debates on assisted suicide often acted as a catalyst for the improvement of palliative care. I do not think that we need to see the two concepts as being in opposition to each other. The move for greater palliative care can also come about as a direct result of greater debate on assisted dying. I also recognise that, no matter how much we might wish it to be otherwise, such care cannot remove all the suffering from someone who is dying. There will be those who request assistance from loved ones to help them to end their lives. The way in which the law deals with those cases is of the utmost importance to all those involved, and it is therefore right that this should be the subject of todays debate and that Members of Parliament should express their views on it. I welcome the clarification provided by the DPPs guidelines. There is no doubt that those who maliciously or irresponsibly encourage suicide should be prosecuted, and I do not think that anyone is saying otherwise. However, it is not in the public interest to prosecute a normally law-abiding citizen who, out of love and compassion, helps a loved one to die. As Members of Parliament, we have to ask ourselves whether a normally law-abiding person should face automatic prosecution for a one-off, compassionately motivated act. I hope that this is an area of common ground between those who support, and those who oppose, a change in the law on assisted dying, just as I am sure that there is a shared commitment to palliative care. Many hon. Members have shared moving stories of their own personal experience. I have a story to share that is at one remove, as it involves someone whom I do not know directly. A mother wrote to me about her daughter, Lizzy. She explained to me that her daughter was nearly 21 when she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and that
From the time of diagnosis she had hoped that if her health got too bad she would want to be able to choose the manner of her death. As we approached Christmas 2008 she asked me if I would start to make arrangements, she didnt want to face another birthday with deteriorating health.

availability of the highest level of palliative care. Very few of us would want to suffer against our wishes at the end of life, and I think we have a clear responsibility to consider how our laws protect people confronting such momentous decisionspeople like Lizzy and her mother. I therefore welcome the DPPs policy on assisted suicide, and support this important motion. 5.21 pm Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con): I support the motion, and congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on securing a debate on an issue that is of significant public interest and has not been debated substantially in the House for some time. What we are being asked today is simply whether we support the view of the DPP that it is not always in the public interest to prosecute people who have compassionately helped a loved one to die at his or her request. It seems to me that that is unarguable. It is true that before the DPPs policy was set out there were few prosecutions, but, equally, it was not at all clear how decisions were being made. People were unable to know what sacrifices they could make for their loved ones, and what the consequences would be. That is why, in 2009, my friend Debbie Purdywho I believe is in the Strangers Gallery, and who has been rightly praised by many other Members who have spoken todaytook her legal case to the Law Lords. Debbie simply wanted to know whether her husband Omar was likely to be prosecuted if he accompanied her to Switzerland to have an assisted death. In a letter that she wrote to me last week, she explained:
My husband wanted me to delay any thought of death while my life was enjoyable, and he was emphatic that he would risk prosecution later, if I needed his help. I love Omar and wasnt prepared to take that risk.

Debbie was not asking for a change in the law; she simply wanted to understand it. She wrote:
I believed I had a right to know what would actually lead to a prosecution so we could avoid that action. Clarity would let me make an informed choice as to what help I could safely accept from my husband.

They thought that they would be given the green light by September 2009, but, as Lizzys mother explained,
we had a nasty fright when instead of the green light we were reported to Social Services. The DPPs guidelines had been put in place earlier that year so when the police, social workers, psychiatrist and various other representatives interviewed Lizzy and me, the rules laid down made a clear case for her to be allowed to travel. In hindsight I am very grateful to the person who contacted the authorities, it allowed them to hear from Lizzy herself, rather than me having to persuade officials that this was her desire. Iwish that people had seen the relief on her face when the letter giving her the green light actually came, it was really touch and go whether her health would hold up for travel and she was very scared of being trapped in a slowly dying bodyWe eventually travelled to Switzerland on 7th December 2009 and Lizzy passed away peacefully on 11th December.

Because of her action, the Law Lords instructed the DPP to provide clarity, and the result was the DPPs prosecuting policy which we are discussing today Because the detail of the policy has already been explained today, I will not go into it now, but, in short, it draws a distinction between the compassionate and the malicious. It effectively says that prosecution should not be the automatic, unthinking response to assisted suicide, and that numerous human factors should be taken into account. Before the DPPs policy was set out, Debbie was in the awful position of having to plan for her own death even while she should have been enjoying her life. Anna Soubry: Would my hon. Friend go as far as some who would argue that it is not right or fair for Debbie to have to travel somewhere else to die with dignity as she wishes to do? Does he agree that in due course our law could change so that she could die at home rather than having to travel to some clinic abroad?

If there is a lesson to be drawn from Lizzys story, I think it is that regulation, clarity and openness should guide public policy in this area, rather than what may be an understandable desire to turn a blind eye. I think that any assisted death should take place within a rigorous framework of regulation, as well as in the context of the

1419

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1420

Zac Goldsmith: I do agree, and I shall say more about that in a few moments. In fact, Debbie herself said at the time that had she lost her case, she would have booked into Dignitas in 2009. Her letter concludes:
I know of situations where these guidelines have, even without the certainty of law, delayed the timing of an assisted death and made a death less frightening and lonely. For my part, the guidelines have allowed my life to be longer and happier. The Lords saved my life.

She says that because the Lords initiated this process. The DPP policy is clearly a step forward, as it provides some clarity. I am not convinced it provides sufficient clarity, however. For instance, only a minority of GPs feel that there is enough guidance for doctors on what to do if a patient asks for help to die. We also need to ask if it is right that mentally competent adults should have to travel abroad to receive medical assistance to die, and we must assess whether it is right that the law can brand someone a criminal for helping their loved one, even while the same law gives them a sympathetic nod and a wink. The motion does not address these concerns. Neither does amendment (a), for which, in truth, I have yet to hear any compelling arguments. I hope we will debate the broader issues in due course. For now, however, the policy provides greater clarity on the application of the law than was ever previously available, and must therefore be welcome. 5.25 pm Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con): It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on bringing a motion on this subject before the House for the first time in 15 yearsnot for the first time since the 60s, as one Member said. In the past 15 years, advances in medicine have enhanced our abilities to heal far beyond what could have been imagined back then. However, many incurable, degenerative and terminal conditions remain, and it is those who suffer from them, and the carers who look after them, whom we must consider today. The motion welcomes the Director of Public Prosecutions guidelines in respect of cases of encouraging or assisting suicide, and I support both it and the amendment on palliative care. It is a welcome attempt to bridge the gap between a blunt, legal certaintythat helping to end a life is a criminal offenceand the greyest of grey areas. I can only speak personally. I have no direct experience upon which to draw, and I pay the utmost respect to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for his courage in sharing with us the very personal case that he has experienced. I have never been in that situation, but I am a father of four, and if one of my children were in agony and, as far as they were concerned, no further care could be given to alleviate that pain, I would like to think that if they asked me to do so, I could assist them to die without then spending 14 years of my life in jail. I believe that the guidelines provide a moral flexibilityif that is the right phrase. They are as humane and wise as any guidelines could be. They are not going to satisfy everyone, however. I listened to the powerful speech of

the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who is not in his place at present, and I believe that assisted suicide should remain a criminal offence, for the reason he gave. As long as we follow the guidelines to the utmost extent, we should be able to grant those in extremis, and those who love them, some leeway. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) that we must not impose this on the GPs. The British Medical Association tells us that the vast majority of doctors do not want to legalise assisted dying. Medical ethics demand that they prioritise the preservation of life, not the taking of it. To ask them to take life instead would violate a bond between them and the patients who trust them. We must never let the depressed, the confused, those in terrible pain, the aged and the vulnerable feel that they must pursue the path of assisted suicide so as not to be a burden on others. The so-called right to die must not be allowed to become a duty to die. We should refocus our efforts on palliative care and leave euthanasia to other countries. For that reason, while I understand the motives of the independent commission on assisted dying, I cannot support its conclusions. In my view, the commissions desire to institute some form of legalised euthanasia crosses a line even in the most extreme cases. The DPP guidelines accommodate compassion. That word has frequently been uttered today, and I entirely agree that compassion must underline the approach taken in respect of extraordinary circumstances that very few of us have experienced. I support the motion and the amendment on palliative care. 5.29 pm Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con): We can understand the individual cases that have been brought to the House this afternoon. There are about 5,000 suicides a year in this country. If we had an equivalent system to that in Oregon, which is the total reverse of what some have been talking aboutit has physicianassisted suicideswe would have about 10,000 assisted suicides a year. If we were like the Dutch, whose position goes beyond assisted suicide to death with or without requestthat is different from suicidewe would, again, have about 10,000. My wife and I were impressed by a Dutchman who had been working abroad but went back to his home country. He was asked by his doctors why he was keeping his handicapped son alive. He asked for a transfer to this country, where there is careand not just palliative care. No one in this House would want to argue for ending the life of those who are physically handicapped or mentally ill, or for agreeing to the requests of the clinically depressedthose most likely to commit suicide who want to end their life. If we start to go down that lineand that is the only purpose that there can be behind amendment (a)we will be in a different debate from the one so well introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway). I pay tribute to him for the letter that he sent to us all, for the way he spoke on his motion, and for what he has on his website, on which he has kept his constituents up to date with his views. There is only one reason for amendment (a), and it is not to ensure statutory enforcement of the DPPs guidelines. I have not found a precedent for any statutory enactment

1421

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1422

of the DPPs guidelines. If my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General knows of any, I would be grateful if he would correct me. The only reason to want the Government to decide on whether to consult is in order to go way beyondfirst slightly beyond, and then further beyondto the question of whether the issue be confined to assisted suicide. Dame Joan Ruddock: I hate to repeat myself, but the amendment is absolutely clear. It suggests only that the Government should consult on the matter. There is no certainty in that; the consultation may go completely the other way. The situation is unique, as I said. The framework of the law on suicide and assisted suicide is quite different from that on other matters. Sir Peter Bottomley: But when I asked one of the right hon. Ladys hon. Friendsthe hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick)whether he would support the amendment, the answer was not clear. Mr Winnick: I am quite happy to support the amendment, if that would satisfy the hon. Gentleman. Sir Peter Bottomley: It is not a question of whether I am satisfied; the question is: what is the purpose of the amendment? We all heard the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) the first time round, and what she said was engaging, but it was not the reason for amendment (a). If we are not talking about going beyond assisted suicide, what are we talking about? Dame Joan Ruddock rose Sir Peter Bottomley: I will not give way again. It would have been better, if we had more time, if someone had read out all 16 of the DPPs public interest factors tending in favour of prosecution, and the six public interest factors tending against prosecution, which, interestingly, start at nought rather than one. It is worth getting those into peoples minds. I hope that the newspapers will report those factors, if they report any part of the debate. I have probably been with as many dying people as others. I have been in the House for 36 years, there are about four people a year with whom I spend a lot of time in my constituency, and I have had family experiences, too. I have probably seen more dead people than anyone, because of various things that I have been witness to in my life. Death is not something to be worried about; pain is, and misery is. I shall not even think of contradicting the things that many hon. Friends and Opposition Members have said, but on the DPPs role, I point out that I back what Ken Macdonald said in 2004, when he issued a nine-point statement of independence. One of the points was as follows:
The people of this country want a prosecution service that is confident, strong and independent. Casework decisions taken with fairness, impartiality and integrity will deliver justice for victims, witnesses, defendants and the public. Casework decisions that, for whatever reason, lack these characteristics risk miscarriages of justice. They undermine that confidence in the rule of law, which underpins our democratic society.

statutory change. What is the point of that? If the DPP thought one of his current points was too strong and should be weakened, would he have to come to Parliament again? That is the argument against even considering whether the Government should consider consultation. The last area I wish to examine relates to the fact that too many suicides take place in this country. Whether we ought to have an extra 20 or 30 instead of having people going abroad is one issue, but multiplying the number of assisted suicides by 100 relates to a completely different debate. What sort of number would there be then? What sort of pressures would people feel if they thought that they were being awkward or untidy, or they were experiencing pain they did not want to experience? Pain is a part of life. It is experienced by women giving birth Anna Soubry: He has obviously not been through it! Sir Peter Bottomley: Well, I am told that it is. It is experienced by many of us doing things, whether we are talking about physical pain or mental pain. People are called on to do things as parents or as children which are awful but have to be survived. I hope that the result of this debate is that we let more people survive, and we keep these guidelines as they are. They are accepted by us all. 5.35 pm Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con): I will not say it is a pleasure to speak in this debate, because I am not sure that is the right word to use today. However, I am sure that this is a very important debate, and I pay tribute to the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), who gave brave speeches that could not have been easy to give. A former Prime Minister, Churchill, described this House of Commons as the cockpit of the nation, and he was right. Despite many things, this House still matters a great deal. This debate, above all, matters because ultimately Parliament must express its will. Furthermore, contrary to what some may feel about the willingness of the judiciary in this country to make the law through cases brought before them, I suspect that they would much rather Parliament decided and made its position clear. I hope that that will happen this evening. I have been contacted by a large number of constituents in advance of todays debate. I know that many people in my constituency and across our country would wish either that we were not debating this at all or that we were considering a new law to allow doctor-assisted dying. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) made clear in opening the debate, we are not doing that. The motion simply asks us to express supportor otherwisefor the principle set out in the DPPs policy statement. That is what I support, along with amendment (b), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). The current law does not recognise the best interests of the victim as a justification for killing. Equally, the compassionate motives of the mercy killer are, in themselves, never capable of providing a basis for a partial excuse. Some have argued that that is unfortunate,

If we had a statutory declaration of the principles that we have all accepted, and the DPP brought up some other issue that he wanted to bring in, it would require a

1423 [Steve Brine]

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1424

and that is what forms the nub of todays debate. Like many hon. Members taking part in this debate, I have watched many people I love slip away. I can honestly say to this House that the question of whether I personally would have intervened at those timesor was even askedto ease suffering never so much as crossed my mind or was ever discussed. I remember feeling a massive sense of relief when the suffering was over, but I never had a thought about expediting the end. Perhaps the fact that I have a strong Christian faith, or perhaps just the sheer numbness one can feel at those times, accounted for that. In all honesty, I still do not know which it was. I wish to discuss palliative care. Good palliative care, which my family have been fortunate enough to have received, should be much more widely availableand the hospice movement should be a bigger sectorso that it is genuinely available as an option for all. Good end-of-life care can provide precious moments for loved ones facing their day of parting. A constituent of mine wrote me an e-mail yesterday, in which he said:
My wife of forty years died of complications to breast cancerThe care and attention that she received during that time was exceptional thanks to the N.H.S and the Hospice Care movement. Those last few years of our time together were some of the best that we had. Somehow we were drawn together in both grief and understanding. We both knew what the outcome would be but it was a time that I treasure still.

That is a powerful reminder of the peace and dignity that good palliative care can give, and I cannot help but wonder whether we would be having this debate if my constituents experience of the NHS and the hospice movement was the norm. In conclusion, I support the main motion, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South. As he has said, whatever the outcome of this debate, assisted suicide will remain a criminal offence. I am content with that. Whatever the outcome of the debate, we will not be legalising mercy killing or legalising assisted dying via a doctor. I support greater patient choice across the NHS and I am content to extend that to end-of-life care. The DPPs policy strikes a reasoned and balanced approach, which combines upholding the law of the land, meeting his statutory duties under that law and judging that it is not always in the public interest to prosecute those who have compassionately assisted a loved one to move on to the next stage in the great journey we are all embarking upon. I support the motion. 5.39 pm Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con): May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), who is not in his place? He introduced the debate in a very measured tone. I also congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on arranging this debate on the Floor of the House. It is a very worthwhile subject that has not been debated for some time. I will support the motion, which stands in my name and those of colleagues. I believe there should be parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the prosecution and sentencing policy, which I think is why we are here. I will also support amendment (a), because it deals with an issue that has not been addressed as fully as I would have liked in this debatethe uncertainty created

by the current situation. The legal fudge at the heart of this debate has not been adequately addressed. The law says one thing and one can be convicted of an offence, but the prosecution, or the prosecution policy, looks the other way. The more charitable would suggest that this is about trying to get the right balance between compassion and the law, but I suggest that it creates grave uncertainty and that it is unfair. It is not fair on those who feel that they have to travel to Switzerland to avoid prosecution, it is not fair on the patients who wish to die with dignity and it is not fair on the families of relatives who may or may not be prosecuted but are not clear about where they stand, particularly regarding the patient and individual concern. Patients may be concerned about the prospect of their loved ones being prosecuted. Neither is the situation fair on patients who wish to be surrounded by loved ones or family but who might have to consider the option of dying alone for fear of those left behind being prosecuted. For the avoidance of doubt, let me absolutely clear: I believe that the compassionate approach for patients who are in severe pain, are terminally ill and have the support of their family would be to allow them to choose to die provided that the appropriate safeguards are in place. Yes, there is a right to life, and that is terribly important, but there is also a right to choose to die with dignity, knowing that ones relatives will not be prosecuted, and surrounded by family and loved onesnot alone for fear of the prosecution of those left behind. That is why I will support amendment (a). This area is far too important and the situation is far too unique to be left to Government officials. It should be subject to parliamentary oversight. Yes, we know that the guidelines are just that and are not law, but prosecution or the threat of it can be profoundly disturbing to the loved ones left behind. We should not underestimate that. We do not know for sure whether those left behind will have committed a criminal act, but the threat of prosecution or prosecution itself can be profoundly disturbing, particularly for those who have already had to endure severe grief in their lives. Putting guidance on the statute book brings that certainty. It brings certainty that those who maliciously assist someone to die will be prosecuted and also provides protection to those acting on compassionate grounds. I believe that those factors should be taken into account and that we need to end that uncertainty. 5.43 pm Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con): We usually begin this sort of debate by congratulating the hon. Member who secured it, and that is usually done as a courteous opening, but today I genuinely heap praise on my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway)ah, here he comesand the Backbench Business Committee for having secured the debate. It is pretty scandalous that the House of Commons has not debated this important subject for 40 years. Courage has been lacking but it is here today and there have been some wonderful and courageous speeches from Members across the House. It is strange that there should be reluctance to debate this issue because the one thing that is certain in all our lives is that they will end and death will come. Most of us do not know or want to think about the manner of our death, but there are some people who do know what the manner of their death will be because of the illness or disability from which they are suffering and know that they are suffering.

1425

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1426

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South mentioned Melanie Reid, the columnist on The Times, who has become tetraplegic as a result of an accident. She has written an inspirational column these past 18 months. She says in this mornings paper that
there is no point keeping humans alive just for the sake of it, when they dont want to be, in circumstances which we and they regard as intolerable. And if they need help to achieve a good death, in the comfort and peace of their own home, we should be able to give it to them.

but he also admitted that there had been changes to the policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) said, Parliament has never voted on these measures, even though they de facto amend the Suicide Act 1961. There is a risk that the guidance will tilt the legal balance towards euthanasia, not least because it clarifies how people can deliberately avoid prosecution. Bob Stewart: I do not understand how they would amend the Suicide Act. It is my understanding that it has not been amended. Robert Halfon: My argument is that the guidelines are too flexible, and that Parliament has not had a decision about the matter. As I said, Parliament has had no say in designing the DPPs guidance, and that is not how law should be made in Britain. We are simply being asked to rubber-stamp what the DPP has said. This matters because there is a risk of abuseit could become a lawyers charterand because of the kind of country it would make us. Sadly, there is a real example in history of how the move to assisted dying has led to something much worse. In 1920, the eminent German medics, Binding and Hoche, argued strenuously that doctors should be protected against prosecution for assisted dying. Their research was popularised during the Weimar era, and by 1932 created the intellectual climate that allowed Prussia to remove support for the disabled and terminally ill. In 1939, we know that Hitler issued orders that doctors be commissioned to grant a mercy death to patients who were judged to be incurably sick. A small step perhaps; each step along this path was a small step. Two years later we know that 70,000 patients from Germanys hospitals had been killed. We know that in 1941, the gas chambers were moved from the hospitals where they had been used for euthanasia to the death camps of Auschwitz and Treblinka. Nurses, doctors and technicians followed the equipment. That is why I am worried about a conveyor belt. Of course, we live in a benign country, and we think that such things would never happen, but it is precisely because we are a benign country that we have to put in every safeguard to ensure that it does never happen. I argue that the DPPs guidance can become a lawyers charter. Who will define compassion in the DPPs guidance? What is minor encouragement? How will we know the victims story if only the suspect can give evidence. Moves towards assisted dying would seriously damage our national character. As the National Review reported, a 1991 Dutch survey showed that 2% of all deaths in the Netherlands were caused by deliberate euthanasia, but 10% were from euthanasia by neglect, omission or other forms of poor care. This is the wrong debate. We should be supporting palliative care, and I am proud to be very involved with my local hospice, St Clares. We should remember that about 40% of hospice in-patients return home and 66% of hospice at-home patients die in their own homes. As a society, we are beginning to devalue human life, whether it is on television, in computer games or in other forms. I accept that we give people choice, but we are not talking about going to a supermarket and choosing a brand of chocolate. Harold Shipman was mentioned earlier, and he got away with what he did because human

And so we should. Many hon. Members have spoken about choice and palliative care, but palliative care does not work for everyone. If it did, we would not have a problem and we would not be having this debate. Some people who are in the final stages of life have intolerable and untreatable suffering and pain. They have no choice, and they deserve our compassion. Although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) about the right to life being paramount, we cannot ignore quality of life at its end. The guidelines protect a persons dignity by allowing them to die in a manner of their choice, rather than going sooner than they should have to, but while they still can, to a foreign country to die with dignity. My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) paid tribute to Nicky Dalladay. Nicky is also a friend of mine and lives in my constituency. I have watched her cope courageously over the years with a degenerative illness. She has urged me to be outspoken on this matter, which I am happy to be. Her husband looks after her with compassion every day, and one day he might have to help her to die, also with compassion. That is his only motivation and it is up to us in the House to protect someone who acts in such a way. I welcome the clarification provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is very important that Parliament today endorses the DPPs guidelines. I am persuaded by the Solicitor-General that amendment (a) is not necessary, but I support amendment (b) and the hospice movement in general. I hope the House will show compassion and support the main motion today. 5.48 pm Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): I wish to make three points. First, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) said earlier, I believe that the people who have pushed forward todays debate are, in essence, introducing a Trojan horse. I respect the genuine feeling that many have on the issue, but my worry is that whatever the intention of some Members, this will ratchet towards euthanasia. Secondly, there is a risk of abuse because of the serious abuse that exists in Oregon and the Netherlands, where assisted dying is legal and, dare I say it, in historical examples of state-sanctioned euthanasia, such as in Nazi Germany. Thirdly, I would argue that this is the wrong debate. In terms of resources and philosophically, surely we should put everything into helping people to live, not helping people to die. My fear is that this is a Trojan horse motion. I accept that the motion simply welcomes the DPPs advice, and that the Director of Public Prosecutions said in February:
The policy does not change the law on assisted suicide,

1427 [Robert Halfon]

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1428

5.56 pm John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): I want to open my contribution simply by saying that I endorse and support the DPPs published prosecution policy. I do not support any move to change the law or the prosecution policy or to put that policy in statute law, and I am concerned that in reality that is the pathway that will follow this debate. I oppose any moves in that direction on the basis that the current law works well in practice. Let us be clear that it does so because of the stop-gap between Parliament and the CPS, which allows a criminal investigation into any case if required but, as with all criminal law, has the element of discretion that allows consideration of mitigating factors in all cases. I want to offer two practical objections to changing the status quo. First, the law is about protection. We are talking about protection for the most vulnerable members of our society, those with terminal illnesses, those who might be severely disabled or those who might be depressed, confused or anxious. For this reason, we should not have a law that encourages, or is unable to prosecute, any case of coerced, encouraged, pressured or uninformed assisted suicide. Consider the situation for a 97-year-old elderly lady nearing the end of her life. Despite the best motives and intentions of her family, knowing that the option of assisted suicide exists, and given strong ties of loyalty, subtle cues from the family create the risk that she will feel compelled to assist with their emotional and financial uncertainties by agreeing to a premature ending of her life. When I visited the spinal unit in my local hospital in Odstock in Salisbury last Friday and spoke with the consultant, he told me of the frequent situation for those who become tetraplegic after accidents. He said that their attitude towards their future changes markedly while they come to terms with their situation and their future quality of life. Exemptions to the law on assisted suicide will not provide a deterrent or discouragement in those cases, nor will they provide grounds for investigation or prosecution, if needed. The only way to ensure that every single case is amenable to robust deterrence and proper investigation is to have a blanket law against assisted suicide. We must also focus on prevention, and that means doing everything we can to aid people when they are suffering towards the end of their life, so I endorse the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), with its renewed focus on palliative care. We have all commended the hospices in our constituencies, as we know that they are an under-used and a misunderstood resource of which so many more people wish to, and could, take advantage. When we discuss the issue of suicide, we immediately raise the need for counselling and caring for those who are depressed. The same should be true for those who are near death. My submission today is that if we were to create a painful moral dilemma and significant areas of legal uncertainty and ambiguity, we would put at risk the well-being of many people. We should leave the status of the law as it is. 6.1 pm Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con): It is an honour to speak in a debate that has shown this House at its best, and I too congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for

beings became digits on a computer: form filling. I wonder whether he would have got away with what he did if we did not devalue human life in the way we do. 5.53 pm Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con): It is a great honour to participate in this debate, and I pay tribute to those hon. Members who have spoken from personal experience and personal testimony. That is so very powerful. But I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who spoke powerfully about what I would call the degree of group thinking that seems to occur sometimes in the Chamber. We all revert to a fairly simple, comfortable mean, around which we can all collate, and that gives me great concern. We have heard many powerful arguments today, talking about individuality, individual rights, the fact that it is my body and that I should decide what happens to it. That fills me with great concern. We have heard the word compassion used over and over again, to the point where perhaps it has lost all meaning in this Chamber. The definition of compassion, fellow feeling, is sometimes lost in the debate. The compassion we should be showing when considering the most vulnerable is also a matter of putting ourselves in their place, because compassion is not about feeling sorry for them, but about identifying with their concerns. As legislators, we should be here to protect the most vulnerable in society, but I worry that, by allowing moves towards more assisted suicides, we are not fulfilling that role. Yes, people might arrive at what they consider to be a rational decision that, because of a disability, a progressive illness or some other condition, their life is no longer worth living. With all the language of individual rights that we have heard left, right and centre today, perhaps that is where society has got to and where the currents of social change have brought us, but I fundamentally reject it. I place a value on my life, but I place the same value on the lives of every single Member in this Chamber, because in my view all human life has equal value. If we decide that our own lives are no longer worth living, we make it harder for a person with an identical condition, disability or prognosis to take a brave decision, to strike out and say, Actually, I want to keep on living. I do not want to succumb to the group-think that says I am now a burden on society. It is not for society to decide the value of human life. It is not even for one single individual to decide that their life is no longer worth living, because by doing so they diminish the right of every other human being to decide that their life is worth living. We can imagine two terminally ill people with almost similar prognoses, yet we do not know what might happen to them, as the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) made clear. Palliative care is actually guess work. It is hoping for the best and trying to do the best for the patient, but we can never know what the final outcome will be. I am very concerned today. We often use the clich, the slippery slope. I feel that we are skidding faster and faster down a slippery slope in this Chamber today, and that causes me grave concern.

1429

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1430

Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on moving the motion and the Backbench Business Committee on finding time to debate it. I am in an unusual position, as I can happily support the motion and both amendmentsand will do so if we go into the Division Lobby later. I will start at the end by supporting amendment (b) on palliative care, which my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) tabled and with which I wholeheartedly agree. I join other Members in paying tribute to the hospices that serve their constituencies. My local hospice is the Treetops hospice in Derbyshire, which does amazing work, and, speaking as someone who has lost a partner to a cancer, I have seen the great care that it gives people in the final stage of their life. We never talked about whether she would have chosen a quicker, less painful and more dignified way of dying, but I remember sitting there for four days while she lay dying, thinking that if I ever got into such a situation I might prefer to go in a less painful and more dignified way. I join those other Members who support changing the law to allow people that very difficult choice at the end of their life, but that is not what this debate, the motion or the amendment that stands in my name and that of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) is about; it is about endorsing what the Director of Public Prosecutions has done. His guidance is admirable, I have no criticism of it and I hope that it remains in place and is applied consistently. I do not think any Member wants the issue to be subject to a different court decision, which moves the line in the sand back or forward a bit, or subject to a different DPP changing the tone of the guidance. Parliament should draw that line, saying, This is what we think is acceptable; anything beyond that, we think not, and if the line is to move, that should be down to Parliament as well. That is why I support amendment (a), and I do so not because I want to list loads of criteria in law. If someone compassionately assists a loved one in ending their life when that is their choice, Parliament should say that that is not a crime. What should be a crime is trying maliciously to encourage someone to end their life when that is not their choice, when it is not what they want and when it is not done through compassion. John Glen: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, but in reality is it not the practical, individual decisions that matter? Even if Parliament did come up with a set of criteria, would it not be their application individually that mattered? It would therefore be entirely inappropriate for Parliament to try to set criteria that could be binding in every individual situation. Nigel Mills: The point I am trying to make is that I am not sure whether it would be right for Parliament to list a load of criteria. The feeling today appears to be that we do not think that people should be prosecuted for compassionately assisting a loved one in their free choice to end their life, but that someone should be prosecuted for maliciously encouraging or enticing someone to commit suicide when they do not really want to do so. That principle could clearly be put into statute without having to go through the individual circumstances of every situation. That would then leave the DPP free to consider in each case whether the action was compassionate or malicious. At the moment, the law says that if one assists someone to commit suicide

Mr Speaker: Order. May I gently suggest that the hon. Gentleman speak up a bit, because I think we all want to hear him, and I would like to hear him? Nigel Mills: I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I am full of a cold, and my throat is not quite as strong as I would like it to be. If Parliament intends that compassionately assisting a loved one to die should not be prosecuted but maliciously encouraging someone who does not really want to die should be prosecuted, then that is what the law should be, and it is down to the DPP to put in place guidance on how to distinguish between the two. Alun Michael: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that the whole point is that a judgment has to be made on whether the law is being pursued or whether there are factors that show that there are grounds for a prosecution? That is what the guidance is all about. What is needed is not a change in the law but for us to applaud how the guidance has been provided, based on what Parliament has already decided. Nigel Mills: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Parliament decided 50 years ago that all prosecutions should require the DPPs consent. I contend that in his guidance the DPP is not strictly giving guidance on the law. The law says that assisted suicide is a crime that can be punished by up to 14 years imprisonment. I would rather the guidance said that compassionately assisting a loved one should not be a crime, but the malicious stuff should be, and then it could be used to determine exactly when a prosecution would be due. I strongly believe that Parliament should draw the line in the sand on this very difficult issue. We should not be leaving it to the whim of the courts or to individual DPPs slowly to move the line forwards or backwards depending on their view. It is right that Parliament should decide. I welcome the fact that we have had this debate so that we can endorse the current position of the DPP, and I will support amendment (a) to try to put that on a firmer footing. 6.6 pm Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this important debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and previous speakers said, it shows the House at its best. How different from yesterdaybut sadly it is yesterday that will lodge in the public mind. We often take part in passionate debates in this House about a whole range of issues, be it planning, as it was earlier today, House of Lords reform, or whatever. Important though they are, they are not life and death issues, but today we are discussing just that. I am not a lawyer, nor do I claim any particular insight; indeed, I see through the glass darkly. I have the uneasy feeling, which I know is shared by many hon. Members, that we, as a society, are moving towards a situation whereby assisted dying is legitimised. Though I believe life to be sacred and God-given, I readily acknowledge that that view is not universally accepted. However, I am sure that we can all agree that life is uniquely precious, in which case we should surely do everything possible to preserve it.

1431 [Martin Vickers]

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1432

I do not in any way question the motives of those, be they Members of the House or among the general public at large, who take a different view. Many will have reached those conclusions having witnessed the slow and painful death of a loved one. I believe that any move to lay out a statutory framework is a further step, however small, towards an acceptance that assisted dying is in some way given the seal of approval. Some things are best left in the grey area. Both my parents died of cancer and suffered in their final months. I well remember the telephone call from the specialist who, after receiving the results of the test on my father, said that we must hope that God is merciful and does not allow him to suffer for too long. Although he did suffer, it was not for too long. In fact, he lived for a further six months after I received that fateful call. In his final weeks, which he spent in St Andrews hospice in Grimsby, I saw what comfort can be offered through palliative care. No longer did he suffer the periods of pain that he had in earlier weeks. That happened as long ago as 1988. Through my visits to St Andrews and to Lindsey Lodge hospice in Scunthorpe, both of which serve my constituency, I have seen the advances that have been made in 24 years. Such an experience raises in the mind of any rightthinking person the question of how to minimise suffering. If somebody has previously indicated their wish to hasten their death in such circumstances, I acknowledge that it is extremely difficult and a major moral dilemma. However, I believe that any move that gives a small nod of approval is a further move towards legalising assisted dying. The relationship between doctor and patient is crucial. I believe that it could be compromised if the patient was anything other than 100% certain that the doctor was striving to maintain life. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) described how he witnessed the death of a friend and said that it had probably been hastened by morphine. That was most likely the case with both my parents. However, it is better that the situation is left as it is. If one is old, frail, weak and seriously ill, one needs help, support and compassion, not the added worry and the nagging doubt over whether everything possible is being done to preserve ones life. Transparency is something that this House seeks in many areas, such as in financial dealings, but in this area, I suggest that the grey area should remain. 6.10 pm Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con): During the Budget debate last year, I collapsed in Central Lobby. It was not, I assure hon. Members, the Budget that made be ill, but a tumour the size of a small fist in the left part of my brain. I was taken to St Thomass hospital, where an A and E doctor advised me that I required a craniotomy to remove the meningioma from my brain. That was extremely frightening. I was advised as to the likelihood of death, paralysis, loss of speech or sight, and so much more. It was a week before I had my operation. I was one of the lucky ones. I survived with a few scars and with no deficit whatever. However, I have to face up to the possibility that I might not have been so lucky. I had a week to contemplate the situation. It made me think about what might have been.

One comes back to a simple issue which, I suggest, is at the heart of this entire debate: to whom does a persons life belong? I suggest that a persons life belongs to the individual themselves. It is for those who are not as lucky as I was to make their choices about how they live their lives. That somebody cannot take those choices does not mean that we in Parliament should deny them of any choice. It upsets me tremendously that the state prescribes that it knows best. It cannot be right that individual members of the public are prevented from doing something in this country that they are able to go and do at Dignitas in Switzerland, where they can die in the manner of their choosing. Robert Halfon: I am glad to see my hon. Friend so strong and alive in this Chamber. He talks about choice. Does he not agree that this issue is not just about individual choice, because people can be pressurised into making choices? That is what is really at the heart of the debate. Guy Opperman: There is a great need for strong protections. Everybody accepts that. Not a single person disagrees with that, just as there is not a single person who does not wholeheartedly endorse the need for palliative care. However, that is not enough. I suggest that the principle of clear self-determination must be the core of any concept of human rights. I am a huge supporter of palliative care, like all other Members. I pray in aid the Charlotte Straker home and the Tynedale hospice in my constituency. If I need to declare an interest, it is that I have raised considerable sums for both those organisations. I welcome many constituents of mine who have come from Northumberland today. Many of them were friends of Geraldine McClelland, the former BBC TV producer and founding member of Newcastles Live theatre, who took her life at Dignitas last December following an unsuccessful battle with cancer. Her letter has already been read out. Her good friend Nick Ross, the Crimewatch presenter, said:
Gerry had to abandon her home and be driven across Europeto end her life in a light commercial estate in an impersonal Swiss suburb.

He continued:
It sometimes seems that each concession to freedom in this country has had to be dragged out of a reluctant and controlling instinct that someone else knows best.

I endorse entirely those remarks and urge the House to address the issue that dare not speak its name, which is that we need to consult properly about assisted suicide. I will of course support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), but in the longer term, the matter will not go away. Dame Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman said that he would support the motion and amendment (b), on palliative care, as I will. He did not mention my amendment (a), but I think it may be of use to the House if I say that I and the other Members who have spoken in favour of it have come to the conclusion that it might be in the best interests of the House if it were

1433

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1434

not pressed. Some will undoubtedly regret that, but I hope he agrees that it is an appropriate course to take in the spirit of the debate. Guy Opperman: That is very helpful, because we would all concede that a consultation on putting in statutory guidelines what is already in guidance from the DPP, who has done an excellent job and whom we should all thank for his tremendous efforts, is not necessarily the way forward for long-term consultation on assisted suicide. To enable others to get in, I will try to draw my comments to a close. Many people do not have selfdetermination, because of their disability and illness, and such people need help to escape from their imprisonment. They want to know that individual friends and family will not be prosecuted. The Solicitor-General said in reply to me that guidance could change as public opinion altered, but he refused a consultation on this particular issue. He will need to revisit whether to consult on assisted suicide, because we need to be brave. The issue will not go away, and the likes of Geraldine McClelland and the amazing Melanie Reid, about whom we all read on Saturdays in The Times with ever-increasing incredulity at her great efforts, have shown us why the law must change. Our life belongs to each and every one of us, and that must be enshrined in law. 6.17 pm Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con): It is a great honour to follow the passionate speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), and I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) not only for tabling the motion but for his courtesy in writing to all hon. Members with understanding and detailed work on the subject. I speak in support of amendment (b), in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and I wish to touch on the issue of palliative care. My contribution arises from conversations that I have had with a great friend of mine who is a consultant in palliative care and has thought about the matter very deeply. He has drawn my attention to the work of Harvey Chochinov, who addressed the congress on palliative care in Gateshead earlier this month. Harvey Chochinov is a psychiatrist from Canada who has researched extensively the experiences of patients who are approaching the end of their lives, and ways of helping them. His work includes research on the expression of a desire for death or a loss of will to live, which he explains is often misconstrued as synonymous with a request for euthanasia or assisted suicide. There is good evidence that in the context of advanced illness, the desire for death can be thought of as a continuum. At its most extreme, it is synonymous with suicidal intent, and perhaps with the wish to die. Far more common are the many patients who, over the course of their illnessperhaps cancerexperience occasional and fleeting thoughts that not waking to another day may offer the escape and comfort that they perceive life can no longer afford. However, the research shows that in response to appropriate palliative care and the rallying of a community of support, thoughts about the wish to die can dramatically recede.

Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that there are good examples of the community supporting the provision of palliative care? For example, in Medway, the Friends of the Wisdom Hospice raised more than 500,000 to support the excellent palliative care there. The community and the voluntary sector want palliative care, so we have to work with them to ensure that such excellent facilities carry on. Jeremy Lefroy: I thank my hon. Friend and I entirely agree with him. In my constituency, we have the great work of Katharine House and, across Staffordshire, many other places, which I applaud. Dying with dignity involves being treated as an individualyes, having physical symptoms such as pain treated, but a lot more than that. Good palliative care is essential and we need to recognise that for the vast majority of patients, good palliative careincluding the opportunity to express oneself as an individual and to retain control over the areas of life that one can have control ofwill result in a desire for life rather than death. 6.20 pm Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con): I would argue that whatever side of the assisted dying debate we are on, it has been helpful to consider the basis for putting these guidelines on a statutory footing. As stated by my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and for Winchester (Steve Brine), the guidelines are, in effect, pseudo-statutory statutory, but subject to the view of the DPP, as his own guidelines have to be observed. We have often discussed in recent months the importance of Parliament making laws and judges interpreting them as a matter of principle, and I agree with that principle. Hon. Members have touched on the issue of consistency. Suicide is not a crime and, generally speaking, it is not a crime to assist someone in an action that is legal. There is a third issue on which I wish to focus, and it goes some way to picking up the gauntlet thrown down by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who is no longer in his place. There are very practical reasons of consistency and confidence why we should consider elevating these guidelines. It is a reasonable assumption, although the Government should test it, that there would be greater confidence in those guidelines as a result. Currently, there are 400 suicides a year related to a chronic or terminal illness. That is 400 people committing suicide alone and in appalling situations. I wish to share with the House an extract from the diary of the husband of a lady who died of cancer of the womb on 2 January last year. He wrote:
On New Years Day she persuaded me to take the dogs out for a walk and to visit friends to wish them Happy New Year. Whilst I was gone for perhaps an hour she took a large overdose in an attempt to end it all; due to the fact that she had been on strong painkillers and sleeping tablets for several months she was unsuccessful. She had previously signed a form saying that she did not wish to be revived in the event of requiring treatment, so they merely monitored her, however she did recover sufficiently to be allowed home on January 2nd. She seemed very weak and only wanted to sleep. However she was obviously not so weak as she seemed

1435 [Penny Mordaunt]

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1436

because when I took the dogs out that night she took advantage of my absence to tape herself into a plastic bag and end her life in that terrible way alone. She should have been allowed to quietly slip away surrounded by her beloved dogs and in my arms but she felt that option was not available and while she lay dead upstairs I was subjected to various police questioning sessions which lasted until 6 oclock the next morning. Even worse, she was subjected to a wholly unnecessary and barbaric post mortem and it was a fortnight before we could hold her funeral.

That is what we are debatingthe law and the DPPs guidance. It seems to me that the guidance works. It might seem incredible to hon. Members that part of the machinery of the state actually works, but that bit seems to work, so let us leave it alone to carry on its work. I am therefore prepared to support the motion. I was hopingand still am, given the noises offthat we will support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I took the strictures of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) when he said that, when it comes to end of life, the state and society, as they are now, cannot even protect the vulnerable and elderly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham said, how then can we provide the necessary strong protections? There are supposed to be strong protections when dealing with the elderly. Dr Shipman has been mentioned, but let us also consider the apparent neglect in certain care homes and hospitals. Such places should provide the ultimate in protection, but that is not happening. That is why I could not go along with Members in moving to what is called euthanasia or whatever else it might be. In that sense, I take the same line as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who asked whether this was a Trojan horse motion and whether we were getting on to a slippery slope. I came here with the old-fashioned view that this place was here to protect the life and liberty of individuals in this country. That is the kind of old-fashioned view I stand by. We must be absolutely sure that the dignity of the dying is preserved and that when they are at their most vulnerable, emotionally and physically, there must be no way in which a person is led to believe that their life is no longer precious or that their circumstances allow their vulnerability to be exploited. The professionalism of doctors and nurses also needs to be protected from any implication that their duty is no longer to maintain life. Any of us who have experienced this or supported a partner through a long illness to the final moments of death would have given anything for a little more timeGod-given time, I would call it. In that sense, I would like to thank St Josephs hospice in east Londonone of the oldest of the hospice movementand St Johns in Morecambe next to my constituency. Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con): I had the pleasure of spending 12 years working in the hospice movement. This debate shows that we need to expand palliative care and the hospice movement so that people have a real choice when it comes to end-of-life care. I know that my hon. Friend has personal experience of this. Does he agree that that is the fundamental point? Let us try that first before we start going down the line of assisted suicide. Eric Ollerenshaw: I thank my hon. Friend for that. Even though he is from Yorkshire, he seems to encapsulate exactly what I, being from Lancashire, was struggling to explain. Yes, it is about the hospice movement. That is why I support and hope we can vote on the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton. That is the route we should be going down and exploring even more than now. We should leave any discussion of euthanasia and the rest of it until we get the basics right in our society. I will support her amendment.

I read that out not as an argument for assisted death, or to argue that the author should have been spared the ordeal of an investigation or his wifes post-mortem, but to show the tragedy when someone feels that they do not have the confidence in guidelines that should be there to protect their loved ones, as well as themselves, to the extent that they do not even share their intentions. Although I accept that the desire to end ones own life can often be a rational one, I ask whether those 400 people a year would have still wished to attempt suicide in the way that they did, or at all, if they had felt able to talk more with their loved ones or a health care professional. Nadine Dorries: Will my hon. Friend give way? Penny Mordaunt: I do not have time. Whichever side of the debate we are on, we have to acknowledge the plight of those who choose to take their own life, and those they leave behind. I am content that the DPPs sensible guidelines should be considered and put on a statutory basis as I believe such a move could reduce the instances of such suicides, and that is worth the Government considering. What the Solicitor-General said about what might happen to future DPPs if they attempt to change those guidelines on a whim was very helpful. On a point of principle, we might legitimately ask whether this particular DPP has got it right. If we reach the point of asking that question, we have already conceded that some further action is required. I would say he has got it right, but other hon. Members may say he has not, but whatever Parliament decides, it is surely right that it should do so. 6.24 pm Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con): Like others, I congratulate Members on the standard of debate. I think there is a saying from the Torah: things that come from the heart speak to the heart. The contributions from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and for Hexham (Guy Opperman) have certainly demonstrated that. This has been a difficult debate that many of us approach with personal experience, or a mixture of that and difficult constituency cases. I have been approached by one constituent about assisted suicide, and I acknowledge the difficult circumstances that can lead a person to this kind of decision. I try to understand. The 20 or so cases per year demonstrate what other hon. Members have said about compassion and human relationships being stretched to the ultimate. I claim no moral superiority or imply any wrongdoingthat is for the law.

1437 6.29 pm

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

Assisted Suicide

1438

6.33 pm Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker; patience is rewarded in this important debate. I will make my own position extremely clear. I start as a Catholic, and I believe that human life is sacred, which I take from the Catholic catechism:
Human life must be respected because it is sacred. From its beginning human life involves the creative action of God and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end.

Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD): This is such a difficult subject for us to tackle, but whatever difficulties we in this House encounter are as nothing compared with some of the graphic descriptions of the agony of the dying and those who have to watch them suffer. I would like to read a version of Susan McArthurs storyedited, because of the shortage of time. She says:
On 30th October 2009 my husband Duncan died peacefully in our home with a glass of his favourite tipple by his side and me, his wife of 42 years, holding his hand. This sounds like a good death and indeed it was except for the fact that it was illegal. This is because Duncan took his own life and I was by his side...Duncan was diagnosed with MND

motor neurone disease.

He fretted and panicked until he acquired the means to end his life in his own home and at a time of his choosing. Once this had been achieved he relaxed and did his best to enjoy the time he had leftFollowing Duncans death there was a Police inquiry and the case was submitted to the DPPThis was an extremely stressful time for all the family when all we wanted to do was grieve for Duncan and say our farewellsThere was no prosecution, under new guidelines it was deemed not to be in the public interest.

That is my view, but I accept that it will not be the view of all my constituents or of everybody in this country, and that although many of us have personal and deep beliefs, the legislature must think beyond that, to the practicalities involved in the DPPs advice, and see how that fits with our consciences. I want to look at some of the areas of concern in the Director of Public Prosecutions advice, which is in many ways very sensible. It places a particular obligation on doctors and nurses not to be involved in a suicide, for example, but I am concerned that, in two areas, its flexibility could lead to problems. The first involves the requirement to determine whether the victim has
reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide.

Amendment (a), tabled by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and me, would have called for a consultation on whether the Government should give extra clarity and reassurance by giving legal backing to the guidelines. Parliament would then give the strongest possible signal that law-abiding citizens who compassionately help a loved one to die should not face prosecution. Any change in the guidelines must be ratified by Parliament. The DPP would not be able to change the guidelines at will. We have had a thorough discussion about that, which I would have hoped would be a comfort to those who worry that we are at the start of a slippery slope. We cannot be, because a change in the law would be needed to relax the guidelines further. Giving legal backing to the DPP guidelines would also send the strongest possible signal that those who maliciously or irresponsibly encourage suicide should be prosecuted. Of course, discretion should and must be with the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, it is important for the policy to be discussed in greater depth by the Government and the public. I welcome amendment (b), which calls for the further development of specialist palliative carea view shared by those on all sides of the assisted suicide argument. However, in my view, palliative care is not sufficient on its own. Suicide was made legal in 1961. The guidelines give protection to the dying person who would commit suicide if they had the ability, and to their family. Debbie Purdy said:
If I had lost my legal case, I would have gone to Dignitas in 2009.

In such circumstances, we are dealing with very vulnerable people who are ill and who are at the end of their lives. How voluntary is that decision really going to be? Anna Soubry: A constituent of mine has written to me at length and with great feeling on this subject. He is a bright, intelligent man at the end of his life who might fall into some unfortunate condition. He therefore has every ability to make a decision, as a grown-up person, about how he wants to end his life. Why should he not have that right? Jacob Rees-Mogg: We have to legislate for everybody, not just for my hon. Friends most able constituents. We have to legislate for the weak and vulnerable, and for those who have nobody to defend them. Yes, of course we can all cite examples of intelligent, capable people who would be able, for example, to resist pressure from family members who might be after an inheritance, but what about those who feel that they have become a burden to society? My greatest concern for the elderly and the frail is that, although they might be enjoying their lives, they might feel that they have become a burden and therefore selflessly propose that their own end should be hastened. That is my concern about the term voluntary. I am also concerned about the terms clear and settled. People might clearly settle something in their youth, then change their mind as the time gets closer. We read the saddest cases in the newspapers of people who have taken overdoses of paracetamol, then regretted their action and decided that they want to live. As the moment comes closer, how settled is that decision that was taken at an earlier stage? I am also concerned about the word informed, Mr Speaker. Informed by whom? Are you going to set up a committee, perhaps with the two of us, to advise on the different options available to people who are at a late and vulnerable stage of their lives? Or will they in fact receive that advice from people who favour a particular

With the knowledge of the guidelines, many dying people would have the confidence to hold on a little longer and have a better, more peaceful and more dignified death when the time was right for them. Mr Speaker: The last Back Bencher who has not spokenI see him standing to speakis the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg).

1439

Assisted Suicide

27 MARCH 2012

1440

[Jacob Rees-Mogg] course of action? How will we decide whether that information is fair, reasonable, and sufficient to allow them to make a choice that will protect their friends or family from a prosecution for assisting in their suicide? The guidelines also state that a prosecution is less likely when a suspect is wholly motivated by compassion. Of course the family and the spouses involved should be motivated by compassion, but who in this House clearly knows their own motivations when they do particular things? Most motivations are mixed in a number of ways. Jim Fitzpatrick: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the public interest criteria laid down by the Director of Public Prosecutions give the prosecuting authorities the opportunity to balance whether an action has been malicious or compassionate? Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Director of Public Prosecutions has indeed set out those guidelines, but can he be certain of peoples motivations? If we ourselves cannot always be certain of our own motivations for doing things, how much more difficult must it be for a lawyer, learned though he might be, to decide on somebodys motives? I must warn the House that we are sometimes in the greatest danger from those who are closest to us. I looked this up on the website of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Between 1995 and 1999, 80% of children under the age of one who were killed were killed by their parents, those from whom they would have expected love and compassion. We should therefore be very careful about assuming that just because there is a close relationship, there is automatically compassion. My solution is that the DPP should be very cautious in his guidelines, and that we should always trust in the good sense of juries if these matters are ever brought to prosecution, for that is where hope lies. 6.40 pm Richard Ottaway: In the 24 years for which I have been a Member of Parliament, I have witnessed many dramatic debates in the Chamber, but this has been probably the most remarkable in which I have taken part. It has been a constructive and intelligent debate, featuring some unbelievably well-informed speeches. There have been no personal attacks on anyonealthough I must confess that this is the first occasion on which I have been accused of talking cant, which I understand to be insincere talk about religion or morals; but we will put that to one side. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), who said that we could disagree with other with respect. That is what has happened today, and that governed the whole tone of his speech. Without a shadow of a doubt, much the most moving speech was made by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). One could not help feeling for him and for his conviction. That illustrates the difficulty that Members have in addressing the most difficult of subjects. It is hard to imagine being in the position of those about whom we have been talking, but the hon. Gentleman

came closest to it by far. I think everyone would agree that his speech was incredibly powerful. At the other end of the spectrum, I thought that the speech of my lifelong political friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) was also particularly powerful and impressive. By sheer coincidence, one speech followed the other, which made a strong impression on me. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who has campaigned on this issue for many years. She has shown great courage in regard to a very difficult subject, and I congratulate her on what she has done over those years. I am also deeply grateful to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), who has taken much of the fire today. I think it important that she tabled her amendment, but I also think that at the end of the day, following what I think was an historic debate, she was right not to press it to a Division. What I have endeavoured to do is build a consensus around a set of guidelines which I think command substantial support. They have compassion at their heart, and I think that if the motion is carried, it will be a small step for Parliament but a big step for a modern society. Amendment (a) negatived. Amendment made: (b), in line 3, at end add
and encourages further development of specialist palliative care and hospice provision..(Fiona Bruce.)

Main motion, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved,

That this House welcomes the Director of Public Prosecutions Policy to Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide, published in February 2010, and encourages further development of specialist palliative care and hospice provision.

Business without Debate

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (FINANCE (NO. 4) BILL) Ordered,
That, in respect of the Finance (No. 4) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.(Mr Newmark.)

PETITIONS South West Bedfordshire Constituency 6.44 pm Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con): I rise to present a petition signed by more than 2,000 of my constituents, who are extremely keen to keep the town of Dunstable and the village of Kensworth within the South West Bedfordshire constituency. Many people have contributed to getting this petition together. It has been both online and on paper. I thank in particular Councillor Ann Sparrow, Councillor Beverley Whayman and two former mayors of Dunstable, Brenda Boatwright and Sally Newton. My apologies to those I have not thanked.

1441

Business without Debate

27 MARCH 2012

1442

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Bedfordshire, Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the proposed boundary changes put forward by the Boundary Commission for England in relation to Dunstable as the Petitioners believe that the North Luton area, which the Boundary Commission proposes to combine with Dunstable, is a different community from Dunstable with different social challenges, which are very different from those of an historic market town. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons not approve any Order in Council giving effect to changes proposed by the Boundary Commission in relation to Dunstable that would combine Dunstable with North Luton. And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001015]

Foreign Secret Intelligence and State Secrets Privilege

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.(Mr Newmark.) 6.47 pm Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this debate. The story I am about to tell is extraordinarily dramatic. Frankly, had I not been able to verify some of the hard facts for myself, I would not have believed it. Essentially, the story is of an intelligence-gathering operation that, had it gone ahead, would very likely have yielded advance information about the 9/11 attack in New York. The operation was delayed by what can only be described as a turf war between American intelligence agencies, and as a result the intelligence opportunity was lost. The American Government then used the state secrets privilege to cover up that embarrassment, and did so in such a heavy-handed way that it facilitated the defrauding of some British citizens of millions of pounds. This is the same state secrets privilege, and the same American Government, that the British Green Paper on justice and security is designed to protect. The case I am about to describe will show how intelligence agencies misuse these laws not to protect our security, but to avoid their own embarrassment and, sometimes, to cover up criminal activity. In the mid-1990s, Afghanistan, a country of almost 30 million people, had fewer than 10,000 working telephones. There was no mobile phone network and no internet, and ordinary Afghans had to queue for hours to use the few functioning public phone boxes. The country had even lost its international dialling code. In 1998, the Taliban Government decided Afghanistan needed a new phone network. As no domestic companies had the necessary expertise, they invited foreign companies to bid for the rights to build the network. The company they chose was called Telephone Systems International. Based in New Jersey, TSI was owned by one Ehsanollah Bayat, a Kabul-born American citizen on friendly terms with the highest echelons of the Taliban Government, and particularly its leader, Mullah Omar. Helped by Mr Bayats powerful connections, TSI was awarded the exclusive licence to build and operate Afghanistans new telephone network, including domestic, international, mobile and landline calls. Mr Bayat had a problem: he had the connections, the funding and the exclusive contract, but he had no telecommunications expertise. He needed expert advice and operational skills, and sought it from two British citizens. One was Stuart Bentham, a former officer in the Corps of Royal Engineers. The other was Lord Michael Cecil. Between them, Bentham and Cecil had built new mobile phone networks in Kenya, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, and Bayat wanted them both on board. In 1998, they struck a deal under which Bentham and Cecil would each receive shares in TSI, amounting to about 30% of the company, in exchange for overseeing the building of the Afghan mobile network. So far, so ordinary, you might think, except that Mr Bayat was no ordinary telecoms entrepreneur. Cecil and Bentham knew his secret, but at this point the Taliban had no idea that the man they had asked to

Health and Social Care Bill 6.46 pm Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): It is fitting that just before the recess I should be presenting a petition against the Health and Social Care Bill, as it has dominated our proceedings in recent days. I commend in particular Karen Walker on her work in helping to gather the signatures on the petition. The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Scunthorpe, Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the reforms to the NHS that will be brought about by the Health and Social Care Bill as the Petitioners believe that they will damage the quality of services provided by the NHS. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse the reforms to the NHS brought about by the Health and Social Care Bill as soon as possible. And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001016]

1443

Foreign Secret Intelligence and State Secrets Privilege

27 MARCH 2012

Foreign Secret Intelligence and State Secrets Privilege

1444

[Mr David Davis] build their phone network was an FBI informer. With their man now in charge of Afghan telecoms, the FBI saw a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to gather intelligence on the Taliban and, of course, al-Qaeda. The plan was simple: the Taliban wanted American equipment for their new phone network, so the FBI and NSAthe National Security Agencywould build extra circuits into all the equipment before it was flown out to Afghanistan for use. Once installed, these extra circuits would allow the FBI to record or listen live to every single landline and mobile phone call in Afghanistan. The FBI would know the time the call was made and its duration, the callers name, the number dialled, and even the callers PIN. The FBI would also be able to monitor the telephone gateways channelling international calls in and out of the countrygateways already being used by Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and their associates, thanks to the satellite phones given by Mr Bayat to Taliban Ministers as gifts. The FBI gave the operation the codename Operation Foxden. Encouraged by a supportive Taliban Administration and eager American intelligence agencies, work on the new Afghan phone network began in earnest in 1999. Early progress was good, until suddenly, on independence day in 1999, the Clinton Administration imposed trade sanctions on Afghanistan and banned American citizens from doing business with the Taliban Government. For months, TSI had been legally exporting telecoms equipment to Afghanistan. Overnight, this activity had become a serious criminal offence. Construction of the Afghan phone network was delayed, as was the opportunity for the FBI to eavesdrop on the Talibans and al-Qaedas conversations. In the meantime, the American security services continued to discuss the project. In December 1999 and January 2000, Stuart Bentham and Lord Cecil flew to the US for meetings with officials from the FBI and NSA. Both agencies remained convinced that building and tapping the Afghan phone network from the ground up was a massive intelligence opportunity. The NSA even provided $30 million of funding, and offered technical support, cover stories and fake passports to TSI employees to help get the job done. In January 2000, Mr Bayat and his team were gradually finding a way to work around the sanctions and the limitations placed on them, and he made plans to fly to Afghanistan to get construction moving. According to a TSI technical expert who was on the ground in Kabul at the time, the new phone network could and would have been up and running in months. But the CIA had become aware of the project and had decided it could continue only under its control. Thus started a turf war that set the project back by some 20 months. Instead of getting the Afghan phone network built and starting to eavesdrop on Taliban leaders and al-Qaeda leaders, officials from the FBI and CIA spent more than a year and a half fighting over who should be in charge. Furthermore, when it was decided that the FBI should hand control of the project to the CIA, the CIAs near east division and counter-terrorism centre then proceeded to bicker among themselves over which of the subsets of the CIA should run the operation.

Eventually the bickering stopped and finally, 20 months after the project had been put on hold, TSI was given the green light to resume building Afghanistans phone network. Within days, and with MI6s blessing, Bayats British advisers, Bentham and Cecil, met CIA officials and technical experts at the Sheraton hotel. New Jersey. There they discussed future plans, Afghan satellite capacity and the possibility of more American funding. The project seemed to be back on track, but it was too little, too late. The Sheraton meeting, held in a room overlooking the World Trade Centre, took place on 8 September 2001. Three days later, while Bentham and Cecil were travelling by taxi from Heathrow to Matrix Chambers to get advice on the legality of their operation from Ken Macdonald QC, they heard on the radio the terrible news of the destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Centre. Of course, we cannot say for certain that if US intelligence agencies had managed to tap the Afghan phone network sooner, we would have intercepted evidence in time to stop the 9/11 attacks, but it seems quite likely. After all, there was clearly a good deal of related activity in Afghanistan immediately prior to 9/11. Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated two days before the 9/11 attacks, clearly to a timetable and clearly in a move to take out a potential US proxy against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. It is probable that there was telecoms traffic relating to that, if not to the 9/11 attack itself. In addition, Massoud had told the European Parliament only that summer to expect a massive spectacular attack against the west in the near future, presaging the 9/11 attack. So it looks as if a huge opportunity was missed, but that is only half the story. Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) rose Mr Davis: I am sorry, but I shall not give way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind, but I am sticking to a very narrow script on this occasion. By early 2002, coalition forces had toppled the Taliban and controlled most of the country. In April, the new Afghan phone network, which now connected all the major Afghan cities, was officially launched, with Hamid Karzai making the first official telephone call. The project had been a belated success and was then very profitable indeed. As agreed at the outset, Mr Bayat gave shares in TSI to Cecil and Bentham, the two British men whose advice had helped him get the Afghan phone network off the ground. In May 2002, a declaration by the American Federal Communications Commission in Washington confirmed that, showing that Cecil and Bentham each owned 15% of the shares in TSI, with Bayat owning 51%. However, not long afterwards Bayat changed his tune. He first offered to buy out Cecil and Bentham for derisory sums, then denied that they were entitled to any shares at all. That Bayat is an Arabic term for an oath of honour must have seemed a cruel irony. For months the dispute continued, eventually ending up in the New York southern district court, where Bentham and Cecil claimed the value of the shares they had been promised and Mr Bayat accused the British men of fraud, deceit and conspiracy. So what? one might think. After all, commercial squabbles between former business partners happen on every hour of every day in courts around the entire world.

1445

Foreign Secret Intelligence and State Secrets Privilege

27 MARCH 2012

Foreign Secret Intelligence and State Secrets Privilege

1446

7 pm Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)). Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.(Mr Newmark.) Mr Davis: I think the moment of interruption became a moment of terror for me then, Mr Speaker. I was saying that the commercial squabbles between Mr Bentham, Mr Cecil and Mr Bayat might be viewed as ordinary, but this was no ordinary case. The US intelligence agencies feared the consequences if the truth about their in-fighting emerged and they were determined to stop that truth from emerging. First, it emerged that the CIA had offered Bayat $1 million for his legal fight against Bentham and Cecil. Other evidence suggests that there was a general intent by the CIA to exclude British agencies from the operation, and this may reflect that. Secondly, when Bentham and Cecils lawyers pressed the case, CIA officers threatened them, warning that the whole case would be shut down if they continued. Then, in November 2003, a year after litigation began, the American judge suddenly sealed the case, shutting it down without warning, citing the state secrets privilege. All records of the case were expunged, and vanished from the courts public database. Cecil and Bentham were warned that they must destroy any documents in their possession that related to the case and that they would be in contempt of court if they discussed the case with anyone other than two named American lawyers. Bentham and Cecil appealed, but this was quickly dismissed, with the decision being explained in a judgment that they were not even allowed to see for themselves. Undeterred, two years ago they returned to London and brought proceedings in London. However, so long is the reach of the American state secrets privilege that Bentham and Cecil were banned from discussing in the English High Court key facts and details of the American litigation. Needless to say, because of that their claim failed. They realised then the unspeakable truth about which Parliament has until now been kept in the darkthat through heavy-handed use of the state secrets privilege, US agencies can dictate what British judges in British courts are entitled to know and how much British citizens in British courts are entitled to say. I am not here to pass judgment on the merits of Bentham and Cecils claim. Without having seen all the evidence I could not hope to come to a fair and accurate judgment, but the same goes for our judges. What chance did Bentham and Cecil or anyone else in a similar position have of getting a fair hearing when the American intelligence agencies can shut down cases without explanation in the US and use the state secrets privilege to control what evidence courts can see in the UK? When this shocking story was first raised with me six months ago I was very cautious about how to handle it given the sensitivity of the information concernedthe people involved and the techniques used are the kind of thing I tend not to talk about in publicbut I feel justified in raising these issues in Parliament today not just because of what this case reveals about the implications of the US state secrets privilege for British justice, but because when an American magazine published the

story back in September last year, an advance copy of the article was sent for comment to the CIA as a matter of courtesy. All Governments have ways of restraining newspapers and journals from publishing matters that might jeopardise national security. We use the defence notice, or the defence advisory notice as I think it now is, procedure, and the Americans use other procedures. In this case, however, no attempt was made by the CIA or anyone else to restrict publication of a journal that goes out to millions of readers. No attempt was made to keep this supposedly sensitive information under wraps. When one considers how heavy-handed the use of state secrets privilege was in respect of Bentham and Cecil, that is astonishingso astonishing, in fact, that I recently put the question to someone in the know in one of the agencies involved. I asked him, Why was this not shut down at this stage? His response was, Ten years have passed since 9/11, and the culpable people have moved on, so its no longer embarrassing. This demonstrates only too clearly that although the aim of the American state secrets privilege is to protect national security, in practice it is often used to eliminate embarrassmentpolitical, bureaucratic, organisational or individual embarrassment at past failures. This has been proven to be true of the state secrets privilege from its very first use in the Reynolds case in the 1950s, and it is clearly still true today. It also shows how giving a Government agency an absolute right to secrecy encourages bad behaviour. The American agencies could easily have stopped the defrauding of British citizens without the matter going to court, given their enormous leverage in the matter. Instead, they chose to suppress justice. I understand that both the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have been aware of the issue for some months. I have three questions, at this point for the Minister, but in due course for them. First, what do the Government intend to do about British citizens being defrauded of millions of pounds in this way and denied justice, with the collusion of United States Government agencies? Have the Government been in discussion with the American Government to correct this injustice? How will they prevent this happening again and being covered up in the same way again? Secondly, in the light of previous revelations about the UK Governments complicity in torture and rendition of detainees to locations such as Libya and Afghanistan, or illegally into American handsan area by definition covered by state secrets privilegehow will the Government prevent the Justice and Security Green Paper proposals being misused in a similar way to cover up illegal acts and embarrassments, rather than to protect national security, which is their supposed aim, particularly when one considers that the Governments Green Paper proposals are more draconian than the American state secrets privilege, because we do not have the constitutional protection of free speech which occasionally stops state secrets privilege being misused in the States? Thirdly and finally, can the Minister tell the House whether there is a formal, statutory, reciprocal arrangement to our proposed closed procedures with the American courts? Will we get complete protectionthe control principle for our intelligence data given to the Americans, of which there is a great dealin exchange for the apparently absolute protection that we are giving to

1447

Foreign Secret Intelligence and State Secrets Privilege

27 MARCH 2012

Foreign Secret Intelligence and State Secrets Privilege

1448

[Mr David Davis] American intelligence being disclosed here? Will we have the same level of protection? I suspect that the answer is not the one that the Minister would like to be able to give. This has been an extraordinary case, which has come to my attention in the past six months. It happens, by accident almost, to crystallise the issues that arise when the inevitably secret agencies of the state are given not just the normal secrecy that is extended to them to allow them to do their job, but secrecy and protection from the proper operation of the justice system in a mature democracy. I would like to hear the Minister, who I know shares many of my liberal values, tell us exactly how he intends to reflect those liberal values in the policies in the year ahead. 7.8 pm The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make the final speechat your discretionbefore we adjourn for Easter. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) on securing this debate and on the compelling way in which he laid out his case this evening. I recognise the strength of feeling and sincerity with which he raises this specific case and the wider associated issues it serves to illuminate. I will aim to do justice to the three questions he put to me at the conclusion of his speech, but first I would like to give some context for my answers. The security agencies play a vital role. They gather intelligence to protect our national security, with particular reference to the Governments defence and foreign policies, in the interests of the UKs economic well-being, and to prevent or detect serious crime. They provide warning of states taking actions hostile to UK interests, or planning such actions. They disrupt terrorism plots. Intelligence disrupts counterfeiting, drug trafficking and other serious offences, and intelligence can provide information on the intentions and capability of hostile state or non-state actors to launch cyber attacks against UK networks. The agencies conduct their activities in compliance with the law and in a manner consistent with our values. Agency personnel devote considerable time and effort to ensuring that this is the case, and a system of oversight exists. That oversight includes the invaluable work of the Intelligence and Security Committee, composed of parliamentarians drawn from both Houses of Parliament and of two former High Court judges, who act as independent commissioners. As my right hon. Friend said, the Government published a Green Paper on this issue in October 2011. In doing so, and in considering now the responses, this Government were, are and always will be guided by respect for fundamental rights to justice and fairness. It is always right that the Government should be held properly to account. The Green Papers proposals will enable better scrutiny, which is a vital element in a healthy democracy. Let me say a word about foreign intelligence. Threats to our security cross borders. We cannot confront them on our own, neither can we do it without co-operating

with intelligence partners on the basis of trust. We rarely have all the pieces of the intelligence picture, and we must analyse the information we have alongside that we receive from our partners to create the fullest possible picture of the threats to our national security. The ability of other countries to share intelligence with us without fear that we will have to disclose it is absolutely vital to our national interest. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) made that point eloquently in a newspaper article this morning. If we cannot uphold the control principlethe rule that any further use of intelligence requires the agreement of the agency that provided itand others do not share information with us as a consequence, we incur very real risks to our security. No responsible Government should willingly run such risks. We expect, and demand, the same protection for the intelligence we share with our overseas partners as that which we offer to those who have shared their information with us. However, under the current legal framework, sensitive material may have to be disclosed in civil proceedings, putting at risk the vital overseas relationships we depend on, as well as sensitive techniques and the lives and safety of individuals. The Government aim to achieve in any new legislation a system in which there is justice and accountability, in which secret material is protected as it should be in all our interests for the reasons I have just explained, and there is fairness for all parties. We seek to balance all those laudable objectives, including a system where there is justice and accountability. The Green Paper sets out proposals for handling sensitive material in civil proceedings, including the introduction of closed material procedures. At the same time, it proposed strengthening oversight of the activity of the agencies. Some 90 submissions were received in response to the consultation, of which Ministers will take account when making decisions on the measures to be introduced. I will not prejudge those decisions here. Let me turn to the questions that my right hon. Friend posed at the end of his speech. On the specific cases he raises, what I can say is that the Government are aware of the case, as he has said. We will continue to look into the matter and will decide how to respond to the representations already made on behalf of Mr Bentham and Lord Cecil in due course, and my right hon. Friends contribution to our deliberations this evening will of course form part of those considerations. My right hon. Friends second question goes to the nub of the issue, and I can speak to the House at greater length on this broader principle. How do we ensure that new arrangements apply only to the most sensitive material and are not used, as he put it, to cover up illegal acts and embarrassments? Ministers will consider that carefully, but I can assure him now that this is not about covering up embarrassment. It is about facilitating the work of the courts by enabling them to look at all relevant material while giving the most sensitive material proper protection. It is about putting more information before the courts than is currently possible for the very small number of cases where sensitive material is centrally relevant. The court would play a critical role and would simply not accept Government justifications for public interest that it considered were made only for the purposes of hiding embarrassment or seeking to cover up unlawful

1449

Foreign Secret Intelligence and State Secrets Privilege

27 MARCH 2012

Foreign Secret Intelligence and State Secrets Privilege

1450

conduct. The circumstances in which a closed material procedure might be necessary are exceptional and rare. They are not wide in scope. Sensitive information is central to a very small number of cases currently before the United Kingdom courts. On my right hon. Friends final question, I am told that, in the United States, Executive Order 13526 provides for the classification and protection of information where
the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defence against transnational terrorism.

Jim Shannon: Have there been other occasions when American institutions and the American Government have not exchanged intelligence information with the British Governmentto our detriment? Mr Browne: The point I wish to make to the hon. Gentleman and to all Members is that we cannot be confident that we will have access to, or have secured, all the information that we could possibly hope to secure in order to safeguard the United Kingdom national interest, so, when we have an opportunity to draw on the additional information provided by reliable and long-standing allies, it is in our interests and, if reciprocated, in their interests for us to pool our information so as better to protect the citizens of our country and the country with which we enter into that reciprocal arrangement. So that is the basis on which we operate, with a limited number of countries but we do have that basis, and we have to be confident, as do other countries, that such information will be handled sensitively and consistent with the undertakings that have been given. That is the basis on which we seek to discharge our obligations. The point I seek to make in conclusion, however, is that we do not regard safeguarding our national security, and the means by which we wish to disclose such information in certain circumstances, necessarily to be inconsistent with protecting the liberties and way of life of our citizens. Indeed, we regard it as necessary that the two operate in tandem, so I want to reassure the House that we are extremely mindful of the need, as I say, to protect those essential liberties. We must do all we can to achieve both aims, taking account of the views that we have heard throughout the consultation process, and Ministers not just in my Department but in others, most particularly the Ministry of Justice, will have listened to this debate with interest and will do so to subsequent opportunities that Members have to feed their views into the process. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): I wish the House, and those who work here, visit us and follow our proceedings, a very happy and peaceful Easter. Question put and agreed to. 7.22 pm House adjourned.

With regard to foreign Government information, the order explicitly states:

The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.

Mr David Davis: I simply wish to make one point and ask that the Minister takes it back to his Department. In The New York Times v. the United States in 1971 the point about the disclosure of foreign information was advanced as one of the Nixon Governments attempts to stop the Pentagon papers being published. It was rejected by the court on constitutional grounds, and constitutional lawyers have said that the executive order makes no difference to that and cannot transcend the constitution. I ask that his Department, in its approach to the Green Paper, makes it clear that there is not that absolute rejoinder the other way, because it is very important that we understand that we are at equal arms with our ally. Mr Browne: I am grateful for that intervention, because it is obviously in our interests that there is reciprocal sharing of information with the United States and a clear understanding of the status of that information. I will certainly draw my right hon. Friends comments to the attention of people within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so that they can consider them in any further submissions made by the Department. The Government are committed to safeguarding national security. Drawing on our societys fundamental values, we are also pledged to protect the liberties and way of life of our citizens. Those aimsprotecting our national security and liberty and way of life of our citizensneed not be in conflict.

311WH

27 MARCH 2012

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

312WH

Westminster Hall
Tuesday 27 March 2012 [NADINE DORRIES in the Chair]

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.(Angela Watkinson.) 9.30 am Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con): It is a pleasure, as always, Ms Dorries, to serve under your chairladyship today. I am grateful to colleagues from across the House for their support in this debate, and to the Economic Secretary and shadow Economic Secretary, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), for attending. Many issues will be raised in this debateincluding, I am sure, the issue of duty and minimum alcohol pricing. I will restrict myself to describing and discussing the core issue of the illegal smuggling of tobacco and alcohol. Such smuggling is becoming a serious issue in Herefordshire, particularly in Hereford city itself. My investigations have made clear to me what will already be apparent to many Membersnamely, that such smuggling is only the tip of an iceberg and only the beginning of a much bigger problem nationwide. In that context, I especially want to pay tribute to PC John Yarwood, who is the Hereford city beat manager; to Councillor Mark Hubbard, who first brought this issue to my attention; and to the trading standards team at Herefordshire council, who have been fighting to keep the smuggling under control. The problem is easily stated. A number of shops in my constituency persistently sell illegal tobacco and alcohol under the counter. A regular pattern is emerging: the shops are raided by the police and HM Revenue and Customs, goods are seized and fines are imposed. But weeks later, exactly the same thing happens againthe shops are raided, goods are seized and fines are imposed. And so it goes on. In the past 18 months, some 360,000 cigarettes have been seized in Herefordshire alone. That pattern does not happen by accident. There is a simple explanationthe profits to be made from illicit sales far exceed the losses from fines and seizures. A single lorry-load of cigarettes can be worth 1.5 million in profits to the smugglers. Costing just 9p, a pack of 20 cigarettes has something like a 4,000% mark-up when it is sold on the street. It has been reported that HM Revenue and Customs seizes some 1.7 billion illegal cigarettes every year. As a whole, tobacco trafficking is estimated to cost the taxpayer 2 billion a year and alcohol trafficking 1.2 billion a year. So this is very big business. In effect, the fines and seizures have become just another cost of doing business literally, a licence to smuggle. It appears that they have little or no deterrent effect. Many of these shops have had their alcohol licences revoked, but that has proven to be little or no deterrent against illegal sales.

These actions make a mockery of the law and our law enforcement agencies, and they need to be stopped. They cause a huge loss of tobacco and alcohol duty to the taxpayer, they undermine the sales of law-abiding businesses on the high street and of distributors, and there is nothing to prevent under-age sales and illegal working in these shops; one man arrested in a raid in Hereford last year had been awaiting deportation since 2008. They also create serious additional hazards to health. Someone smoking a smuggled cigarette could be smoking anything, just as someone drinking a smuggled bottle of spirits could be drinking anything. These products are not subject to the same rigorous controls as the legal products. Generally, they are made in backstreet premises in countries far distant from the UK, and they are specifically made to be smuggled. Moreover, there is evidence that illegal tobacco and alcohol outlets are often used to fund organised crime on a far wider scale. However, the problem goes much deeper than that. There appears to be no way in law to prevent these shops from reopening and no clear line of accountability within Government. The issue sits unhappily poised between HM Revenue and Customs, which reports to the Treasury; the UK Border Agency and the police, which report to the Home Office; and licensing policy and trading standards officers, which report to local councils. I am extraordinarily grateful to the Economic Secretary for coming today, but she cannot be expected to answer questions about policing or border controls. Those topics are for the Home Office, not the Treasury. I am aware that the Government have taken important steps to address the issue in recent yearsproviding extra resources during the next four years to increase investigations, intelligence and enforcement; expanding the work of HMRC overseas to tackle importation into the UK at source; and developing new technology and resources to strengthen our borders. I am also aware that, at least in theory, HMRC has a range of penalties at its disposal, including the seizure of goods, civil penalties, fines of up to 5,000, criminal prosecution and the recovery of criminal assets. However, those penalties are not anything like enough. I repeat that a single lorry-load of cigarettes can be worth 1.5 million in profits to the criminal rings behind it. Furthermore, recent history has not been encouraging. Far from raising their game during the past 10 years, I understand that HMRC and the UK Border Agency have been doing worse over that time: they seized fewer cigarettes and less rolling tobacco in 2008-09 than in 2000-01; they have seized fewer vehicles; and fewer people have been sentenced for tobacco smuggling. What can we do? I suggest three things. First, we need more information. Is it true that HMRC has been less effective and not more effective during the past few years? How many prosecutions have there been? We need regular and detailed data on prosecutions and seizures. Secondly, it is not enough for the police and HMRC just to be able to seize goods and impose these relatively modest fines. They need to be able to close down premises for significant periods when there have been repeated violations of the law. That may require new law-making.

313WH

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

27 MARCH 2012

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

314WH

[Jesse Norman] Finally, there is a clear case for having a Minister who is specifically charged with dealing with the issue and able to work across Departments to be as effective as possible. I note that the Minister with responsibility for broadband, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), works across both the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Perhaps there is scope for similar joint-reporting lines across HMRC, the Treasury and the Home Office in this area. Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con): I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. As the chair of the all-party group on beer, I recognise his commitment to the brewing industry; he has been a great supporter of it since he has been in this place. Does he share my concern about the Governments recent estimate of alcohol smuggling into this country? They estimated that the equivalent of 28,000 lorry-loads of alcohol come into this country every year, which is about 538 illicit movements per week. If so, does he also share my view that if such a massive amount of alcohol is being smuggled into this country, the problem lies with the customs authorities, which are not policing our borders efficiently and effectively? Jesse Norman: I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for his intervention and questions. He puts his finger on the scale of the problem and he must also be right that the UK Border Agency is not being as effective as it should be in preventing this illegal importation of goods. That is a further element to be addressed by a Minister with the kind of joint-reporting lines that I described earlier. Let me sum up my argument. Better information, new powers and better co-ordination between Government agencies are all required. Those three steps could make a crucial contribution to tackling the scourge of alcohol and tobacco trafficking, and I am sure that I speak for all Members in Westminster Hall today when I urge the Government to consider those steps carefully as they develop their thinking in this area. 9.38 am Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con): Thank you, Ms Dorries, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on securing this debate on a hugely important issue that is particularly timely, following the Budget. I will focus my remarks specifically on the Treasury-covered area of duty stamping. In itself, it could do a great deal to help prevent some of the illegal sales that we have discussedcertainly the illegal sale of alcohol. One of the questions about smuggling, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), is that there is some debateeven within the alcohol industryabout how much is actually smuggled in. There is a debate about the amount that is physically smuggled in as opposed to paper movements, whereby the product never actually leaves the country and the paperwork is simply moved between countries to avoid

duty. That can create a huge issue that is impossible for the UK Border Agency, or indeed any form of border control, to manage, as it is basically a paper shift. Excise duties on alcohol generate about 9.5 billion a year; they certainly did in 2010-11. However, there is also a Treasury estimate of a tax gap of up to 1.2 billion each year due to duty evasion, principally through fraud. As has already been mentioned, about 10% of the beer sold in this country in 2009-10 was estimated to have been sold illegally. Data from wholesalers show that beer and wine sales have fallen, while those of spirits, which are now duty stamped, have increased. Those are more likely to be legal sales, as duty stamping has reduced illegal sales. Duty stamping brings an increase in duty for the Treasury; at a time when we are looking to plug an economic gap, such an increase could be hugely beneficial. I have talked to wholesalers and retailers. In particular, the Federation of Wholesaler Distributors has done a lot of work in this area, and it is clear that there is now a correlation between beer and wine. If the Government are considering introducing duty stampingI welcome the measure in the Budget to consult on itI hope that they look at beer and wine together, as it is becoming clearer and clearer that those are now direct competitors, certainly where choosing whether to drink beer or wine at home is concerned. Of what men drink, it is estimated that about 60% is beer and cider and 25% is wine. The figures for women are more like 57% wine and 19% beer and cider, so a significant amount of alcohol can be covered through duty stamping. The retail industry has experienced a significant loss in beer sales over recent yearsparticularly of products, such as Stella Artois, which are more subject to illegal smuggling and fraud. There is an opportunity to have a huge impact through the health service; a reduction in the amount of cheap beer available through the small outlets that get it through the grey market would be beneficial to the Department of Health through reduced alcohol-related illness. The increased revenue from duty stamping could be used by the Department to increase awareness of alcohol. I hope that, in the consultation on duty stamping, we look not so much at whether it is taken forward by the Government, but at how. Multi-packs are a particular issue for the beer industry. How can duty stamping be done cost-efficiently and effectively and deliver what we want without it preventing the industry from exporting their product? I appreciate that there are some technical issues and I hope that, working with the industry, the Government will be able to deal with them, so that we can have increased revenue for the Treasury of about 1 billion and also a beneficial impact on health. The measure may well go some way towards dealing with the issue that police in Norfolk have outlined to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire mentioned it, and I know that the Economic Secretary reads about such things. The huge number of issues that the police deal with on a weekend evening, when people are out and about, are not due to alcohol consumed in public houses and clubs, where people are generally more responsiblecertainly the landlords and owners arebut to preloading with cheap alcohol, much of which is bought on the grey market at a lower price than should be allowed. I hope that the

315WH

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

27 MARCH 2012

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

316WH

Government will move forward with duty stamping. It is something that could be welcomed, and it would help not just the Treasury but the health of our nation. 9.43 am Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Dorries, and I apologise for being a couple of minutes late. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on securing this important debate, which ensures that the Government and the world at large continue to see that parliamentarians across the political divide are determined to do more to discourage smoking in our society and to act on the illegal trade in both alcohol and tobacco. I want to concentrate entirely on tobacco. I am proud to say that the Labour Government did a great deal to reduce the illicit trade in tobacco. Better enforcement by Government agencies and strict curbs on the tobacco industrys activities paid dividends but, as the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire has outlined, more action is needed. Although all tobacco is harmful and costs lives, illegal tobacco makes it easier for children to start smoking, and brings crime into our neighbourhoods. As a school nurse, my wife Evaline gave talks to children about the dangers posed by smoking. I remember her telling me about deploying an economic argument, highlighting the money that would be available for other things if a person did not smoke. I was surprised to hear that the children told her she had her figures wrong. She quoted retail prices, but they quoted local ones, which were considerably lower. Therefore, we know where they were getting the cigarettes from. I am pleased to say that north-east England is leading the way in taking a stand against this blight on our society. In 2007, Fresh, the UKs first dedicated regional programme, which was set up in the north-east to tackle the worst rates of smoking-related illness and death in the country, hosted the UKs first summit on illicit tobacco, and in 2009 the three north of England regions introduced the worlds first pan-regional tobacco action plan: the north of England tackling illicit tobacco for better health programme. The programme aims to improve the health of the population by reducing the supply of and the demand for illicit tobacco, much of which is more poisonous than retail products, which are bad enough. The innovative partnership approach aims to break the intergenerational cycle of health inequalities, which is caused by our poorest young peoples early addiction to freely available cheap tobacco. In some parts of the north-east of England, the sale of illegal cigarettes from tab houses, car boot sales and workplaces has threatened to undermine efforts to tackle smoking, and most people even smokerswant something done about it. The 2010 smokefree survey by YouGov found that 89% of adults in the north-east wanted tougher sentences for tobacco smugglers, while a major survey of 6,000 adults in every local authority in the north of England found that nine out of 10 people believe that illegal tobacco is a danger to children. That is not surprising, given that I am told that some tab houses in the region specialise in selling to children.

However, good progress in tackling the problem is being made in many areas. The north of England tackling illegal tobacco for better health programme has resulted in less illegal tobacco being bought and sold on estates in our areas, fewer people turning a blind eye and more action aimed at bringing sellers to justice. The volume of illegal tobacco bought has gone down by 39% in the north-east. The percentage of smokers buying illegal tobacco has fallen from 20% to 18%, and the number of 16 to 34-year-olds buying it has reduced by between 5% and 6%, but 23% of 16 to 24-year-old smokers say that they still buy it. It is vital that the kind of partnership that we have in the north-east of England is replicated around the country, as it demonstrates that the illicit trade can and will be beaten. What makes me angry is the idea propagated by the tobacco industry that introducing plain packaging for cigarettes, which would do so much to stop young people starting to smoke in the first place, will somehow increase the illicit trade in tobacco. That is simply untrue. The existing packs are already so easy to forge that they have covert markings to enable enforcement officials to distinguish illegal cigarettes. With those markings and large pictorial warnings, the so-called plain packswe all know that they will be multicolouredwill not be easy to forge. What plain packs will do is reduce the attractiveness of tobacco products to children, thereby curbing demand, which I am sure everyone here will agree is key to stopping the illicit trade in tobacco. 9.47 am Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on securing this debate. I want to make some brief remarks as chairman of the all-party group on smoking and health. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) is chairman of the all-party group on beer, and I want to make it absolutely clear that my group is against smoking whereas his, I believe, is in favour of the consumption of beer. Andrew Griffiths: The responsible consumption. Stephen Williams: Absolutely. I saw my hon. Friend just last night responsibly consuming beer in the Strangers Bar downstairs. The UK is a leader in tobacco control, and I want our country and the coalition Government to remain at the forefront in that area. We have seen huge progress over the past couple of decades in the limitation of tobacco companies opportunities to market their products. Checking carefully around the room, I think that all of us, perhaps with the exception of the Economic Secretary, remember popular television tobacco advertising, with catchy tunes. They are now a thing of distant memory, and we will see further changes shortly. I am sure that many of us will visit supermarkets in our constituencies during the Easter recess, and we will no longer be able to see displays of tobacco products because all large shops will have to cover them up. Some shops in my constituency have already pressed ahead with doing so, including the Tesco superstore in Eastville on the edge of my constituency.

317WH

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

27 MARCH 2012

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

318WH

[Stephen Williams] The next necessary stage in tobacco control is introducing what has been called plain packaging for cigarettes, although that is to some extent a misnomer. The design of plain packs shows that they are anything but plain, but they would be of a standardised design in order to remove what is essentially the last opportunity available to tobacco companies to promote their products: the design of packs, of packaging within the cardboard pack and of cigarettes, which now come in many shapes, sizes and colours to attract the next generation of gullible young people attracted by glitzy products that they think it is cool to consume. Of course, it is anything but. I am sure that tobacco companies will fight tooth and nail to prevent standardised packaging from being introduced in the United Kingdom. The Department of Health is about to start a consultation exercise on plain packaging on behalf not only of central Government but of the devolved Administrations. I am sure that tobacco companies will come up with all sorts of reasons why plain and standardised packaging should not be introduced. One reason will be that it could increase the opportunity for the sale of illicit and counterfeit cigarettes, which is the topic of this welcome debate. I doubt whether the introduction of plain packaging will increase the opportunity for counterfeiting. If it does, it will only do so because the tobacco industry inflicts that problem on itself. Most or all tobacco companies already put covert markings on their packs to protect their legal sales from illicit sales in a market where their brands are clearly visible. Their brands will no longer be clearly visible on packs if plain packaging is introduced, as I hope it is. Instead, the packs will have prominent health warnings and standardised colours and fonts. The fact that they will still have covert markings, bar codes and other measures to counteract the best efforts of those who wish to smuggle cigarettes into our country should mean that moving from branded packs to standardised plain packs will not increase the opportunity for illicit sales. Brandon Lewis: I am not a cigarette smoker, but surely one potential problem with plain packaging is not whether experts and officials can check a code to see whether the product is illegal but whether the public who buy the packs can spot it easily. With plain packaging, the codes will be less easy for the public to spot. Therefore, it will be less easy for them to report counterfeit packs, increasing the opportunities for illegal and counterfeit sales. Stephen Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As I mentioned, the Government are about to embark on a consultation exercise about the various issues that must be considered before we move ahead to a plain packaging regime for the sale of cigarettes. I am sure that that point will be tested with all the current enforcement agencies to see whether it is indeed a legitimate worry and concern. If so, we will have to take measures to ensure that the design of standardised packs makes it easy for the public to distinguish a bona fide, legally sold product of a tobacco company from a bootleg or imported product that does not meet UK standards.

I have just thought of a direct answer to my hon. Friends point. At the moment, there are few regimes in the world where plain packaging is the norm. To the extent that the UK follows Australias lead, we will be the first in the European Union to adopt it. People who currently import lorry loads or white van loads of tobacco and other products, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire mentioned, and who make enormous profits as a result, will not be able to import branded products from the rest of the European Union, because those products will not be legally saleable in this country unless they have a standardised pack design. It could be argued that standardised packaging will limit the opportunities for people to import van loads of material supposedly for their own personal consumption, much of which we must suspect is diverted into the illicit market. It would be wrong of us to assume that the trade is rampant at the moment. It is certainly highly profitable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire said, but the various Government agencies, working together, have driven down the share of illicit tobacco over the past decade. Her Majestys Revenue and Customs estimates that 10 years ago, in 2000-01, the share of tobacco packs sold on the illicit market was just over one fifth, at 21%, but by 2009-10, that market share had been halved to 10%. Unfortunately, the market share of hand-rolling tobacco, which is easier to counterfeit, is still shocking. Some 46% is sold on the illicit market, without any control and at a tax revenue loss to the Treasury. In closing, I urge the Government, as well as moving to standardised and plain packs, to adopt some other measures. First, all the various agencies that wish to control illicit tobacco should work effectively together. HMRC has a responsibility. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is with us today, has a direct responsibility to work more closely with the UK Border Agency, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire mentioned, also has a key role. The Government should also work with local authorities. I am all in favour of localismI have been an evangelist for localism for a long time, and I am pleased that our coalition Government are pressing ahead with itbut we must make it clear as part of the Governments national public health strategy that local authorities have a duty to use Government public protection officers more effectively in areas of tobacco control. Of course, the police have a role as well. Police and crime commissioner elections are being held in November, and I will certainly ask all the candidates in Avon and Somerset what they will do to stop the sale of cigarettes to underage people and the sale of illicit cigarettes to anybody. Secondly, there should be a more effective registration scheme for retailers, so that we can separate rogue from responsible retailers. Thirdly, the Government should work with the World Health Organisation to develop more effective tracing of tobacco packs as they travel around the world. The tobacco industry is now global, and many of the cigarettes sold in this country are manufactured elsewhere. I thank my hon. Friend again for giving us the opportunity to discuss these important issues. Driving down the smoking rate is good for public health outcomes

319WH

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

27 MARCH 2012

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

320WH

in our country, and driving down illicit cigarette smoking while a legal trade still exists will be good for the public finances. 9.58 am Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on securing this important and timely debate. The House should face up to the reality that the smuggling of and trade in illicit cigarettes, tobacco and alcohol is a multi-million-pound criminal enterprise. It is not some car boot sale nonsense; it is a significant endeavour. The House will have its head in the sand if it does not recognise that fact. It loses the Treasury tens of millions of pounds in revenue, which could be spent on our schools, roads, hospitals and other areas, and we must recognise that. I serve on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which recently took evidence on the trade in smuggled tobacco and alcohol. One company supplied evidence to show that, in Northern Ireland alone, 170 million illegally gotten cigarettes are smoked every year. That loses the Treasury 42 million every year and has lost the company whose product has been counterfeited 12.5 million. That is a staggering loss in one little part of the United Kingdom. I thought that it was significantly bad that 17% of all cigarettes smoked in Northern Ireland had been illicitly traded, but in parts of England and the border counties the figure is 24%. In Devon and Cornwall, it is 13%, and in London, it is 20%. This is a massive criminal endeavour and some of the people who make money out of it are the worst, most cantankerous, nasty and evil people imaginable: as quick as they would sell people cigarettes, they would slit their throats. The House has to wake up to the fact that they are engaged in a serious, criminal endeavour. The Government should exercise the most serious measures against them, and we should encourage the Treasury and the Government in that regard. As I have said, the timing of the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire in securing the debate could not be better. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee today published its report on the smuggling of counterfeit cigarettes, tobacco products and alcohol and on the illicit fuel trade. This massive trade is central, so we need to take off our gloves and get stuck into countering it. Brandon Lewis: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that evidence from around the world shows that increasing regulation, whether via plain packaging or by putting up duty on cigarettes and tobacco, can simply increase the illegal trade? Irelands budget of 2010 recognised that by not putting up duty. Rather than increase duty or introduce plain packaging, the Government should follow the model suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire and use the UK Border Agency and other agencies to properly crack down on the illicit trade itself. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman will find that I am not arguing against his viewshe is rightbut we need to set out clearly how significant the problem is. Do we

tax the product to the extent that it makes the smugglers job all the more easy, or do we recognise that there are things that the Government and we as a nation can do to address the problem? The problem is not helped by the fact that I can drive my car to France or Belgium, fill it to the gills with cigarettes or alcohol and bring it back to this island and sell those products illegally. There should be a complete stop on a person being able to bring back a boot full of wine, alcohol and cigarettes and claim, These are for me. That is utter nonsense. Everyone knows that they are being brought back to be sold either on the street illegally or to their friends and neighbours. We have to make sure that such activity is stamped out. The Government should be rigorous and ensure that, if people buy cigarettes and alcohol, they should buy them in this nation, pay tax on them in this nation and smoke and drink them in this nation, rather than allowing them to circumvent tax policies. It makes sense that I can probably buy twice as much legally in every other part of Europe than I can buy here because our tax policies are so severe. If they are severe, we need to make them work on this island. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): I apologise, Ms Dorries, for my late arrivalcable theft means that the railways are in chaos. I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that, if hundreds more staff were employed by Customs to seal our borders properly and ensure that such smuggling did not take place, they would not just stop criminality, but make many times their own salary for the Treasury? Ian Paisley: I would have no difficulty with the deployment of more people in the worthwhile work of Her Majestys Revenue and Customs and other customs and border agencies, but our Committee took evidence from HMRC officials who said that they were satisfied with the money given to them by the Treasury and that they probably have enough people. If HMRC wants more people, it can argue its case, and it will not lack any support from me. Some people argue that the plain or uniform packaging of cigarettes would solve the problem, but that is utter, total baloney. If people think that by simply uniformly packaging all cigarettes they will suddenly meet a public health objective, they are losing the plot. Plain or uniform packaging will not affect the problem. Every survey tells us that adults do not care if the package is gold, has a camel on it, or if it is red, white and blue. They care about price and taste. A person will smoke Camel lights because they prefer their taste to that of Marlboro. The colour of the stupid package does not matterthat goes in the bin. A person will smoke Benson and Hedges not because the box is beautifully gold with a pair of lungs on it, but because of the products taste and availability. We have to wipe out the nonsense that plain packaging is the panacea to achieving a public health goal and to preventing smuggling. Plain or uniform packaging will just make it much easier for the smuggler, no matter what people say. Smugglers are rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect that someone would be so daft as to uniformly package all cigarettes in the same year as we

321WH

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

27 MARCH 2012

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

322WH

[Ian Paisley] are implementing a display ban so that we cannot see the daft things. We have to recognise that, if we are to have a display ban, we do not need plain packaging. It would infringe on peoples rights and on trade laws, and it would jeopardise many legitimate businesses. I do not hear the same lobby group arguing for the plain packaging of tins of beer, or for the uniform packaging of bottles of wine or spirits. We should remember that diseases as a result of drinking alcohol cause far more damage and create far more costs for our health system than those that result from smoking cigarettes. Moreover, on antisocial behaviour, there are far more fights on the streets of this city on a Friday night, not because someone has had too many fags, but because they have had too much to drink. We have to recognise that the plain packaging argument is, frankly, nonsense. It is not a panacea to solving the problems of counterfeit crime. Stephen Williams: The hon. Gentleman has made several points that need to be knocked down, but I shall address only one. If he thinks that the introduction of plain, standardised packs is pointless, why does he think that the tobacco industry is going to fight it with all the resources at its disposal, and why does it put so much effort into providing attractive packs, colourful cigarettes, gold wrapping and all the other paraphernalia that goes with the marketing of cigarettes? Surely, it is wasting its money if that has no effect. Ian Paisley: The tobacco industry is able to speak for itself, but one of the reasons why it is annoyed is that this is an infringement on its trading rights, its branding and all the things in which it has invested over the years. It would be wrong to turn around and say that we can just remove those things overnight. The industry argues that it would damage the actual trade, so let us look at that and what it costs. In my constituency, more than 1,000 people are directly employed in the tobacco industry. In Manchester, another 800 people are directly employed in the manufacturing of cigarettes. If we are not careful, those jobs will go to eastern bloc countries and to Europethey will move out of this country. Will that affect the number of people who smoke cigarettes? Not one jot. The same number of people will continue to smoke cigarettes, but they will be manufactured elsewhere. We will be the biggest losers, because we will have lost the jobs, the tax and the pay-as-you-earn tax. Brandon Lewis: Again, I fully support what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The point that he has just made is backed up if we consider the packaging issue. A lot of the cigarette packaging around Europe is produced in this country, and therefore a huge number of jobs would be at risk if plain packaging were introduced. One of the reasons why companies are so protective of their packaging is brand protection. Bearing in mind that cigarette sales are legal and it is a legal product, unless the Government make cigarette sales illegal, companies feel that they have a right to protect their brand, as that is what protects sales and jobs. Companies argue that a clear definition of brand prevents some of the illegal trade that we are trying to stop.

Ian Paisley: The trading issues are very clear. For example, the value of the wage bill paid in my constituency alone to the people who manufacture cigarettes is 60 million a year. That is the figure paid in wages to engineers in the company. People might snigger at that, but if we remove those jobs from the economy, houses will not be sold and people will not buy food in Tesco and Sainsburys. The bottom line is that people will move out of the area. I am talking about high-paid, valuable jobs in my constituency that I am delighted about. Anyone would be envious of them and would try to achieve them in their own constituency. We need to recognise the importance of such jobs. The hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire made some very important points about how we should start to address the matter, and I want to pick up on one of them. He said that a cross-cutting Minister should try to take the lead on this. How should the Government go about doing that? If they have to put in place a specific cross-cutting MinisterI hate the word tsarso be it. That is an excellent idea. There needs to be a joined-up golden thread running through all divisions, and we need to recognise that the issue must be tackled head on. Although hon. Members from all parties have different views on the matter, the fact is that the problem is damaging our country in terms of loss of trade and loss of revenue. The people who lose out are those we all care most about: the ordinary citizens who could have that tax revenue spent on them and their needs. I am more than happy to support the need to deal with the matter. 10.12 am Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con): This is the first time I have served under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and it is an absolute pleasure. I was not intending to speak in todays debate, but I thought I would take the opportunity as there is a bit of time. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) who, as always, made a passionate speech. Everybody who has contributed to the debate wants the level of illegal tobacco and illegal alcohol to be reduced. We all recognise the damage that the problem does to British business, the cost to the Treasury and the cost to companies in all our constituencies. We are united in that view. However, coming from a brewing constituency and being the chairman of the all-party group on beer, I have some major concerns about the Governments proposals on duty stamping. Of course, such concerns come on the back of last weeks Budget, which continued the duty escalator on beer and resulted in a 5% increase in duty on a pint of beer. We need to consider the impact that any measure we introduce on fraud will have on the industry. We already pay more duty on British beer than people in any other European country. The facts are that we pay 40% of all of Europes beer duty, yet we drink only 13% of Europes beer. Our British brewing industry is being penalised by the duty regime. In France, 7p in duty is paid on a pint; yet, in this country, we pay 49p in duty. Hon. Members can see the impact that the duty regime is having on our industry. I urge the Minister to think carefully about the effect that such a policy will have on an industry that is already reeling as a result of the duty regime. We are

323WH

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

27 MARCH 2012

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

324WH

talking about requiring British brewers to duty stamp 5.5 billion bottles and cans every year. We recognise that there is fraud and smuggling in relation to beer, cider and wine, but the Government are not proposing to introduce duty stamps for cider or wine. Why is it that yet again the British brewing industry is being penalised in this way? Kelvin Hopkins: Would it not help the British brewing industry if there were serious constraints on imports of beer and, indeed, we returned to the era when we could tax imports of alcohol to the same level that domestic products are taxed? Andrew Griffiths: I agree wholeheartedly that the duty regime is encouraging imports into this country. The fact that the British beer industry pays up to four times the duty of that paid by the British cider industry is encouraging companies such as Stella Artois to produce cideror cidre, as it calls its brandand import it into the UK. We are exporting jobs as a result of our duty regime. Jesse Norman: On a point of information, I would like to make it perfectly clear to hon. Members that the cidre product has nothing to do with Herefordshire. Andrew Griffiths: I would like to put it on the record that, as well as being a great supporter of the British brewing industry, my hon. Friend is a magnificent spokesman for the cider industry. We regularly do battle over whether beer or cider is best. Let us consider the Governments alcohol fraud strategy. In 2010, we introduced a new strategy, which has been successful. We have seen the number of illegal goods being impounded and seized increase dramatically: a 71% increase in beer, a 50% increase in wine and a 67% increase in cider. Those figures clearly demonstrate that the smuggling problem is just as prevalent with wine and cider, yet the Government do not propose to put a duty stamp on them. I struggle to understand why beer is being singled out in such a way. Let us consider the estimated amount of illegal beer that the Government believe is coming into this country. They estimate that 28,000 articulated lorry loads of beer come into this country every year. That is the equivalent to 538 articulated lorry loads of beer every week, with an estimated profit to the smugglers of 18,000 per lorry. That is the equivalent of 9.6 million of profit to the smugglers per week. Of course, we want to stop that profit and that illegal trade. However, are we honestly suggesting that if our border controls have 28,000 articulated lorries going through them every year, the answer is to bring in duty stamps, rather than to tighten up our border controls? Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend and I have discussed this issue on a number of occasions. Is it not true that the industry feels that a lot of the trade that is, in theory, coming in on those trucks is not physically coming in, but is merely a paper movement? The product never actually leaves the UK in the first place. We need to overcome that problem as well. Andrew Griffiths: I agree that that has been suggested. If we are saying that there is a problem with smuggling importing bottles and cans of beer into the countrylet us deal with that. If we are saying that there is a fraud going on in relation to some grand paper chase of

virtual bottles of beer leaving the country and coming back in, let us tackle that. We need the industry and the wholesalers to work with us on that. The answer is not to implement a duty stamping of 5.5 billion bottles of beer at a massive cost to the brewing industry, because that may not solve the problem to which my hon. Friend refers. There is the phrase, Just because youre paranoid doesnt mean they havent got it in for you. From the brewersperspective, it seems as if the Government have a desire to ruin the British beer industry, and I ask the Government why. The all-party parliamentary beer groupI urge those in the Chamber who are not members to join as a matter of urgencyheld a hearing recently, in which, I think, Andy Leggett gave evidence to us. He said, at that stage, that duty stamps were not the number one option for the Treasury and Customs in relation to smuggling and fraud. We are therefore concerned to see that proposal in the Budget. Does the Minister have any idea what cost this will add to the beleaguered British beer industry? Why single out beer? Why not cider? Why not wine? Does she have any estimate of the cumulative effect of the extra burden and red tape on the brewing industry, when adding in the beer duty escalator and this unnecessary extra cost? I ask the Minister to think about British beer. Some 80% of all beer drunk in this country is brewed in this country. The beer industry employs tens of thousands of people in all our constituencies. It is a great British product of which we should be proud. Let us not ruin it with an over-bureaucratic system that is costly and damages the future of British beer. 10.21 am Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Coop): It is a pleasure to have you as Chair this morning, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on securing the debate, and on giving a very good outline to some of the issues. We have heard a wide-ranging debate covering the amount of money lost to the Treasury through illegal sales of alcohol and cigarettes, and also issues relating to health, smoking, alcohol and so on. I will not stray too much into that territory. However, I was a member of the Scottish Government when Scotland was the first part of the UK to introduce a ban on smoking in public places. That ban was not universally popular at the outset, but I think it has been proved to have been the right thing to do. The idea that some policies on health are unpopular but ultimately turn out to be the right thing to do has run through the debate, and I may return to it. The hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire made the point that this is the tip of the iceberg. People try to avoid paying their fair share of tax in a whole range of areas. Illegal alcohol and tobacco sales are an important part of that, but not the only part. I think the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) mentioned that people try to avoid the appropriate duty on fuel, as well as on tobacco and alcohol. The hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire talked about shops selling under the counter and the amount of goods seized, and how those shops and premises are back in operation a few weeks later. That not only results in a

325WH

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

27 MARCH 2012

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

326WH

[Cathy Jamieson] loss to the taxpayer, but has very little deterrent effect. It almost sends a message to people that they can pretty much do what they likethey can take it as a business loss and simply get back up and running again, rather than changing behaviour. I think that the hon. Gentleman felt that there needs to be a change in legislation. I was surprised that the issue was seen as one for the Treasury Minister only. Tie-ups happen between Her Majestys Revenue and Customs, UK Border Agency, police and local authorities in terms of licensing and trading standards, which indicates that this is a wider issue than just money lost to the Treasury. Many hon. Members have talked about a cross-cutting approach, and that is worth considering. The hon. Member for North Antrim gave a very powerful description of this serious multi-million pound organised crime industry, if I can call it that. Of course, we will always see situations where some people will try to make a few extra pounds for themselves at a local level by bringing back a quantity of cigarettes or alcohol products if they have been in another country. However, it is absolutely right to focus on those who are seriously involved. As the hon. Member for North Antrim will be aware, when businesses are shut down as a result of effective action, product substitution occurs: they move on to another product to make money to fund whatever other activities they wish to fund from the illicit gains. Therefore, these issues sit across Departments. I hope that the Minister will say how she will ensure that the Government are able to deal with issues that relate not just to the Treasuryof course, such issues are very importantbut that they will begin to consider the deterrent effect of appropriate sentencing for those who persist in breaking the law. Closure orders were considered in Scotland, particularly in relation to alcohol. For premises that persistently sold to underage drinkers or persistently broke the licensing laws, legislation was introduced to provide the opportunity to shut them downa message to the retailer and to the local community. Jesse Norman: To be clear, that would close down retailers who have breached the law by selling to underage drinkers, but are otherwise legal in their operations. I also have it in mind to target retail outlets that are not doing any legal tradingthey have been set up simply for the purposes of the illegal sale of alcohol and cigarettes. Cathy Jamieson: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, which is very important because there are two separate issues. If an operation is set up simply for the purposes of selling illegal products or trading illegally, that should be taken very seriously with the full force of the law, not only with an appropriate sentence when it is brought to court, but with the ability to act quickly to stop these activities. That needs to be considered. The hon. Member for North Antrim talked about the report published by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I will certainly read that with interest, as I am sure other hon. Members will. His contribution, and the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and the hon.

Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), highlighted the consideration of smoking policies more generally as they relate to health, as well as to business and trade. There was a fairly lively debate on the issue of plain packaging. I am not a smoker. I have never been a smoker, and in my former careers I took a fairly dim view of smoking generally. Therefore, I think that the Government should take an interest in anything that can be done to deal with health issues, but it must be done in a way that makes sense and is enforceable. I take the point that many people who work in the industry are worried about their jobs. We have to have some cognisance of that in our discussions. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North mentioned some of the work that was done by the Labour Government. I had no wish to make this a party political debatethat is not a criticism of my hon. Friendbecause I think all hon. Members share common ground in trying to deal with these important issues. My hon. Friend also raised one of the more serious issues: the so-called tab houses, which have been the subject of responses to parliamentary questions and on which work has been done previously, with a particular focus on the introduction of children to smoking. We are also concerned about whether children and young people are being introduced not just to smoking, but to crime, drug misuse and other activities in which they should not be involved. In debating these issues, it is important that we do not focus simply on packaging. There will be different views about how much packaging and branding impacts on consumer behaviourI am sure that there are plenty of PhD theses about that, even if they are not in this roomand that debate will continue. One important point, which my hon. Friend mentioned, is how we deal with the problems of criminality relating to these issues. Again, I do not wish to make this a party political point, but the appropriate number of people must be involved in intelligence-led policing and the joined-up approach between policing, trading standards, licensing authorities and the UK Border Agency. There would be concern that elements of that approach rely on many people who are sometimes described as the backroom staff in police forces. None the less, they are the ones who gather the intelligence, analyse the data and information and do the forensic work to track down some of those involved in serious and organised crime. That will be important as we consider a way forward. As well as discussions on smoking and the impact on health, we also heard from the hon. Members for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) and for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), the chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group, particularly about duty stamping. Again, that is controversial and both hon. Gentlemen are putting forward viewpoints on how this would work in practice and what the impact on the industry would be. Will the Minister reply to the hon. Gentlemens questions, which I should also like to pose? We heard about some technical issues in respect of duty stamping and whether it would be the correct option. Have the Minister and her colleagues considered forming a working group, bringing together different industry interests to look at what is technically the best way to work on avoidance of duty and whether the duty stamping is the correct way to take this forward? If other options are being considered, perhaps the Minister

327WH

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

27 MARCH 2012

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

328WH

could lay those out for us today, because we will have to consider this matter in more detail as we debate it, following on from the Budget. Overall, we have had a useful debate. It is clear that there are different interests and views across the political parties, and within them, particularly on plain packaging on cigarettes. I should like briefly to highlight another issue relating to tobacco. Work done by HMRC on avoidance considered what it called the tax gap. In 2009-10, the spirits duty gap was 3.4%, the beer duty gap was 14%, the gap in cigarette duty was 10% and in respect of hand-rolling tobacco the duty gap was estimated at 46% and had reached a high point of 50% in 2008-09. We have not looked at that in detail this morning. None the less, there could be greater focus on that area as we move forward. In conclusion, we have had a good debate. We have covered smoking and issues to do with the duty stamp, about which, I hope, we will get more information. We have heard about enforcement issues and about how we have to take health policy into account. We have heard how important this matter is for the Revenue and for business. But the important message that must be taken away by the Government is that we have to find solutions to all the problems that have been identified. I reiterate the point that has been made: having a lead Minister or someone identified to work on the cross-cutting agenda and take this forward would assist the process. I hope that the Minister addresses that point as well as the other questions that have been raised this morning. 10.35 am The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith): It is a pleasure for me, as it is for every hon. Member, Ms Dorries, to serve under your chairmanship for the first time. I am grateful to haveI hopea relaxed amount of time to respond in detail to the many points that have been raised today, beginning with those presented so well at the outset by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who secured the debate, and then those of other hon. Members who have contributed. I welcome, as my opposite number did, a fairly consensual, constructive debateif I blur some questions about tobacco packagingin which hon. Members have sought answers rather than conflict. I begin by reassuring hon. Members that the Government share the recognition that alcohol and tobacco fraud is serious. We are committed to bringing it down in the ways that I shall describe. Fraud of the kind that we have discussed this morning clearly affects not only public revenues and all the things to which we put them to use, but the livelihoods of honest businesses, as many hon. Members have said. Questions have been asked about HMRCs performance, for which I am one of two Ministers with departmental responsibility. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire asked whether we could do better in publishing numbers of seizures and other such data. Such statistics are available on demand. I should be happy to enter into conversation with him about what he is seeking. In brief, detailed statistics on both seizures and prosecutions are no longer published.

There was little evidence that such data were put to any use by those outside HMRC. However, I am happy to assist my hon. Friend if he has particular questions. My hon. Friend also asked whether it is true that fewer cigarettes are seized today than in 2001-02. On that point, I will open up my description of the work that we have been doing to combat fraud. I assure him that between 2002 and 2011, between 1.7 billion and 2 billion cigarettes were seized every year. In this year, 2011-12, to the end of Februarythe period for which figures are available1.7 billion have already been seized. On HMRCs broader strategy, starting with alcohol fraud, hon. Friends and other hon. Members will be aware that, in 2005, HMRC first launched its strategy to tackle alcohol fraud, focusing on fraud in the spirits sector. I am pleased to report notable success in halving the size of the illicit spirits market since 2005-06. In 2009, HMRC launched a refreshed alcohol strategy, which aimed at expanding the scope and reach of its compliance work and tackling all forms of alcohol fraud. Since then, its enforcement activity targeting alcohol fraud has been stepped up by more than 50%, which, again, I am sure that hon. Members welcome. However, the battle is not yet won, as all hon. Members have highlighted. We have a way to go. Our commitment to tackling alcohol fraud in all its forms remains strong. Hon. Members will be aware that, only last Friday, the Home Secretary announced a new alcohol strategy, for which I welcome the support shown here today. That initiative, which is cross-Government work at its finestI shall come on to the concept of cross-Government worksets out a wide range of Government action to tackle excessive alcohol consumption and to turn the tide against irresponsible drinking, which, to put figures on it, costs the UK taxpayer 21 billion a year and led to almost 1 million alcohol-related violent crimes and 1.2 million alcohol-related hospital admissions last year alone. The strategy sets out how local areas will be given more power to tackle local problems, including the ability to restrict opening and closing hours, to control the density of licensed premises and to charge a late-night levy to support policing. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) will support that kind of local approachhe nods to indicate that he does, which is excellent. Such a strategy clearly has the benefit of giving people the information and support that they need to make the right choicesin particular, through the health arena, for example, by asking the chief medical officer to review the alcohol guidelines for adults and by working with industry to take 1 billion units out of the market by 2015. The strategy also reveals the Governments determination to get to grips with one of the root causes of the problem by stemming the tide of cheap alcohol. We are doing so through methods such as the introduction of a minimum unit price, which will ensure for the first time that alcohol can only be sold at a sensible and appropriate price. Relevant to the debate, the strategy acknowledges the Governments role in responding to emerging threats or issues, some health-related, such as the rising incidence of liver disease. Andrew Griffiths: Does the Minister agree that the new proposal for minimum pricing will not only tackle the problems of binge drinking and preloading and the

329WH

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

27 MARCH 2012

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

330WH

[Andrew Griffiths] cost of policing and accidents and emergencies, but will support our community pubs and be good for the pub trade? Miss Smith: My hon. Friend makes precisely the point that I have made myself several times in recent days. Our proposed pricing, which we are consulting on, will not affect the price of a pint in a pubI am proud to put that on the record today. For good measure, I note that last weeks Budget added only 3p to the price of a pint in a pub, several of which I enjoyed over the weekend after all the hard work. Perhaps that returns me to the rising incidence of liver disease on a note of bad taste. Some of the other threats and issues for the Government to look at in their alcohol strategy might be crime-related, such as the increase in alcohol duty fraud, which I am about to go on to, and some might be both health and crime-related, such as the growing availability of counterfeit alcohol, which can be dangerous for consumers. The strategy is targeted explicitly at harmful drinkers and at places such as problem pubs and irresponsible shops, including those that sell cheap or counterfeit alcohol. Over the forthcoming months, the Government will run a number of public consultations on the strategys proposals. Alcohol duties are an important source of Government revenue, raising approximately 9 billion a year in public funds. Alcohol duty fraud, by contrast, costs the country as much as 1.2 billion every year, which takes money away from public services such as schools and hospitals. As has been mentioned, community pubs are facing difficult circumstances in tough economic times, as we are all aware in our constituencies. The Government want to protect community pubs and the tens of thousands of UK jobs provided by the food and drinks sector. Such jobs ought not to be put under even greater threat by the growing availability of illicit alcohol. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of law-abiding businesses throughout the industry, from small brewers to corner shops, that sell alcohol legally are put at a grossly unfair competitive disadvantage as a direct result of alcohol fraud. Latest estimates show that beer fraud in particular is an acute problem, with losses to the public purse estimated at as much as 800 million in 2009-10. That is unacceptable and cannot be allowed to continue. Andrew Griffiths rose Miss Smith: My hon. Friend might want to ask about cider and wine, and I shall come to them in a moment. I would not dream of failing to answer that question for him, but I will work through a few more points before coming to that strand. Ensuring that honest businesses can compete fairly is a Government priority. Another priority brings me on to joint working, as mentioned by several hon. Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire and the hon. Members for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson). I hear the calls for a single Minister in this respect, but let me first outline what we already do, which I hope will assist and which, I am sure hon. Members will agree, takes us fairly close to having accountability in the right places.

Her Majestys Revenue and Customs has a seat on the board of the UK border force and works closely with it, not only in designing and developing fraud strategies but in operational activity, such as sharing intelligence, tackling the organised criminals who have been rightly attacked in todays debate and conducting joint exercises. The director of border revenue is accountable to the Treasury through me, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, so hon. Members can see HMRC, the Home Office and the Treasury coming together. The border force was introduced recently, as announced by the Home Secretary; its responsibilities are explained on the website. I have regular meetings with the chief executive and others in that organisation, so that we work effectively together. I hope that begins to reassure hon. Members that the right parts of Government are working together. Moving on to what we can do together, with the UK border force, HMRC already carries out substantial enforcement activity against all forms of alcohol fraud, successfully disrupting illicit supply chains and penalising those involved in the fraud. However, given the scale of the problem, enforcement alone is not enough to provide the level playing field that we all seek for our legitimate businesses, so I come to the Budget proposals for further ways to bust fraud and to explore all potential enforcement and legislative measures, which include restricting criminals access to stocks of illicit alcohol in the first place and tackling the illicit supply of alcohol to wholesalers and retailers. On the table are options including the introduction of fiscal marks for beer, supply chain legislation and a licensing scheme for wholesale alcohol dealers. I heard the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire on licensing more broadly and on the closure of premises, which is definitely one weapon in the arsenal. I can clarify something for my hon. Friend at this point. HMRC can refer cases to other regulatory authorities for consideration of the revocation of a retailers licence to sell alcohol. I am aware of at least one casefrom the Hereford and Worcester BBC news, no less, in 2011in which a shop in Hereford lost its licence after smuggled cigarettes and alcohol were found during two raids. Jesse Norman: As I mentioned to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, some premises are not licensed at all and therefore not subject to the loss of a licence. In many cases, such premises are not controlled by the people in them, so raiding them, fining them and impounding the goods may deter the individual but does not deter the criminal ring behind the business. What is required is some method of closing the premises for a period. Miss Smith: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valuable point. That will require joint discussion and consideration, but I hope that local authorities will seek to take a role in it under the powers that we wish to allow them through the alcohol strategy and other means. Questions were asked about fiscal marking. The consultation document was launched yesterday and is available on the HMRC website. In response to the point about how we are conducting the consultation, I welcome the continued engagement of the alcohol industry.

331WH

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

27 MARCH 2012

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

332WH

There is already a joint HMRC and industry group on fraud and other matters of concern, which I hope satisfies the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun. Turning to wine and cider specifically, cider revenue losses are not believed to be as substantial as losses elsewhere. On wine, I am well aware of the points about equivalence not only of wine, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) referred, but of cider. Most wine comes from outside the UK, so fiscal marks are less practical than for beer. The consultation refers to how to mark bottles and cans that move through the UK. Andrew Griffiths: First, I am intrigued that the Minister says that because wine is imported, it is less likely to be controlled. Surely, it is more likely to be smuggled because it is being imported. Secondly, why is there is no publishable estimate of wine fraud? Why does her Department have no estimate of the value and cost of wine fraud into this country? Miss Smith: I think that I had better come back to my hon. Friend in slightly more detail than I can in the time remaining now. I urge him and anyone else who is interested to take a close look at the consultation paper and the information contained within it, and to reply. I reiterate that I am keen to work with industries of all shapes and sizes, whatever their products, to understand the impact on them and the available data. One of the key efforts that I and my officials have made to date has been to work with several key industry groups, including the British Beer and Pub Association and independent brewers in advance of publishing the consultation document to understand the available data that can be acted on. We are aware of course that any new measures might attract costs during implementation. The Government are sensitive to that and keen to be on the side of legitimate businesses in drawing out issues of cost and practicality and moving to a solution that safeguards them and jobs. On tobacco fraud, it is a sad fact that although tobacco duty raises around 9 billion a year, duty fraud costs the UK more than 2 billion a year and undermines the efforts by the Department of Health to reduce smoking prevalence. Trade in illicit tobacco makes cheaper tobacco more readily available to the youngest and most vulnerable people in society, as the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) ably described. As with alcohol fraud, tobacco fraud takes trade away from honest businesses, so it is a matter of pride that HMRC has halved the illicit cigarette market in the UK since 2000. I want briefly to introduce minimum indicative levels, which some hon. Members will be aware of. The hon. Member for North Antrim made a point about how to stop and search what is coming in. Since October last year, the Government have reduced the MILs for personal import of cigarettes and tobacco into this country, which reduces the opportunity for fraud and brings us into line with the rest of the European Union. MILs are a guide to personal use, so if someone has more than the level, having already been stopped, they will be more likely to be challenged further on their assertion that the goods are for personal use. There are, of course, points to be made, perhaps in another debate, about the

free movement of goods and the fact that all goods imported for commercial purposes must have their excise duty paid. I turn to what HMRC must do further to avoid complacency and, with the border force, to maintain a strategy to address the source, supply and demand for illicit tobacco in this county. The aim of the tobacco strategy is to intercept as much illicit product as possible before it crosses the border into the UK. The Government are providing more than 25 million in additional funding over the next four years in direct support of that strategy. That is part of the extra 917 million reinvestment in HMRC specifically to tackle organised crime, tax evasion and avoidance, all of which contribute to the delivery of an additional 7 billion per year in tax revenue by 2014-15. That is a sign of our intention, commitment and confidence on reducing fraud. Details of the strategy and what our increased investment will provide that might be of interest include additional criminal investigators to target criminal gangs and to prosecute more offenders involved in tobacco fraud at all levels, additional intelligence and enforcement staff to tackle smuggling and an expansion of HMRCs intelligence and enforcement work overseas, to target supply-chain activity in high-risk source and transit countries for illicit tobacco. I heard the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West for better registration and to work with the World Health Organisation to trace the movement of tobacco products. He will know that the UK is a partner and a signatory to the WHO. The agreement is worldwide and in the form of the framework convention on tobacco control. During the next few weeks, a UK representative will attend a meeting in Geneva, where we hope to obtain agreements to that framework convention, which will provide a wide range of control measures. I shall be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about that later if he wishes. The hon. Member for North Antrim referred to organised crime. I have joined him at a Select Committee evidence session covering some of the issues. In addition to duty losses that we have discussedillicit production, counterfeiting and the abuse of cross-border shopping rulesthe most significant threat that we face in relation to alcohol and tobacco fraud today comes from organised criminal gangs, which smuggle alcohol products into the UK in large commercial quantities, duty unpaid. HMRC is working closely with key partners to tackle organised crime in line with the Governments strategic approach, which was set out in a paper published in July 2011. That strategy outlines a comprehensive approach to reduce the risk to the UK and its interests from organised crime by reducing the threat from organised criminals, vulnerabilities to the UK and criminal opportunities. The key players in that work include HMRC, the UK Border Agency, the Serious Organised Crime Agency and, of course, the police. They are overseen in their work by the organised crime partnership board. I hope that that reassures hon. Members that we have a truly multi-agency response to organised crime. All four bodies are represented, for example, in the establishment of the new organised crime co-ordination centre. They are all closely involved in the design and build of the new National Crime Agency.

333WH

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

27 MARCH 2012

334WH

[Miss Chloe Smith] In conclusion, the Governments response to alcohol and tobacco fraud is articulated in HMRCs alcohol fraud and tobacco strategies and was reaffirmed in last weeks cross-Government alcohol strategy. It represents a coherent package of measures to hit back hard against these types of fraud from several directions. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire and other hon. Members who have contributed to todays lively but well-informed and wide-ranging debate. I am sure that my colleagues in other Departments who have been mentioned today will be grateful for the comments and insight provided and will take the points made into account in the further development of their work in this area and with industry when appropriate. 10.58 am Sitting suspended. 11 am

16-to-18 Mathematics Education

Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con): Last week, the Secretary of State for Education told the Association of School and College Leaders:
Lest anyone think we have reached a point where we should slacken the pace of reformlet me reassure themwe have to accelerate.

I completely agree, and one critical area for reform must be sixth-form provision, especially in maths where we have our largest issues. Britains poor performance in maths is well documented. According to the OECD programme for international student assessmentthe PISA studythe UK is ranked in 28th place for maths, although it is in 25th place for reading and 16th place for science. Too often, maths in Britain is seen as something that is nice to have, rather than as the vital tool that it ought to be in our modern society. Perhaps our weakest area concerns our take-up of mathematics between the ages of 16 and 18. A study by the Nuffield Foundation found that Britain had the smallest proportionbelow 20%of students studying maths between the ages of 16 and 18, when compared with places such as Russia, Japan and Korea where virtually all students in that age group study maths, Canada where the figure is 80%, or France where it is almost 90%. Britain is a massive outlier in terms of maths education for that age group, and that runs contrary to our economic interests and to the interests of individual students who are taking A-levels or a vocational equivalent. A study by Professor Alison Wolf showed that maths A-level has the highest earnings premium of any subject, adding up to 10% extra to the earnings of a maths graduate. Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con): I am following closely my hon. Friends important argument. As well as the earnings premiums for A-levels, Professor Wolf also identified the huge premiums obtained by maths and English GCSE. Will my hon. Friend go on to talk about the importance of GCSE maths retakes, as well as the A-level? Elizabeth Truss: I will come to that point. It is important to give those who do not achieve maths at GCSE the option to retake that course in a different way between the ages of 16 and 18, so that they obtain a good qualification that will be useful for the rest of their lives. The 16-to-18 age group is particularly important, yet it is where this country has a gap. Those are the people who will go on to study maths, physics, information technology and engineering at university, yet we all know from speaking to businesses in our constituencies about the great skills gap in that area. Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con): I completely agree with my hon. Friend; she makes an important point. Not only does this issue affect those young people who are effectively devoid of an appropriate education, but it is a serious problem for our competitiveness and business. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that schools and colleges engage more with businesses to understand that gap?

335WH

16-to-18 Mathematics Education

27 MARCH 2012

16-to-18 Mathematics Education

336WH

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is a huge shame when businesses have to look overseas to recruit quantitative staff, engineers or people to carry out numerical analysis, when this country has so many students who could fulfil those roles if they received appropriate training and qualifications. Even for those who do not go on to study maths and science at university, a good background in maths is vital. The next generation of primary school teachers, journalists and politicians must ensure that they know the basics of that subject, because if their maths is not up to scratch, we will have a damaged ecosystem. The next generation of children will not get a proper maths education at school, and that will lead to poor quality numerical analysis in our press and media and poor quality statistics in public life. Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con): I am a former A-level maths student and my hon. Friend has my full support. I am determined to see more young people start up their own businesses, and strong mental arithmetic and mathematical skills are an essential component of that. I hope that my hon. Friend will add new businesses to her list. Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. Our massive problem with maths causes a lack of social mobility and problems with university access. Students who attend comprehensive schools are half as likely to study maths as their private school counterparts and one third as likely to study further maths, but they are equally as likely to study history or English. The problems of social mobility in mathematics and science do not exist in arts subjects, and the Government should consider that when looking at how to improve social mobility and access to university. Many students do not have the choice to study further maths, because only 50% of comprehensive schools offer that option. Given that further maths is needed to study maths or physics at top universities, many people are therefore put out of contention for the opportunities that we would wish them to have. I am pleased that the Government are taking action. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor recognised the existing problems with maths education for 16 to 18-yearolds and announced that new free maths schools would be set up across the country. I am pleased to be backing one of those schools, the proposed Sir Isaac Newton school in Norfolk, which will take those students who are most talented in maths and science and educate them not only in A-level maths and further maths, but beyond that to pre-U level. Academics will support that school and ensure that students learn the cutting-edge mathematic and scientific techniques that will help them get to the top universities. My county of Norfolk has a particular problem with maths. Nationwide, 33% of students who obtain a grade of A* to B at GCSE maths go on to study the subject at A-level. In Norfolk, that figure is 25%a massive gap. We want to improve that situation and get more people studying A-level maths. The development of the new maths schools is positive, and I applaud the Government for that innovation, which has already been seen in many other countries. However, we need further reform in two key areas.

First, we must overhaul the sixth-form funding regime, and secondlyone of my hon. Friends alluded to thiswe need more varied maths qualifications post-16. Unbelievably, for post-16-year-olds, the Young Peoples Learning Agency currently awards more money per capita for students studying psychology and media studies than to those studying mathematics. It also awards more money to science subjectsthere is a 12% funding premium for all those subjects on top of the amount that is given to the school for maths. The justification for that 12% funding premium is that those other subjects need additional equipment. However, as anyone who has been involved with schools will know, the greatest cost is in teaching resources, rather than equipment. At the moment, our funding formula is based purely on the amount of equipment needed, rather than the cost of recruiting teachers. Maths is the most difficult subject for which to recruit teachers; there are more vacancies for high-school maths teachers than for any other subject, and schools often end up paying a premium. One school in my constituency advertised for a newlyqualified maths teacher. It offered 44,000, but received just one application. Another school has flown in maths teachers from Canada to fill the shortfall in available teachers. Fewer than half of secondary maths teachers in this country hold a maths degree. We have a massive problem with the recruitment of maths teachers, yet the funding formula means that maths is disadvantaged when compared with science subjects and courses such as media studies, psychology and film studies. Furthermore, because the funding system is weighted towards deprived students, there is an even greater funding differential for deprived students doing media studies, as opposed to deprived students doing maths. We have a completely topsy-turvy system in which the underlying financial incentives are asking schools to get lower-income students to do subjects such as psychology and media studies, rather than subjects such as maths, which has the highest earnings premiums and is known to result in greater lifetime earnings. We need to turn that system upside down. We need a subject premium based on the value of mathematics. I have illustrated why mathematics is a particular case and why reform is needed urgently. We are seriously suffering in terms of international competitiveness because we are not delivering enough mathematics capability. I suggest that through the YPLA mechanism that I mentioned, mathematics should be given a 30% uplift. That would deal with some of the teacher recruitment issues. I would like further mathematics to receive a 50% premium, so that we can increase the number of state schools that offer further maths from the currently very low 50% and so that all sixth forms eventually offer that important option. That will ensure that every child in this country has the chance to go on to study maths or physics at a top university or, indeed, subjects such as computer sciencewe also need more people in those areas. What I have suggested would give schools a strong incentive to offer those subjects, and I do not think that it would cost anything additional from the education budget. At the moment, under the YPLA funding regime, we have a huge range of weightings. Some subjects are rated up to 1.7. Those are not A-level subjects but some of the vocational subjects. We are talking about rebalancing

337WH

16-to-18 Mathematics Education

27 MARCH 2012

16-to-18 Mathematics Education

338WH

[Elizabeth Truss] the incentives in the system, so that those subjects that will deliver most for our economy and for the students and in which teacher recruitment is hardest get a premium. At the moment, we have the opposite situation. I would also like to see a greater number of maths options post-16. Current participation in A-level maths and further maths is heavily weighted towards those gaining an A* at GCSE: 73% of students who get an A* in maths take an A-level in it, but only 6% of those who get a B do so. The number is much lower than for other subjects. One quarter of those who get a B in English and one fifth of those who get a B in history go on to do those subjects at A-level. The reason is that we have a one-size-fits-all maths and further maths course, rather than having different options for young people who will go on to study different subjects. Neil Carmichael: My hon. Friend is making excellent points, but I want to probe the question of further education colleges. They, too, need to have appropriate provision in maths, because a large proportionalmost 50%of all post-16s go to FE colleges, and we do not want them to miss out, either. Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. To clarify, the funding to which I am referring applies to both FE colleges and sixth forms. It is a single funding pot that applies to the whole lot. Indeed, recently, the Government levelled the playing field between FE and sixth forms. The plans that I am talking about would apply to both FE colleges and sixth forms. For 16-to-18 maths, we need a range of tiers in which some options are harder than others. The Sunday Times reported at the weekend that Sir John Holman is drawing up plans for what those options would look like. When we are drawing up the options, we need to consider the failings of previous attempts to create different maths options for those aged 16 to 18. I am referring specifically to the use of maths A-level. It purported to provide real-world experience, but leading Fields medallist and Cambridge maths professor Tim Gowers said:
it is blindingly obvious from the sample papers that it is not testing different skillsand is deeply boring, and not even all that relevant to the people who are actually taking the exam.

study, so that those going on to do sciences and social sciences have a mainstream A-level option. Let me suggest an outline for the framework. A-level maths should be a strong preparation for university. We should have a slimline version for those who are majoring in social sciences. Maths should be a core part of the apprenticeship programme. I have recently met apprentices in my constituency who have told me how useful they find studying top-up maths to be in completing their courses and gaining skills on the job. There should also be a new course that provides a fresh approach to the basics for those who have failed to get a GCSE grade C in maths. All that needs to happen fast; there is a case for dealing with it urgently. We need a sixth-form funding formula that puts a subject premium on maths, rather than the subject discount that we have at present, which has caused a very low take-up of A-level maths. We also need to ensure that there is a full offer for 16 to 18-year-olds. That would have a dramatic effect on take-up, and I urge the Government to act on it as soon as possible. 11.16 am The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) on raising this subject, which is of great importance to us. She is right to hold the Governments feet to the fire. Indeed, she has form on that in this and other areas of education. I congratulate her on a very well argued and cogent case. Secondly, I apologise because I am not the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), who is the Minister responsible for schools. That is not something that I find myself doing often, but my hon. Friend had to visit a school elsewhere in the country today; otherwise he would be responding to the debate. Thirdly, I should declare an interest, as my son has just passed his A-level in mathematics rather well, outpacing my own meagre grade B O-level from all those years ago when we had O-levels. All of us would agree that mastery of mathematics empowers people. In a world that requires higher-level mathematical skills than ever before, we all want young people to have the chance to develop the mathematical fluency and confidence that they need for study, for work and for their personal lives. That fluency can be achieved only by using mathematics regularly over a sustained periodgetting used to it. The reality is that far too many pupils do not achieve the required standard in maths by the time that they leave school, as my hon. Friend pointed out. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a pressing need to improve social mobility and that an education system that demands high quality and rigour will help us to achieve that. We know that, too often, pupils from low-income backgrounds are steered away from rigorous academic subjects, such as mathematics, in a way that hinders their later success in higher education and employment. England, along with Wales and Northern Ireland, has an exceptionally low rate of participation in mathematics beyond the age of 16, as she said. Fewer than 20% of pupils go on to study mathematics in any form. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the Nuffield

The problem with use of maths was that, first, it was laid out as equivalent to A-level maths, which it simply was not. Secondly, it attempted to be relevant, but not in a way that could be applied to the real world. What is needed is a decent set of qualifications, all of which are rigorous. They need to be on a scale, so that people know exactly where they fit in the qualifications framework. I suggest that that would involve, first, an option whereby students learn the basics of maths. Secondly, they learn the intermediate techniques that support arts and social science subjects. Finally, they get the advanced maths that can lead right through to a technical career. One of the important elements is that further maths needs to be more advanced than A-level maths. Under the previous Government, there was an effort to make those two subjects equivalent on the ground that all A-levels had to be equal. That is clearly nonsense. We clearly need an option for more advanced students to

339WH

16-to-18 Mathematics Education

27 MARCH 2012

16-to-18 Mathematics Education

340WH

Foundation has shown that to be the lowest level of participation of any of the 24 developed countries included in its survey. Worse still, only 15% of pupils go on to study mathematics at an advanced level. In addition, about half of young people start post 16-education having failed to achieve a good grade in mathematics. As my hon. Friend made clear, there is a great deal of evidence that school leavers do not have the mathematical skills that they need to function properly in the workplace and for further study. Lack of good numeracy competence is a frequent complaint from employers; I have heard it in my constituency time and again. There is emerging evidence from universities that students studying nonmathematical subjects, including the sciences and social sciences, often lack the basic numeracy and statistical skills needed to succeed in their undergraduate courses. Skills that could have been developed during sixth-form studies have not been. In some cases, universities have found it necessary to provide additional maths courses to address that knowledge gap and to bring students up to speed. That cannot be right. We must have a system in which all our school leavers have the necessary skills before they start university courses or move into employment. The low rate of participation in maths is all the more worrying given what we know about the impact of maths achievement on a young persons life chances. The Centre for Economic Performance found that those who took mathematics to A-level ended up earning 10% more on average than those with similar ability and similar backgrounds who did not. In its Mathematical Needs report, the Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education noted:
Not only are university courses in many disciplines increasingly quantitative in content, but there is also a steady shift in the employment market away from manual and low skills jobs and toward those requiring higher levels of management expertise and problem solving-skills, many of which are mathematical in nature.

about maths, so I suppose I can get away with it. Many students go to university to study a subject in which studying maths at a level above GCSE would be advantageous. That includes those who study economics and other social sciences, as well as sciences such as biology and health sciences. However, even students taking fine art may benefit from further mathematical knowledge in their future employment. It is important that such students not only maintain fluency in pure mathematical skills such as algebra, but complement those skills by studying statistics, modelling and the application of mathematics to complex systems. It is encouraging that the number of pupils choosing to study A-level mathematics and further mathematics is increasing. In 2011, A-level maths had more than 75,000 entries, compared with just under 50,000 in 2006. The numbers entering further mathematics increased from about 6,500 to nearly 11,500 over the same period. However, many more pupils do not continue with their study of mathematics between 16 and 19. Getting more young people to study maths must be our first priority. That means ensuring that young people who have not achieved a grade C in GCSE maths are supported to achieve a good maths qualification post-16. We have been consulting on new study programmes for 16-to-19 year olds, which will include mathematics courses for all such students. Our second priority is to ensure that all young people can take challenging, rigorous maths qualifications that give them the skills to progress. We are working with mathematics subject experts and universities to make that a reality, because it is clear that their support and engagement is essential if the take-up of advanced mathematics is to increase. The ACME is calling for evidence from those with an interest in mathematics so that it can advise on appropriate post-16 pathways for pupils who have achieved grade A* to C at GCSE, but who do not currently continue to study mathematics. The ACME is expected to report its findings and propose new pathways at its conference in July. We await its report with interest, and I am sure my hon. Friend will want to see its findings, too. If all young people are to study mathematics to 18, it is essential that they benefit from excellent mathematics teaching. My hon. Friend is right about the difficulties in recruiting mathematics teachers in some areas. I am glad to say, however, that we are seeing increased recruitment of mathematics trainees. Recruitment targets were met for the first time in 2010-11 and 2011-12, while the quality of trainees, as measured by degree class, increased in both those years. We know we need to do a lot more. That is why we have launched bursaries of up to 20,000 to attract the best graduates to train as mathematics teachers. By the end of this Parliament, we will at least double the size of Teach First, which has an excellent record in attracting outstanding mathematics graduates. We are also improving the quality of teaching through support for professional development. We have expanded the further mathematics support programme delivered by Mathematics in Education and Industry. The programme will continue to provide universal support to schools and colleges that want to provide further mathematics. It will focus on those centres that are not currently offering that A-level option, ensuring

That is why the Secretary of State last year set out his ambition that, within 10 years, the vast majority of young people should be studying maths from 16 to 19, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging some of the progress the Department is making. Of course, we must focus on ensuring all young people have a basic level of knowledge and understanding in mathematics. However, even when students gain a good gradeA* to Cat GCSE, there is no guarantee that they have the numeracy skills needed in the workplace and particularly ones that are portable from one workplace to the next. The CBI report Working on the Three Rs: Employers Priorities for Functional Skills in Maths and English showed that 32% of employers would like to see school leavers ability to do mental arithmetic improve. For many entering further education, apprenticeships or employment in craft and technical areas, the break in their maths education from 16 to 18 is very damaging. The same is true for nurses and primary school teachers, who must go on to use and develop mathematics. It is essential that the mathematical skills developed to age 16 continue to be practised throughout sixth-form study to maintain fluency. In addition, 25% to 30% of students reach university without the maths skills our universities needI apologise if my speech seems overly littered with statistics, but it is

341WH

16-to-18 Mathematics Education

27 MARCH 2012

16-to-18 Mathematics Education

342WH

[Tim Loughton] that more students from disadvantaged backgrounds have the opportunity to study it. I think my hon. Friend will very much appreciate that. Expanding the programme will allow it to do more to inspire key stage 4 pupils to study further mathematics at A-level, and it will help to ensure that they are better prepared to do so. The programme will focus on equipping teachers with the skills needed to stretch and enrich their pupils mathematical education during key stage 4. It will provide more than 2,000 teacher days of development opportunities, enabling it to reach more teachers than previously. That aspect of the programme will put in place a coherent route for mathematics teachers to progress from teaching GCSE maths, to teaching A-level maths and then to teaching further maths. It will also enable teachers to prepare students for the sixth term examination paper or advanced extension award examinations, which will improve their prospects of getting on to the most competitive maths and science courses at top universities. We are investing 6 million over three years to fund the activities of the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics. The centre will co-ordinate and quality-assure the training of mathematics teachers across all phases of education, including those delivering new courses developed to achieve the aim of mathematics for all to age 18. My hon. Friend mentioned free schools. As she said, the Chancellor announced funding in the autumn statement for specialist maths free schools for 16 to 18 year olds, which is a particularly exciting development. She has been generous in her support of the free schools programme, and I am encouraged to hear about her proposals for a free school in Norfolk with a strong focus on science and mathematics education. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a need to ensure that pupils, parents and schools are aware of the demand for people with high-level mathematical skills and that our funding systems do not encourage schools and pupils to go for the easier options. Currently, schools and colleges receive the same basic level of funding for all students who pass an A-level, regardless of the grade they achieve or the subject taken. As my hon. Friend noted, however, funding for post-16 courses is subject to programme weighting, which is intended to reflect the relative cost of teaching particular subjects. Subjects that are wholly classroom-based, such as mathematics, receive a lower weighting than others, such as science subjects, which have a greater lab-based element, and she gave other examples.

I note with interest my hon. Friends proposal that we should establish a subject premium for mathematics and further mathematics. We consulted recently on changes to 16-to-19 funding, and we are currently considering the responses to the consultation. My hon. Friend may hear more about that later. My hon. Friend will recognise that the funding system is not always the best means of incentivising take-up of one subject above another. We are working with mathematics subject experts to consider the measures that will be necessary to realise our ambition that all young people should continue to study mathematics up to 18. The A-level system must meet the needs of universities and employers. For far too long, the design of A-levels has been in the hands of officials and bureaucrats, with their range of committees and advisory panels. That has led to a focus on exam structure, at the expense of content and need, and at the expense of young people enjoying and being inspired by maths and wanting to carry it forward. Addressing that issue is part or the challenge. It is clear that existing A-level maths courses may not develop the full range of mathematical skills required to meet the needs of all students and the wide range of further study and career options they will pursue. As we set out in the White Paper The Importance of Teaching, we are working with Ofqual, the awarding organisations and higher education institutions to ensure that universities and learning bodies can be fully involved in the development of A-levels. The evidence from around the world clearly shows that high-performing nations ensure that children receive a first-class maths education. Head teachers, parents and pupils need to hear a clear demand for mathematics and mathematical qualifications from universities and employers, and we need to support expert mathematicians in their endeavour to ensure that the right range of demanding and rigorous qualifications is available to meet the needs of pupils and the demands of universities and employers. My hon. Friend has long been one of the most vocal champions of excellence in mathematics education, and my ministerial colleagues are looking forward to working with her in the months ahead. Let me once again express my gratitude to her for raising this important subject with her customary energy and enthusiasm. 11.29 am Sitting suspended.

343WH

27 MARCH 2012

Israel and the Peace Process

344WH

Israel and the Peace Process

[MR CHARLES WALKER in the Chair] 2.30 pm John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op): May I say what an unexpected pleasure it is, Mr Walker, to be serving under your chairmanship for the first time today and how delighted I am to have secured this important debate? It is pleasing to see such a good attendance today, especially as the House is about to rise for the Easter recess. I will try to be brief, as many Members wish to speak. The best political debates are often driven by simple arguments. The Member whose debate it is rises and cuts through a confusing mass of factors and statistics, and then sits down. Everyone then wonders why they have not considered such an obvious and compelling solution before. I am afraid that we will not have one of those debates today. A false sense of clarity and simplicity risks holding back the international community from making the most positive contribution that it can to the middle east. Over the next 90 minutes, I hope that we can draw out some of the hidden complexity of a situation that is all too often portrayed in black and white terms over here. Many Members will want to set out their own experiences of visiting the region and give their own perspective on the prospects for peace. That was one of the principal reasons that drove me and my hon. Friends to call for this debate today. First, it is important to set Israels place in the middle east, and thus the importance of the peace process, in its proper context. We often hear two polar positions, often simultaneously, and they are both wrong. Both are fuelled by a two-dimensional view of the region that gets filtered through the media here. On the one hand, we hear that the lack of lasting peace in Israel is inextricably linked to everything else in the middle east and has been the central catalyst of all the unrest in the region for decades. That view has led to the belief that if only the Israelis and Palestinians could agree, all other troubles in the region would melt away. That view was always hard to justify in a region that saw an eight-year war between Iran and Iraq and where regional minorities such as the Kurds have been consistently marginalised and oppressed. The Arab spring surely, finally, explodes the myth of the ubiquity and centrality of Israel in middle east affairs. On the other hand, there is the view that Israel is an impregnable island that is prosperous, supported by the west and secure in its own borders. It is the plucky hard man to its sympathisers and the oppressor state to its detractors. However, after a visit to the region, we can appreciate that this is a tiny nation that is bordered on all sides by states that are at best ambivalent and at worst hostile to its very existence. The existential threat to Israel consists not only of the rockets that are fired daily across its southern borders, but of the nuclear ambitions of Iran. It is not a country that is secure within its own borders. Certainly, if that level of threat were posed to the UK, we would not ignore it.

Israel has reached out to its neighbours where it could. Anxiety over the events of the Arab spring led not to a reaction against the welcome prospect of greater democracy across the middle east, but to an uneasiness that the fragile accommodation with its neighbours could be lost in the chaos and uncertainty of those months. It is a country that is focused on reaching out now. In 2011, Israel exported goods worth some $6 billion to its neighbours in the middle east and north Africa. It joined in a campaign with the Palestinian Authority and the Jordanian Government to have the Dead sea declared as one of the seven wonders of the natural world. Such examples show that, at its best, it can work constructively with its neighbours. Conversely, although Israel is acutely aware of its deep connection to the countries that surround it, it is not prepared to subcontract its basic need for security to anyone. Above all, its innate quest for security has gone hand in handfrom its inception to the present daywith a deep commitment to the progressive values that we hold dear in this country, especially on the Opposition Benches. It is a country where women enjoy equality; the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community flourishes; there is a free press; the powerless are protected from the powerful by an independent judiciary; trade unions are well-organised and strong; educational excellence and scientific innovation are pursued; religious minorities are free to practise their creeds; a welfare state supports the poor and marginalised; and there is a fully functioning, vibrant, participatory democracy. It would be absurd to suggest that Israel is loved across the middle east. Yet as we look at the hope and uncertainty generated by the Arab spring, the freedoms enjoyed by Israelis are inescapable to anyone in the region with access to the internet and social media. When millions across the middle east are desperate for leaders they can hold to account, Israels robust media and the tough stance it regularly takes to senior figures is a genuine beacon for those values. Alongside the threat of rocket attacks still experienced by Israeli citizens, there is, of course, a real sense of injustice among many Palestinians in Gaza and the west bank. There is grinding economic hardship and rampant unemployment across huge swathes of the population. The genuine fear that the advancing settlements could prove permanent, the claims to return and concerns about integration for Israeli Arabs fuel the frustration at the lack of progress in the peace process. The Palestinians suffering and sense of injustice is prolonged with every passing month in which their dream of statehood is not realised. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): In my hon. Friends discussion about the injustices towards the Palestinians, what does he say to the accusation against Israel of the imprisonment of Palestinian elected parliamentarians and the continued denial of their right to travel to the west bank to take part in the parliamentary democracy of Palestine? John Woodcock: My hon. Friend raises a valid point. Israel has taken measures to protect its security in several areas, which has caused deep discomfort to

345WH

Israel and the Peace Process

27 MARCH 2012

Israel and the Peace Process

346WH

[John Woodcock] many people in Israel and here. What I am trying to set out in this speech is the context behind which some of these decisions are taken. Viewing from a distance often gives the impression that the principal blockage to lasting justice for both Palestinians and Israelis has been the intransigence of a dominant state, secure in its borders and willing to let every opportunity for peace limp by. If we are to promote peace effectively rather than act as a drag on it, we need to expose that analysis as flawed on every count. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): Just to be clear, will my hon. Friend tell the House what Israels borders are, including Jerusalem? John Woodcock: Does my hon. Friend wish me to pronounce them? If only it were that simple. Of course, his question underlines the primacy of negotiations, which I will expand on later in my speech. If colleagues do not mind, I will rattle through the rest of my speech, so that I give other people the chance to contribute. We must not underplay or be seen to underplay the toll on Israel from the terror and threats from its neighbours, which have been endured by Israelis for decades and up to the present day. Equally, we should not overlook the fact that weighing on the whole of Israel and its politics is the threat that Iran, whose leader vowed to wipe Israel off the map, could acquire the means to do just that. The fact that Iran continues to channel funding and arms to Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group, gives a wider context to Israels determination to maintain its security, if one were needed beyond the sustained campaign of terror that has claimed so many Israeli lives over the years. And let us never hold back from pointing out that the lives lost to Hamas are also counted among Palestinian families in Gaza, where the terrorists maintain their yoke of oppression by murdering political rivals and cruelly using civilians as human shields. Although times remain far too hard, we should continue to trumpet the economic progress being made on the west bank and recognise the contributions that have been made not only by progressives in Israel but by the Quartet, led by Tony Blair. Most of all, we need to give full consideration and exposure to the complexities of the peace process, which are so rarely reflected in reporting over here. A peace process capable of lasting success will be achieved only if the realities on both sides are understood and addressed. During the past few years, there has been pessimism on all sides about the peace process, particularly from the Palestinian leadership about the progress of negotiations. However, the international pressure needed for both the Israelis and Palestinians to return to the negotiating table must be applied to both sides alike. That includes pressing the Palestinians to put to one side past failures at the negotiating table, so that they can seek to make some headway now. For all the justified international condemnation of continued settlement building, the fact remains that there is only one side at the table at present, and that is Israel.

Fundamentally, everything we do must underline the message that there is no alternative to returning to talks, in order to make the difficult compromises that are necessary to achieve peace. So I ask the Minister to say in his response to the debate what his Government are doing to persuade both Israelis and Palestinians that peace talks are the only thing that will bring them dignity, prosperity and their own state, which they deserve. Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend give way? John Woodcock: If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not give way, as I want to get through my speech and allow other people to make a contribution. We should apply pressure with hope gained from the knowledge that this is not year zero. In fact, at key points in the past it has been Israel that has been prepared to offer up a great amount for peace, only to find that the Palestinian leadership were unwilling or unable to reciprocate. The current Palestinian Authority leadership are a moderate Administration who have achieved much in terms of state-building and reform, but they often say that 20 years of negotiations have brought them nothing. However, that view is fundamentally undermined by the facts, and it also risks undermining what little faith remains in the prospects for a peace process. There have been huge disappointments for both peoples, and the rapid progress envisaged in the 1993 Oslo accords has certainly not been realised. However, we must also be clear that every time that substantive negotiations have taken place, progress has been made and substantial Israeli offers have been given. Let us not forget what Oslo achieved and what remains from that agreement today. Oslo was the beginning of a working relationship between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, a relationship that has now been successfully restored despite the violence of the second intifada. Oslo was also the beginning of Palestinian self-governance over the vast majority of the Palestinian population living in the west bank and Gaza strip. And at Camp David, although the final status agreement that had been hoped for was not realised, the offers given and the understandings that were later expressed in the Clinton parameters demonstrated a seriousness about achieving peace. The details of Israels offer to the Palestinians at Camp David were never officially released and there are differing accounts of what happened. According to numerous reports, however, the proposal to the Palestinians by Ehud Barak, the then Israeli Prime Minister, included an Israeli withdrawal from more than 90% of the west bank and 100% of the Gaza strip. However, after the second intifada and the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, no serious Israeli politician can assert that offering land for peace will, on its own, bring peace. To get back to the table, Israeli Governments have understandably had to take additional robust and sometimes very controversial measures to protect their people from terrorism. There is currently a dangerous pause in the negotiations and pressure is building up to explore alternatives, such as the one-state solution. Let us be

347WH

Israel and the Peace Process

27 MARCH 2012

Israel and the Peace Process

348WH

clearthat solution would mean both the end of the only Jewish state and the end of Palestinian dreams for their own sovereign state. In that light, I want to express my support for the universal jurisdiction reforms that have now been completed; they were begun by the previous Labour Government and are still backed by Labour in opposition. Those reforms are vital to ensure that bogus arrest warrants are not issued against visiting Israelis, so that the UK can remain involved in efforts to break the impasse and can continue strengthening bilateral relations. There are real barriers to a new peace process. Ultimately, there will have to be huge and difficult compromises on both sides. That will require trust, which is thin on the ground at present. Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab): Can my hon. Friend tell us how the Israelis can possibly seriously negotiate the end of settlements while they are still building settlements? Does he agree that that is a huge barrier to the resumption of peace talks? John Woodcock: It is wrong, unhelpful and should not happen, but it is the responsibility of all sides. Ultimately, the Palestinian leadership are refusing to come to the table to make sure that that is not a fundamental barrier to the resumption of talks, which absolutely has to happen. If the international community is to help engender the trust that is needed, it must approach both sides equally. That means eschewing the flawed caricature of, on the one side, plucky underdogs desperate for peace but systematically robbed in each negotiation and denied, on the other side, by an intransigent state that is happy to sit tight. The true picture is much more complicated than that and if Britain remains determined to recognise that basic fact, it can be a real force for good in the difficult months ahead. As we encourage the movements for democracy in the middle east, we should celebrate Israel as a progressive beacon in the region. For all the optimism generated by the Arab spring, it remains beyond our wildest hopes that every country affected will emerge with the kind of liberal constitution that enshrines the progressive values that Israel has upheld since its inception. However, Labour Friends of Israel is avowedly proPalestinian. It is because we want a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure and progressive Israel that we are so determined to remove the blinkers that risk holding back the international push for peace in the middle east. Let us use the ties of history, trade and diplomacy, and the reserves of good will where they continue to exist, to play our full part in seeking a process that will lead to a sustainable two-state solution. For the good of the people of both Israel and Palestine, we cannot afford to let pessimism rule the day. Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair): Time is limited and interest is high, so speeches should be short. 2.49 pm Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con): This is the first time that I have spoken under your chairmanship in one of these debates, Mr Walker. I thank the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness

(John Woodcock) for securing the debate. I must apologise; I cannot stay for the full debate because of other appointments. This debate is an important step in rebalancing some of the discussions that Members have had in the House. The debate outside the House is fraught with difficulty and nuances, and it is important that both sides here get a fair hearing. Peace and the two-state solution can be achieved only by direct peace talks. I doubt whether any hon. Member would argue for a single-state solution Palestinian or Jewish. One of the fundamental barriers to such talks is that Hamas, as part of the coalition that forms the Palestinian Authority, refuses to accept the Quartet principles, which are that the state of Israel be recognised, previous diplomatic agreements be abided by and parties renounce violence. Until Hamas accepts those principles, there can be no lasting peace in the region. There cannot be negotiation when one side at the table seeks to wipe the other off the map. Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): A Member from Northern Ireland is here. The peace process there went ahead with the Provisional IRA still on active operations, so perhaps one of those principles is not sacrosanct. Mike Freer: That, of course, is an interesting point of view, but the Governments were able to negotiate with parties that were willing to do so. Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mike Freer: I will in a moment. I do not have any great knowledge of the Northern Ireland peace process. Perhaps my colleague, the right hon. Member for Belfast North does. Mr Dodds: Before Sinn Fein was admitted to the talks in Northern Ireland, it had to sign up to the Mitchell principles, which were about decommissioning commitments, peaceful activities and a political way forward, so it was clear that it could not come to the table while still avowing terrorism. Mike Freer: I thank the right hon. Member for that clarification. That is an amazingly pertinent point. Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that the main difference between the two peace processes is that, to the best of my knowledge, Sinn Fein at no time called for the destruction of Northern Ireland? Mike Freer: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. It is difficult to negotiate when one side simply wants to wipe the other off the face of the earth. Both sides will have to make difficult compromises. We have seen that in this country. In any conflict resolution, both sides have to make compromises, but so far the emphasis seems to be on asking Israel to make all the concessions. Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly called for an immediate return to direct peace talks and has made a series of significant compromises and unprecedented gestures to the Palestinian Authority to encourage them to return to the table, but to no avail?

349WH

Israel and the Peace Process

27 MARCH 2012

Israel and the Peace Process

350WH

Mike Freer: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Prime Minister Netanyahu is often demonised. I have no doubt that he can be a forceful and difficult character, but would people not want their Prime Minister to be forceful and to stand up for their security when their country was in an almost permanent state of war and they were fielding suicide bombers and missiles fired into their territory? The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness made the good point that we have to remember that Israel is a beacon of democracy in a part of the world where democracy is in short supply. Religious minorities of whatever shape or flavour have freedoms. Minorities have freedoms, to pursue their religion or their sexuality, and even to stand for Parliament. It does not really matter what shape, colour or religion someone is; they have the ability to follow their beliefs, and that is not seen elsewhere. It is important to acknowledge that no democracy is flawless. Democracies always find unilateral concessions more difficult because public opinion must be taken into account; a dictatorship does not have to deal with a free press, a democracy or opinion polls. It is important to remember that Israel has a record of making concessions on land swaps for peace. I repeat: if peace and a two-state solution are to happen, concessions on both sides will be essential. An independent Palestine can happen only through direct negotiations, with mutual respect, agreed borders and an agreement to end the conflict. The right hon. Member for Belfast North made a good point: negotiations cannot be entered into without the renunciation of violence in some shape or form. A deal is on the table, but the UK Government must ensure that both sides are asked to return to it without conditions and without one side being asked to concede all its leverage in advance. It takes two sides to negotiate, and Her Majestys Government must ensure that both sides return to the table and that both sides are treated equally. 2.56 pm Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on securing this debate. Given the number of hon. Members who want to speak, there will inevitably be a shortage of time, so although we might disagree on some things today, perhaps we can all agree that it might be appropriate to approach the Backbench Business Committee to request a full debate in the main Chamber on Israel and Palestine. I had a sneak preview of what my hon. Friend was going to say, because it appeared on epolitix.com earlier today. He called for people to avoid black and white analyses and to recognise the hidden complexities of this part of the world. I agree with him about that. He said:
But most importantly, the international pressure that is needed for both the Israelis and Palestinians to return to the negotiating table needs to be applied to both sides alike.

My hon. Friend went on to say that this is not year zero and that
at key points in the past, it has been Israel that has been prepared to offer up a great amount for peace and has found the Palestinian leadership unwilling or unable to reciprocate.

That is not my understanding, and an awful lot of people around the world would dispute it. He mentioned Camp David, but not Taba, which came afterwards, when the Palestinians did not walk away. What ended those negotiations was the change of Government in Israel. Surprisingly, he did not mention the Arab peace initiative either. It is the 10th anniversary of that initiative, which offered full recognition of Israel and full peace in return for full withdrawal and a just and agreed solution to the refugee problem on the basis of UN resolution 194. This week, Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, described that as Israels worst missed opportunity, and that is the view of many around the world. Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend support the Palestine Solidarity Campaign? If so, can he tell us why there is no mention of a two-state solution in the campaigns objectives and why its logo shows a land without the state of Israel? Richard Burden: I like my hon. Friend a great deal, but that is nonsense. It would be a bit like my standing up and asking whether he would condemn the Israeli tourist board, which was done over by the Advertising Standards Authority only last week because it published a map of what it described as northern Israel, but which included part of the west bank. We should have a better level of debate than that. More recently, Israel has called for talks without preconditions. Let us remember what provoked the current round of stalled talks: the Palestinians applied for membership of the United Nations, which Israel claims for itself not as something negotiable but as a matter of right. If anybody questions Israels right to membership of the United Nations, they are regarded as delegitimising Israel, which is one stage short of anti-Semitism. I fully accept that Israel should be a member of the United Nations and should be recognised within its internationally recognised borders, which are not difficult; they are the pre-1967 borders laid down in numerous UN resolutions. However, if Palestine applies to the United Nations, that is seen as provocative. It is sometimes called a unilateral act. I cannot think of much that is more multilateral than going to the United Nations. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness says that there are complexities, but
viewing from a distance often gives the impression that the principal blockage to lasting justice for both Palestinians and Israelis has been the intransigence of a dominant state, secure in its borders and willing to let every opportunity for peace limp by.

I struggled to understand, or to hear from him, exactly what pressure he felt should be applied to Israel, but perhaps he can clarify that in due course.

He is right that it is important that we do not view the issue from a distance, but that we all go to see what is happening on the ground. I do not mean just visiting offices in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem or even Ramallah; I mean going to Sderot and talking to people there about how they live in fear of rockets. It is important to do so, and we do. It is also important to go to Gaza, where 38% of people live in poverty, 85% of schools must run on double shifts and 80 million litres of sewage are dumped into the sea every single day.

351WH

Israel and the Peace Process

27 MARCH 2012

Israel and the Peace Process

352WH

It is important to go to the west bank, and not simply to say that settlements are bad without working out the results or to talk to people like me about it. We should talk to Israelis themselves: people in Peace Now who talk about how continuing to build settlements is torpedoing the two-state solution, as its website says. It is important to look at Jerusalem. People talk about the settlement freeze offered and maintained by Netanyahu a few years ago. It is important to understand that it was not a settlement freeze; it was a freeze of some settlements, and it did not apply to Jerusalem. If hon. Members do not believe me, they should talk to Israeli organisations such as Ir Amim, which says:
Since the Six-Day War and the change in the boundaries of Jerusalem, Israels Governments have tried to maintain the Jewish demographic advantage in Jerusalem. They have done this by controlling the physical space of the east part of the city and increasing attempts to Judaize East Jerusalem.

3.5 pm Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Walker. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on initiating this important debate. It is apposite that we consider the issue shortly before Passover and Easter, when the Holy Land will be at its peak in terms of individuals choosing to go and see the holy places of three of the worlds great religions. That must be recognised when we consider that part of the world. I first visited Israel some 15 years ago as a tourist and went around on buses seeing at first hand how ordinary Israelis live, as well as the tourist sights. Equally, I saw how Palestinians lived alongside Israelis. It is clear that there is an appetite on all sides for a proper and full peace process. I always challenge people by saying that they should not discuss places such as Israel, the west bank or Gaza unless they have been to see them. It is the only country in the world that I know ofI have visited a few, but not all of themwhere a person can stand on one side of the country, see the other and know that they are surrounded by hostile neighbours, many of whom wish to wipe them off the face of the map. Unless we appreciate that, it is difficult to understand the security position in which Israel finds itself. Israel is a special place in the world. It has been under threat, and its borders have been formed by wars, whether in 1948, 1967, 1971 or at any other time in the recent history of that part of the world. It is therefore difficult to know what the settled borders of the state of Israel are, and what the proper borders of a fledgling Palestinian state would be. I have had the opportunity to visit Israel with Conservative Friends of Israel and to see the security position at various different points in the country, and that is terribly important. We must consider the border with Syria. In many ways, the tension has decreased over the years as a peace process has evolved with Syria. Equally, on the borders with Egypt, friendly relations have been built up over a consistent period. On the border with Lebanon, however, the view is that it is just a question of when a war starts, not if, and how bloody it will be. That brings home the problems. I have also had the opportunity to go via Jordan to see the west bank with Palestinians, meeting many people from the Palestinian community. I believe that it is right to see things from both sides in order to get a balanced view of the issues. Interestingly, when I went via the Allenby bridge from Jordan into the west bank and Jerusalem, there was a huge queue, huge security and huge problems for anyone accessing the bridge, irrespective of their status. We went the day after Yom Kippur last year, and the queues to get in were horrendous. That is important. Undoubtedly, Palestinian leaders echo the universal condemnation of Tony Blair and his so-called peace mission. They regard it as a total waste of time and money, and would welcome an alternative set of means for promoting peace. They do not see it as a way forward. The interesting thing is that Britain is engaged in assisting the Palestinians and in ensuring that the security forces in the west bank are given the opportunity to have full and proper training so that they can enforce security. That is helping considerably.

Ir Amim says that the continuation of settlement building and the restriction of residency rights in East Jerusalem is destroying the two-state solution. Hon. Members should go to see what is happening in the Jordan valley and Area C. They should not take my word for it; they should talk to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, or go there with the Israeli organisation BTselem and see what it says about the dispossession of Palestinians, including the Bedouin, in Area C. Perhaps we should ask a reputable body to investigate, such as the United Nations. It is doing so. It has declared an investigation of settlement building in the west bank, to see what should be made of it. As a result, Israel has cut off contact with the United Nations Human Rights Council and threatened sanctions against the Palestinian Authority. About the initiative to investigate settlements, this was said not by some strange marginal figure but by Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman:
We are dealing with al-Qaeda terror on the one hand and diplomatic terror by Abu Mazen on the other.

So now referring something to the UN Human Rights Council is regarded as diplomatic terror. Freezing settlements is not about imposing unreasonable preconditions. Without it, I do not see how the peace process can go forward. A Palestinian by the name of Husam Zomlot, who is known to many of ushe used to work over heregave a good analogy: Its a bit like saying you should negotiate who gets which bit of the pizza, but while thats going on, one of the parties is eating the pizza anyway. That is what is going on at the moment. In conclusion, I have deliberately used sources that are not Palestinian. Some of them are United Nations sources; in the main, they are Israeli sources, including the newspaper Haaretz and groups such as Peace Now, Ir Amim and BTselem. Those organisations are not looking at things from afar; they are there, and they are Israeli. Most of their members would say that they are Zionist. They, too, would like friends of Israel abroad, but what they know and say to us is that true friends are not simply cheerleaders. True friends tell home truths every now and again, and they might like friends of Israel groups in the outside world to do a little more of that.

353WH

Israel and the Peace Process

27 MARCH 2012

Israel and the Peace Process

354WH

[Bob Blackman] The concern is that the mood among members of the Palestinian community is that time is somehow on their side and that the longer they leave things, the better the position that will emerge for Palestine in the long run. That is a very short-sighted view, because the progress of settlements in East Jerusalem will shortlyI would say within the six monthsrender a Jerusalem that is the capital of Israel and a Palestinian state almost impossible. Those settlements and the motorways effectivelythat link them are proceeding rapidly, which will make a two-state solution difficult. Sandra Osborne: I, too, have visited many of the areas the hon. Gentleman speaks of. Has he been to Gaza and seen the economic and humanitarian results of the blockade? I can assure him the people of Gaza do not think time is on their sidequite the opposite, in fact. Bob Blackman: I thank the hon. Lady. I say quite openly that I have not visited Gaza. That is why I am speaking instead about the west bank and why I made the point I did. The problem that has emerged with the peace process is that we have, for far too long, had talks about talks about negotiations. We need to get both sides round the table to ensure that there are proper, face-to-face negotiations. In that regard, there is a duty on the Government of this country, which is widely respected in the region, where it has deep historical ties, and which is, in many ways, trusted by both sides. Bob Stewart: The fact of the matter is that good people have been trying since 1967 to bring the two parties together, but all attempts have failed. We can all sit here piously saying that people should get round the table and negotiate, but some Methuselah, perhaps, has to come along and devise a way to bring that about. Until that happens, we will not have progress. That is what we must achieve somehow. Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is clear that we need to break the logjam. Mention was made of the peace process in Ireland, and I certainly never thought we would see a peace process there in my lifetime. I welcome what has been done there so that we can have a proper democracy and a proper arrangement between people on that island. Similarly, we have to break the logjam between Israel and Palestine, but there has to be good faith on both sides. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) rightly reminded us, Israel has, over the years, agreed to put the issue of settlements on the table. To get peace with Egypt, there was an agreement to remove settlements, and they were removed; to get peace with Gaza, settlements were removed; and to get peace with the west bank, settlements were removed. The Egyptian peace treaty was highly successful, but such success has not, sadly, been the case in Gaza, and that is a problem for the Israeli Government. Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): I do not know how anybody can say that the issue of the settlements in the west bank was somehow solved by

a treaty. When was the hon. Gentleman actually in the west bank? Every time I have been there, the settlements have increased, and the settlers violence against innocent Palestinians has increased exponentially. What land is the hon. Gentleman talking about? It is not the one I visit. Bob Blackman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I was in the west bank last October Michael Connarty: How many settlements? Bob Blackman: I saw many settlements. I also saw how the Palestinian people have been sold out by their own lawyerstheir own people. Palestinians have sold land to the Israelis and given them the opportunity to build houses on it. They had claims over that land, but, unfortunately, they sold them. They went through the courts, and their lawyers sold them out. It is difficult for someone who has been through a legal process to complain when it has gone against them. Where we go now is quite clear. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups oppose Israels right to exist and they refuse to accept the Quartet principles. Until such time as they openly say, We accept Israels right to exist, no meaningful peace talks can take place. That is where the British Government have a clear duty. They must ensure that pressure is put on the state of Israel and the Palestinians to enter negotiations in line with President Obamas excellent speech setting out how the peace process could proceed. The Israeli Government were quite keen to commit to that up front, but the Palestinians seem to want to delay; they do not seem to want to enter talks. They must understand that unless they enter talks rapidly, the prospects for a two-state solution will diminish by the day, and we could end up with a three-state solutionthe state of Israel, a Palestinian state in Gaza and a Palestinian state on the west bank. Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab): I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentlemans arguments. His premise is that the situation can be solved by dealing with the Israelis and the Palestinians, but is not the real problem that the bigger split in the middle east is between Iranian-led Shias and the rest of the Arab world? Until that issue is solved, Israel and the Palestinians will remain proxies for that debate, and it will not be solved locally. Bob Blackman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Clearly, the elephant in the room is Iran, and the United Nations will have to resolve that issue. I end with the hope that this process will see our Government operating a more level playing field, putting pressure on the state of Israel to negotiate, but, equally, putting pressure on the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinians and emphasising to them that the need to have urgent talks is paramount. Those talks need to be without preconditions and need to come with an expectation that they will result in a lasting peace and a just settlement for everyone. In that way, the issues in this part of the world can be settled in a manner we would all like, and everyone can live in peace and harmony, religions can be respected and people can promote the economic prosperity they want.

355WH 3.18 pm

Israel and the Peace Process

27 MARCH 2012

Israel and the Peace Process

356WH

Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on securing this important debate. Until the events of the Arab spring, it was generally suggested that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the key issueindeed, the only issuein the middle east. It is now abundantly clear to everyone that that is not, and never was, the case. Despite that, it is vital that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is resolved. Both peoples have the right to self-determination, and it is a tragedy that Arab and Jewish nationalisms came forward at the same time and became embroiled in such conflict. Israel, of course, has been under threat since it was set up in 1948. The issue since then has been not its borders, but its existence. In 19481947, to be more precisethe United Nations made one of a number of offers of a state to the Palestinians. However, Arab states invaded the new state of Israel and rejected the concept of a Palestinian state at that time. Much discussion centres around the significance of Israeli settlements. The origins of that settling movement were in the 1967 defensive war, when Israel, whose existence was threatened by all its neighbours, went to war, won that war, survived and as a result ended up occupying lands beyond the boundaries that it had had before. I do not want to go into any long, historical debate, but it is significant for everyone to remember that at the Khartoum conference after the 67 war the Arab states came together and uttered the three nosno peace, no recognition, no negotiation. It was after that that the settler movement went forward so that we are in todays situation. That interpretation of settlements is, of course, valid only for people who accept the existence of a state of Israel, and look at settlements as land occupied as a result of war, which was then not negotiated on. The people who do not think Israel should exist at all use the word settlements in a rather different way when they talk about Israel as being occupied Palestine. When I listen carefully to people who criticise the state of Israel, it is sometimes clear, sometimes less so, on what basis they are speaking. We are told that the current major impediment to peace is the existence of the Israeli settlements. The obvious question that must be raised when they are described in that waynot as undesirable but as the major, or only, obstacle to peaceis why Israels forcible withdrawal of 8,000 settlers, and its soldiers, from Gaza in 2005 was followed not by peace in Gaza but by the election of Hamas, which declared that it would fight for ever to get rid of all the state of Israel, and by the continuation of rockets being fired from Gaza to Israelto Sderot and other places. Hamas has a charter that is blatantly anti-Semitic and talks about Jews ruling the world and being responsible for the Russian and French revolutionsevents that I seem to remember took place before the state of Israel was set up. Of course, Hamas was and still is supported and armed by Iran, which also armed Hezbollah in Lebanon and has been moving missiles and arms to Hezbollah there in recent weeks. The forcible removal of 8,000 Israeli settlers from Gaza by the Israeli army

did not result in peace at all, so the settlements are not the only obstacle to peace. I support what the Israeli Government of the time did. It was the right thing to do, but it is clear that settlements are not the sole obstacle to peace. Peacerecognition of the rights of Palestinians and Israelis in two statescan come about only through negotiations, and anyone who wants that end knows that negotiations must be about borders, the status of Jerusalem and refugees. A number of very detailed and protracted negotiations, involving international support, have taken place and come fairly close to resolving some of those difficult issues, but they have never quite been concluded. Each side will have its explanation of who is at fault. Gilead Sher, a senior negotiator on the Israeli side who has worked extensively with Palestinians, and who to this day is working on the west bank persuading Israeli settlers to prepare to leave, has said clearly that a solution was never reached in the negotiations in which he was involved, because the Palestinians were not willing to signal an end to conflict. They could not or would not do it. That view was echoed by President Clinton who tried so hard to bring about a solution. What is happening now, and what is there for the future? The past is relevant and important in this protracted and difficult conflict, but people must look to the future if a solution is to be found. In recent years, major progress has been made by the Palestinian Authority on the west bank, working with Tony Blair and the Quartet in developing the economy of the west bank and instruments of government for a future Palestinian state. That work has been done effectively, but it is extremely disturbing that at this moment, as the Palestinian Authority is talking to Hamas about a unity agreement, the architect of those substantial improvements in security and in Palestines economy and autonomy, Prime Minister Fayyad, is being told that as a result of the unity negotiations he should go. There is intense pressure on him. Last week he was going; this week it is a little less clear. That is an ominous sign. The Palestinian who has worked to develop a Palestinian state and economy is now told by Hamas that his services are no longer required. Michael Connarty: I respect my hon. Friends strongly held views on these matters, but she has spent all her time talking about the Palestinians. As we heard from Opposition speakers, at the moment the Israeli state is demolishing houses, surrounding and crushing east Jerusalem, moving large numbers of people out of their homes and, it would appear, condoning an attempt to emasculate the Palestinian community in east Jerusalem. Surely she should talk about what the Israeli Government are doing, because they are obviously not aiding the peace process. Mrs Ellman: I certainly do not support every move of the current Israeli Government, but I have to remember that under previous Israeli Governments, whom I did support, it was the Palestinians who were the block to peace; whatever policies may be going on that people may disagree with, the fundamental point here is that it is the Palestinians who at this moment are refusing to go to the negotiating table and settle the conflict, when there is an opportunity to do so on the basis of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

357WH

Israel and the Peace Process

27 MARCH 2012

Israel and the Peace Process

358WH

[Mrs Ellman] The only way forward is a return to negotiations on the basis of two states living in co-operation and peace. I hope supporters of all the parties involved will do their best to bring those negotiations forward, so that there can indeed be an agreement leading to a peaceful future. 3.27 pm Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con): It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker, and I thank the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for securing the debate. Ever since the state of Israel was set up it has been under attack, and all of us in the Chamber can agree that there should be a state of Israel. We represent constituencies all over the country, but I suggest that someone who represented a constituency into which rockets were fired daily would want to take pretty strong action. We all accept that there are faults on both sides. However, given the constant pressure from virtually all Israels neighbours, and the fact that the Iranians say that Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth, it is necessary to keep a strong, powerful Israeli Government, to try to contain what could happen. Iran is a huge threat not only to the Israelis but to the whole region. I suspect that many of its Arab neighbours are just as frightened of Iran as Israel is. That key matter will need to be sorted out in the future, but I will not go into it now. It is right for us to have this debate, but we must deal with it in a commensurate manner. We must accept that Israel will retaliate when it is attacked. We may sometimes believe that it over-reacts, but if we were facing such attacks we would probably react in a similar way. In the end, the only way peace will break out in that part of the world is through prosperity and trade. While hostile acts take place, that will not happen. I know that the Israeli President is keen on creating greater trade in the region, but that is a huge problem with the security situation as it is. We believe in a two-state solution, but that will be difficult to achieve if Hamas and other organisations will not come to the negotiating table. I ask our Ministers and Government not only to take a strong position in the region and to give Israel good advice when she needs it, but to make sure that they are fair in their dealings with Israel and the whole region and that there is a two-state solution and a state of Israel. 3.30 pm Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): I will be brief, Mr Walker, so that the Front-Bench representatives have time to respond. I am grateful for this debate and hope that it will lead to a full days debate on the Floor of the main Chamber, because enormous issues are involved. I have visited Palestine and Israel on many occasions and would characterise Palestinians as being under occupation, under siege or in exile. Having visited many Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere, I have felt the sense of anger, hopelessness and depression that people who, along with their grandparents, parents

and now their own childrengreat-great grandchildren have spent 60 years in refugee camps thirsting for the right to go home. They have been living in poverty, under oppression and with a sense that, for many generations, whole lives have been lived in limbo. I recall meeting those who were removed from Palestine in 1948 and who went to the Gulf states and Iraq. They were eventually moved out of Iraq into Syria, and I met them languishing on the border between Iraq and Syria. Have a thought for how they feel, think and look at the world. Have a thought for the plight of the 1.5 million people in Gaza who are effectively in imprisonment and cannot travel to the west bank or Jerusalem. Some are elected parliamentarians who cannot go anywhere. Have a think about them and about what the situation does to the psyche of young people growing up in imprisonment, unable to do anything other than watch the world on TV and computer screens. That is the reality for many Palestinians. Some talk blithely about the need for negotiations and for promoting a two-state solution, which is fine, but look at the criss-cross roads all over the west bank, and look at the settlements and at the water that has gone. I applaud what my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) has said about the need for an ecological approach to the River Jordan. We could start by not abstracting all the water from it, a practice that is leading to the Dead sea disappearing, literally, before our very eyes. The march for Jerusalem will take place this month. The campaign is calling on the British Government to do a number of things and I would be grateful if the Minister said what support they can give it. The campaign wants to stop the systematic demolition of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem; stop the building of illegal settlements and their structures; stop the granting of discriminatory and insecure residency rights to Palestinians and their arbitrary expulsion from that city; and stop the expulsion of many from Jerusalem. Homes in Silwan have been destroyed to make way for the city of David. Mr McCann: Will my hon. Friend ask for those who are firing missiles into southern Israel to stop? His list will be incomplete if he does not put that part of the picture in place. Jeremy Corbyn: I have never supported anybody who fires rockets at someone, but I ask my hon. Friend to get a sense of reality and to compare rockets with the 1,500 people who were killed during Operation Cast Lead, when F16 jets using phosphorous bombs killed innocent women and children. I am not in favour of rockets or bombing. We will achieve peace only if there is real recognition of the rights of and injustices suffered by the Palestinian people. That includes ending the settlement policy, ending the occupation of East Jerusalem, and ending the whole policy of the expulsion of Palestinians from East Jerusalem. Israel is a very rich and very powerful nuclear-armed state situated in a region where it is in a position to threaten any of its neighbours at any time. I suggest that the way forward in the region is to end the injustice suffered by the Palestinian people, end the occupation of the west bank and the imprisonment of the people of Gaza, and allow those who have been stuck in refugee camps for so long to return home.

359WH

Israel and the Peace Process

27 MARCH 2012

Israel and the Peace Process

360WH

Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Jeremy Corbyn: No, I will not. Britain was involved in the original partition and in the Balfour declaration, so we have a duty to help promote peace. That means suggesting to Israel that leaving the United Nations Human Rights Council, running away from international institutions and opposing Palestinian membership of the UN are hardly an indication of a process of peace, or of recognition of or respect for international law. They are very much the opposite. If Israel cannot abide by international law and if it continues to abuse human rights and imprison Palestinians, why is the European Union-Israel trade agreement carrying on as normal, as though there is nothing wrong? That agreement has a human rights clause and that clause should be respected. We should, therefore, enter negotiations and tell Israel that if it cannot abide by the trade agreements human rights clause, the agreement itself will be suspended. John Woodcock rose Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair): Order. I believe that Mr Corbyn has finished his speech. I call Mr Slaughter. 3.36 pm Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): Thank you, Mr Walker. In the few minutes that I have, I will first declare an interest. My entry in the Register of Members Financial Interests notes that I went to Egypt last March with the Council for European Palestinian Relations. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) has usefully introduced the debate and I hope that we will have an opportunity to discuss the issue at greater length on the Floor of the House. The picture painted by my hon. Friend and Government Members, however, is not one that those of us who regularly visit Gaza, the west bank and Israeli Arabs in Israel would recognise. The actual picture is one of occupation. Mr Offord: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Slaughter: I will give way once, and that will be it. Mr Offord: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. When he went to Gaza, did he visit the Gaza city shopping centre, where many of the goods are provided by Israel at a much cheaper price than those coming through the tunnels from Egypt? Mr Slaughter: I am not sure that that is relevant; I wish I had not given way. The Palestinian people experience occupation, persecution and discrimination. I wish that some of the rights that Israelis give to their own citizenssome hon. Members have rightly mentioned themwere also provided for the Palestinian people. When considering this issue, the judgment of some hon. Members seems to lapse in a way that it would not in relation to other issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has given the example of Operation Cast Lead, in which 1,500 people, the majority of them civiliansmany of them women and childrenwere massacred by bombardment from sea, land and air. I visited Gaza two to three weeks after that happened and saw the devastation that it wrought. Over the 20 years since Oslo, the number of settlements has doubled from 250,000 to 500,000, irrespective of how the Palestinians were negotiating or of which parties were in government. Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend give way? Mr Slaughter: No, I will not give way again. Israel is portrayed as the victim when it is, in fact, a regional superpower, a nuclear-armed state and, above all, an occupying power. It is a power that has occupied a people for longer than anywhere else in the world. The Minister did not have a chance to answer a question that I asked him during last nights debate in the House on Jerusalem, so I will ask it again. What stance will the Government take when the Palestinians go to the United Nations, again, in April for recognition? Could the British Government please take a different attitude? We cannot expect the Palestinians to negotiate while settlements are being built at their current rate. On 18 December, the Israeli housing Minister announced that another 1,000 new settler homes would be built in East Jerusalem. That was a punitive response to Palestines admission to UNESCO. How can there be any basis for negotiation when settler violence has gone up by 150% in two years; when Jerusalem is being ethnically cleansed; when there are 5,000 Palestinian prisonersmore than 300 of them in military detention; and when a report, published just last week, said that child prisoners were being tortured and ill-treated in Israeli prisons? Those are the offences that have to be addressed. It is time that those who rightly support the state of Israels being able to live in peace and security, as we all do, opened their eyes to the crimes being committed against the Palestinian people on a daily basis throughout Gaza, the west bank and, indeed, in Israel. Until we have that Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair): Order. I call Mr Ian Lucas. 3.40 pm Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on securing this important and valuable debate. I wholeheartedly support the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) that we should have a longer debate. As we have touched on in this brief debate, the question of Israel and the peace process has been of immensepossibly uniqueimportance as a political issue for 60 or 70 years and longer. We are, of course, in a very novel situation because of the democratic developments that have taken place in the middle east since the Arab spring. Although I accept that Israel-Palestine

361WH [Ian Lucas]

Israel and the Peace Process

27 MARCH 2012

Israel and the Peace Process

362WH

is not the only political issue in the middle east, my discussions with new parliamentarians who will be engaged in the issue in countries such as Morocco and Tunisia have shown that it is very important to them. When I have spoken to them, they have asked for Britain to play its role in making progress in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. It is important to recognise that Britain has a role to play in this changed world. At the moment, the situation in Israel is very fluid. Israeli elections are likely within the next year, and elections to the Palestinian Authority are also due. We know that negotiations are going on politically between Fatah and Hamas that will have a major impact on Israel and its perception of working with Palestinian representatives. From the discussions that I have had, I am very aware of the importance of Iran in terms of the perceptions of Israel. When I speak to Israeli representatives both in Israel and here, I hear about the sense of insecurity that exists within the minds of Israelis in relation to that very important issue. I accept that Iran is not simply an issue for Israel. The proliferation of nuclear weapons in breach of agreements is an issue for the world and for the United Nations. That is an extremely important matter. Of course, I have had the benefit of visiting Palestine and Israel on two separate occasions: first, in 2007, and secondly, last November in the company of my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), the shadow Foreign Secretary, when I was privileged to have discussions in not only Israel, but Ramallah. On that occasion, I was visiting as a guest of Labour Friends of Israel, and I intend to visit as a guest of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding. I hope to visit places such as Gaza later this year. I thank hon. Members who are here today and who have been engaged with the issue for many years. It is important that the breadth of view that we have heard expressed in the debate today is reflected in the positions that are adopted by the Opposition and by Her Majestys Government. Britain has an important role to play in the middle east peace process. We are respected. I do not know to whom the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) spoke, but Tony Blair is respected. I have had important disagreements with the former Prime Minister on middle east policy at different times, but I have spoken to representatives of both the Palestinian Authority and Israel who appreciate the work that Tony Blair continues to do in the region. It is unfortunate that that partisan point was made in what has been a good debate. What struck me on my two visits to Israel was that there has been progress in the west bank between 2007 and 2011. Economic progress has taken place, which is welcome and is part of the process of Israel and the Palestinian authority being able to work together. That will change individuals lives. We touched on the issue relating to Northern Ireland, which sometimes casts a fog but sometimes sheds light on the middle east peace process. Unless people see that, individually, their lives will be changed by progress in the peace process, they will not buy into that process. There are areas where progress has been made.

Mrs McGuire: Does my hon. Friend recognise the decision of the Israeli Supreme Court to instruct the Government to clear the settlement area of Migron? That is one of the largest settlement areas in the west bank and it has very clearly been identified as land owned by the Palestinians. That decision was endorsed on Sunday. Ian Lucas: It is very important to recognise that Israel is a democracy and that it has an independent judiciary. We applaud those types of decisions and the fact that, within Israel, those decisions are being taken. However, pressures are coming from the Israeli Government. In the past year, they have talked about withdrawing funding from non-governmental organisations that do not support Israeli Government policy. That sort of thing does not help Israel, but the independent judiciary, to which my right hon. Friend refers, does. It is important that that is preserved. We have a situation in which some progress is being made, but that progress is not within the peace process at the present time. That is intensely frustrating. Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op): Will my hon. Friend give way? Ian Lucas: I am sorry, but I must make some progress. I apologise to my hon. Friend. From my observations, the position of the peace process on the ground is intensely difficult. It is true that there had not been negotiations for a long time when I visited in November and that some meetings have occurred this year. We must, of course, welcome the fact that those meetings are taking place, but the settlements are a major barrier to any progress on securing peace. I should like to ask the Minister what efforts we are making to convey to the Israeli Government the importance of stopping settlement building. Unless that happens, the prospects for progress in the peace process are very limited. I should also like to highlight the issue of UN recognition, because although the Labour party agrees with the Government position on many areas, we fundamentally disagree with their position to date on UN recognition. That is a matter of principle. If we really support a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine, we should establish the relevant mechanism in the United Nations. It is very disappointing that the Government took the view that that was not the correct approach. As no real negotiations were going on, should we not have made an approach to the United Nations, which is a multilateral and respected organisation that had a major role in the establishment of the state of Israel? The state of Israel was, of course, granted recognition in 1947 and 1948 by UN resolutions on which the United Kingdom abstained. Should we not have gone to the UN to try to secure progress? It seems extraordinary that, when progress was not being made, the UK Government were resistant to using multilateral agencies and the most important multilateral agency of allthe United Nationsto secure progress. I have been privileged to meet some hugely impressive individuals: Dan Meridor, the Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, who was in the Palace only last week, and Salam Fayyad, who has been mentioned. Anyone can do business with them and, most importantly, they can do business with each other. Those individuals are

363WH

Israel and the Peace Process

27 MARCH 2012

Israel and the Peace Process

364WH

clearly people who can bring and achieve peace in the right circumstances, with pressure brought to bear by the international community. We all want to see progress in the middle east. It is one of the great political issues of our lifetimes. Progress can be achieved only through a two-state solution. We need to exert pressure from the international community to get the two parties to the negotiating table to seek a solution. If a solution is reached in the Israel-Palestine conflict, we will have a more secure and stable middle east, and an Arab spring that will bring wider democracy to us all. 3.50 pm The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne): Thank you for giving me the opportunity to conclude this short but important debate, Mr Walker. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on securing this important debate. I strongly agree with him that Israel, certainly by the standards of the middle east, is a force for social progress. He lost me a little bit when he argued that socialism had proven to be the greatest international guarantor of religious freedom, but let us move on to wider issues that are specific to the debate. Israel is an important ally of the UK and a valued friend. I am pleased to note that our bilateral trade increased by 34% last year. I am also pleased to note the continued high-level exchanges on issues of national security, including the current threats from Iran and Syria, and instability elsewhere in the region. We are also expanding our ties in the fields of science, education and cyber issues. These are signs of a strong relationship being made stronger yet between Israel and the UK. Our relationship with Israel is crucial for our national security and prosperity objectives. However, just as we are building a strong partnership with Israel, we are continuing to enhance our relationship with the Palestinians. That is reflected in high-level visits, including by President Abbas to the UK in January, our flourishing education links, and in parliamentary and cultural exchanges, some of which we have heard about this afternoon. Our open relationship with both Israel and the Palestinians allows us to have frank discussions with both. We do not always agree with each other, but, by ensuring robust partnerships, we will be more able to find ways to address each others concerns. I agree with the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas): the UK is a voice that is heard loudly and clearly in this debate. Hon. Members will be pleased to note that our recent changes to legislation on universal jurisdiction have been welcomed. We know the Israeli Government felt that this had previously been used inappropriately to target Israeli nationals. Where we identify such issues and can act on them, we will. We will continue to raise UK concerns strongly with the Israeli and Palestinian authorities. This afternoons debate has demonstrated the high levels of interest, which rightly exist in the House, in the middle east peace process. The goal of the UK Government remains a two-state solution. We believe firmly that it should be based on 1967 lines with equivalent land swaps, incorporate a fair and realistic solution for refugees,

include security arrangements respecting Palestinian sovereignty and protecting Israeli security, and be based on Jerusalem as a joint capital for both states. We remain fully committed to this strategic goal. Jonathan Reynolds: I do not think that anyone would object to, or oppose, the statement the Minister has just made. Each one of those issues is so intractable that it prevents progress on any of the others. Is there any scope to try to make an intervention on just one of those issuesperhaps refugees or settlementsto at least push the peace process forward in a way that has not happened for quite a few years? Mr Browne: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. In the remaining time available, I will try to illustrate precisely how we are advancing those objectives. We are clear that a solution cannot be imposed from outside. Our current priority remains bringing the parties back to negotiations. We believe that it is only through negotiation and agreement that a sustainable two-state solution can be achieved. The UK will continue to be one of the principal supporters of Palestinian state-building efforts, assisting them to tackle poverty, build institutions and boost their economy. We will also continue, however, to emphasise to all parties the importance we place on direct negotiations, without preconditions. What we believe is most needed is not a push for Palestinian statehood within the UN or its specialised agenciesthat could push Israel and the Palestinians further apartbut a renewed commitment to the peace process. That must involve a demonstration of political will and leadership from both sides to break the current impasse. Richard Burden: Will the Minister give way? Mr Browne: No, because lots of hon. Members have made contributions and I wish to try to respond to all of them if I can. We remain deeply concerned by ongoing settlement activity, an issue raised by many hon. Members. Settlements are illegal under international law, and in direct contravention of Israels commitments under the Quartet road map. They make a two-state solution, with Jerusalem as a shared capital, physically harder to achieve. This is made worse by the Israeli Governments policy of connecting settlements to already stretched water supplies, and of restricting Palestinian movement and access in the occupied territories, including establishing a secondary road system to separate Palestinian and Israeli traffic. The Government have consistently called on Israel to halt all settlement activity and to reverse its recent announcements about expanding existing settlements. We urge all sides to exercise restraint and avoid civilian casualties. It is unacceptable that Palestinian militant groups continue to threaten ordinary Israeli citizensa point powerfully made by many contributors to our deliberations. It is also unacceptable that Israel continues to launch strikes that affect, and on occasions kill, ordinary Palestinians. We remain concerned by conditions in Gaza. It is deeply troubling that Gaza, which should have a thriving economy, is currently one of the highest per capita recipients of aid funding in the world. We will continue to press the Israeli Government

365WH

Israel and the Peace Process

27 MARCH 2012

366WH

[Mr Jeremy Browne] to ease the movement and access restrictions that make life so difficult for the people of Gaza and are doing ongoing damage to its economy. Such restrictions do not help the peace process. The UK has been providing valuable support to Palestinians through our programmes. In Gaza and the west bank, we help to support 5,700 children through primary school, and immunise 2,000 children under five against measles. This type of workthere is much more I could put before the Houseis vital to the Palestinian people and helps to keep the prospects of a two-state solution alive, and we will continue to do it. We continue to follow developments on Palestinian reconciliation closely, including recent meetings between Hamas and Fatah officials. We have been clear that any new Palestinian authority, including any technocratic Government formed to prepare for elections, must be: composed of figures committed to the principles set by President Abbas in Cairo in May 2011; uphold the principle of non-violence; be committed to a negotiated two-state solution; and accept previous agreements of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. We will judge any future Palestinian Government by its actions and its readiness to work for peace. In the context of the dramatic changes in the wider middle east, we continue to encourage all groups to espouse the principle of non-violence and to join mainstream democratic politics, thereby contributing to peace and stability in the region. Hon. Members have spoken about the significance to Israel, and to the peace process, of changes in the wider middle east in the past year or so. The encouraging aspects of the Arab spring highlight the enormous benefits that could follow for Israelis and for Palestinians, and for the region as a whole, were lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians achieved. The opportunity to conclude an agreement based on a two-state solution that is acceptable and beneficial to all parties will not exist indefinitely. It is of the utmost importance to all parties that this chance is taken while it exists. As a result, the UK Government recognise that there is a degree of urgency involved in the process. I assure hon. Members from all parts of the House that the UK remains fully committed to developing our partnerships with both Israel and the Palestinians. We will continue to work tirelessly in support of the effort to achieve a long-term, durable solution to the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As long as we judge that a two-state solution remains obtainable, we will do all we can to encourage all parties to obtain it. That remains our objective. I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate, and the wide interest shown in this vital issue of our times.

EU Directive on Animal Experimentation

3.59 pm Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. The transposition of the European Union directive on animal experimentation into United Kingdom law provides an opportunity to celebrate and protect the UKs proud record of pursuing the best standards of animal welfare. It was initially thought that the new directive would have little effect on the operation of the seminal Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. However, the process has turned out to be much more comprehensive and complicated than expected. In response to a call for comments issued in 2011, the Home Office received more than 10,000 responses from individuals and almost 100 from organisations, illustrating the high level of interest in this issue. In October 2011, the Home Office said that a report on the outcome of the consultation would be published early in 2012, as would a draft code of practice and draft guidance on the application of the revised UK legislation, and that these documents would be accompanied by an indication of the Governments intentions in making the transposition of the requirements of the directive into UK law. It later became clear that Parliament would have to consider the Governments proposals in yes/no votes, without the opportunity to make amendments, before the summer recess in July 2012. It is now expected that regulations to transpose the provisions of the directive will be published in May, giving little time for meaningful, effective consultation. It must be recognised that there was a need to harmonise protection of laboratory animals within the EU member states. The new directive has a number of positive, welcome provisions. For example, it requires that upper limits of pain and distress should be laid down and should not be surpassed; that the weighing of likely benefit and likely suffering should be conducted before any project work begins; that there should be retrospective assessments to evaluate whether the stated objectives were achieved and what harm was afflicted on the animals used; that there should be personal records from birth for individual cats, dogs and non-human primates; and that all personnel involved should be adequately educated and trained. The Government have attempted to reassure interested parties that high standards of laboratory animal protection, which have operated in the UK for many years, will not be relaxed. However, there is concern that the UK legislation might be watered down to harmonise with an EU minimum. This concern is not only expressed by animal welfare groups. Comments published in Februarys edition of the British Medical Journal indicated that organisations representing some of the main users of laboratory animals, including the UK Bioscience Coalition, the Association of Medical Research Charities and the Institute of Animal Technology, are also apprehensive. The fear expressed in the BMJ article was that the Government will not take advantage of article 2 of the directive, which permits member states to maintain higher standards than those required by the directive, but will merely copy out those standards word for word into UK law. Recent experience indicates these concerns may be justified.

367WH

EU Directive on Animal Experimentation

27 MARCH 2012

EU Directive on Animal Experimentation

368WH

The use of great apes as laboratory animals in the UK has been banned since 1997, but it is not in UK law. I wrote to the Minister earlier this year, on behalf of the all-party parliamentary group for the replacement of animals in medical experimentation, which I chair, suggesting that there were compelling ethical, scientific, logistical and economic reasons for making the ban a legal stipulation in the UK. Unfortunately, the reply was disappointing, saying the intention was indeed to copy out the paragraphs in the directive that allow member states to apply to permit the use of great apes in certain circumstances. The case against using chimpanzees is unanswerable, since, even if their use were ethically acceptable, scientifically justifiable and affordable, where would animals be obtained from in the necessary numbers, if an unforeseen threat to humans arose that could not be dealt with in any other way? Surely the Government should seize the opportunity to put protections into this legislation. The Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, which provides the secretariat to the all-party group, and the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection presented a joint submission to the Minister, which spelled out the case for making the ban on using great apes in the UK permanent and legally binding. The answer they received again repeated the Governments view that they did not envisage any circumstances in which the UK would claim that there was a compelling need to use great apes. So why not make it clear in this legislation? Unfortunately, the Governments approach to great apes fuels concerns about their overall approach to the transposition, giving credence to concerns expressed by bodies such as FRAME, the BUAV, Animal Defenders International and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, as well as those listed in the BMJ article, which I mentioned earlier. The Minister knows that there is particular public concern about the use of any primates, highlighted by the recent Bateson report, showing that at least 9% of experiments, and probably more, have no discernible potential benefit for humans. In transposing article 8, will the Government clarify the meaning of debilitating clinical condition to make it clear that the use of primates can only be considered where a serious human disease is involved, not simply a mild or temporary deterioration, such as baldness or the common cold? I am particularly concerned that we take the opportunity to put animal experiments on a more transparent footing. I welcome the Governments acknowledgement that section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act needs to be reconsidered to meet the transparency requirement of the directive. The simplest way to do that would be just to remove it, while leaving in place the protection of personal data, safety and commercial confidentiality provided for in the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In fact, if the Government published anonymised project licences centrally, together with the findings, whether positive or negative, that would remove any remaining risk of individual researchers being harassed, while allowing a mature public discussion of the costs and societal and scientific benefits of experiments, as well as enabling researchers to check that they are not duplicating previous research. Will the Minister confirm that university research will still be open to freedom of information requests, within the existing FOIA safeguards?

Of grave concern is the possibility that the current financial situation could be used to reduce the effort put into the administration of the UK legislation, including the licensing system and the work of the Home Office inspectorate. The system of licensing, consultation between licensees and inspectors, unannounced visits and regional administration has worked well for many years and is strongly supported by the scientific community. However, there are fears the number of inspectors will be allowed to dwindle, that inspectors will interact less with licensees, as advisers and unannounced visitors, and that the whole system will be run electronically from one site, probably at the Home Office in London. Such changes could undoubtedly be made to fit with the requirements of the directive, but they would have a serious, deleterious effect on the standard of protection of laboratory animals in the UK, which, we are regularly informed, is currently the highest in the world and is something that we in the UK can rightly be proud of. Given the high regard in which it is held and the key function it plays in ensuring compliance with the law, the implementation of the three Rsreplacement, reduction, refinementand the maintenance of best possible practice, the Home Office inspectorate should be maintained at its current capacity and its advisory role should be kept intact. Furthermore, there are concerns that UK housing and husbandry standards might be reduced to the lower EU standards, including for the floor area of cages for dogs or the height of cages for rats, which are greater in the UK than would be required under the directive. Many in the scientific community would find that undesirable. In order to maintain good public relations and perceptions of research and to ensure the continuation of the UKs established reputation for high standards of animal welfare, lower standards should be avoided, by recourse to article 2 if necessary. In addition to possibly lowering technical standards, the transposition could weaken the current, successful ethical review process, by substituting it with the animalwelfare body stipulated in the directive. Although the Home Office indicated in the consultation that the two were similar, there are important differences in function and emphasis. For instance, it is important to retain the ethical aspect of the name, as that more accurately reflects what the role of the body should be. A great deal of effort has been invested in improving the effectiveness of the process, and the general consensus is that it is useful and desirable, and that, where there are problems, they are about effective implementation, rather than with the process per se. There are strong arguments, therefore, for retaining function 2 of the process, namely project evaluation, which would be lost in purely animal welfare considerations. That is particularly important in considering local factors that impact on projects, and in facilitating communication and dissemination of information to the various people involved. In summary, the recent media coverage concerning the unwillingness of internal transport companies to carry laboratory animals shows that animal experimentation remains high on the public and scientific agenda. Therefore, very great care should be taken to ensure the transposition of the directive does not in any way weaken the UKs hard-fought reputation for maintaining highest standards in preserving the essential fine balance between science and animal welfare. In a joint response, the British

369WH [Nic Dakin]

EU Directive on Animal Experimentation

27 MARCH 2012

EU Directive on Animal Experimentation

370WH

Veterinary Association and the Laboratory Animals Veterinary Association emphasised that the responsible use of animals in research has improved human and animal welfare through the advancement of scientific knowledge and the development of safer and more effective medicines. They went on to say:
animals should only be used in research when no alternative is available and the work is justified through independent ethical scrutiny, and we continue to support the traditional principles of the Three Rs. We strongly believe that higher standards should be retained under Article 2 of the Directive even without clear evidence of benefit to animal welfare, unless there is evidence to show that no reduction in welfare will result.

That is a clear message from the professional bodies. They conclude:

The high level of public confidence in the robust regulation of scientific procedures using animals in the UK should not be compromised by the reduction of requirements without this evidence.

I will be grateful if the Minister could clarify a number of issues in his response. How will he ensure sufficient parliamentary time to scrutinise the proposals when they are brought forward? Will he take the opportunity to put the protection of great apes in legislation? Will he clarify the meaning of debilitating clinical condition? Will he clarify how the transparency of access to information will work, so that researchers do not duplicate their research? Will he give reassurances that the current successful approach to licensing and inspection will not be weakened? Finally, will he commit to retaining a robust ethical review process? 4.14 pm The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green): I congratulate the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on securing the debate and on his energetic chairmanship of the all-party group. I may not be able to give him as much detail as he might like because, as he will appreciate, I am standing inno doubt inadequatelyfor the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), and because she and the Home Office more widely are still looking at the details of the transposition, but I will try to answer as many of his detailed questions as I can. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government recognise that the regulation of animal experiments is of significant public interest. We are strongly committed to ensuring the best possible standards of animal welfare and protection for animals used for scientific purposes. Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con): My last report in the European Parliament, before I retired from it, took the directive through to First Reading. One of the problems in getting the agreement of 27 countries is that the regulations often have to be reduced in order to get them agreed by all member states. I would like to put it on record that I believe that we have some of the best research, done under the best welfare requirements in the world, and I do not want to see that watered down. In many cases I like to see the reduction of regulation, but on this occasion it is essential to keep our strong rules in place, because we are dealing with animal welfare and the quality of the science. I want that reassurance from the Government.

Damian Green: By the time I sit down, I hope that I will have provided my hon. Friend with that reassurance. He, too, deserves congratulations, on taking legislation to that stage in the European Parliament, which I suspect is more complex and difficult than anything we try to do in this Parliament. The Government are strongly committed to ensuring the best possible standards of animal welfare. Current legislation, as was rightly acknowledged by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe, provides that high level of protection: work cannot be licensed if it could be carried out without using animals, and the procedures must cause the minimum possible suffering to the smallest number of animals of the lowest sensitivity. That approach reflects closely what the public want. At the same time, animal experimentation continues to be a vital tool in developing health care improvements and in protecting man and the environment. The potential health and economic benefits from new and innovative treatments are dependent on providing the right framework for the UKs life sciences sector and university research base, which are vital national assets and critical to our long-term economic growth, so we are determined to provide the right framework. The transposition of the new European directive for the protection of animals used for scientific purposes provides us with a valuable and timely opportunity to review our own legislation governing experiments on animals. As has been pointed out, many requirements of the directive are similar to current UK legislation and practice. For example, it places a strong emphasis on minimising the use of animals and the promotion of alternatives. Some requirements go further than current UK legislation, most notably the introduction of mandatory minimum standards of care and accommodation for animals. Other requirements are potentially less stringent; the directive does not, as UK legislation does, provide special protection for cats, dogs and horses. Article 2 of the directive allows us to retain current stricter UK provisions as long as they do not inhibit the free market. The directive thus provides us with an opportunity to confirm the best aspects of current UK regulation and to make improvements where we can do better. During 2011 we held a public consultation on options for transposition. I have slightly different figures from the hon. Gentleman, so I hope they are accurate. More than 13,000 individuals and 100 organisations responded, which clearly confirms a very strong interest in the topic. We are currently completing our analysis of the responses and will announce our decisions shortlyI hope shortly enough to leave proper time for parliamentary scrutiny, which the hon. Gentleman reasonably mentioned. The directive clearly offers some opportunities, such as helping the work that we are already doing to promote the development of alternatives. The programme for government includes commitments to end the testing of household products on animals, and to work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research. The new directive assists with those objectives by strengthening the protection of animals used in scientific procedures, and promoting the three Rs: the development, validation, acceptance and implementation of methods and strategies that replace, reduce and refine the scientific use of animals. The directive will also allow us to remove unnecessary bureaucracy where it still exists, and to build on the significant improvements we have already made in our

371WH

EU Directive on Animal Experimentation

27 MARCH 2012

EU Directive on Animal Experimentation

372WH

day-to-day implementation of current legislation. We are planning to focus on simplifying the details of personal licences, and making further improvements to the project licence application process and to the format of the project licence. The directive requires member states to inspect animal research laboratories and breeders, but the minimum frequency of inspection is less than we currently practise. Many of the responses to our consultation commented on the strengths of our current inspection system, and clearly that is an issue of great interest to the hon. Gentleman. We are committed to maintaining a strong and properly resourced inspectorate, and a full, risk-based programme of inspections. The relationship between inspectors, licence holders and animal care staff is crucial to the effective implementation of the regulatory framework, and we will not jeopardise that relationship. The hon. Gentleman referred to the current move to centralise the operation of the administrative part of the legislation in London. That does not apply to inspectors. Indeed, it has been confirmed that inspectors will continue to be located close to those they inspect. I hope that that provides the hon. Gentleman with some reassurance. We are aware of the concerns that have been expressed that transposition will lead to a lowering of welfare standards for laboratory animals in the UK. That is not our intention, and we are determined not to weaken UK standards, but that does not mean retaining stricter UK standards when there is no clear evidence that they translate into better welfare, nor does it mean that we must put everything into the legislation if we can achieve the right outcomes by encouraging good practice. What we are looking for is the right balance. We must ensure that we can maintain and further enhance our high standards, but at the same time we must avoid putting UK research at a competitive disadvantage compared with our counterparts in other member states. For the Government, both are objectives for the transposition of the new directive. I shall give some specific examples of our approach to transposition. We intend to retain higher UK standards when there is strong and broadly-based support or good evidence for their retention. I mentioned some of those earlier, but it is important to put them on the record, not least to reassure the hon. Gentleman. One example is that we propose to continue to provide special protection for cats, dogs and horses, as well as non-human primates, and will allow their use only when no other species is suitable or available. That was widely supported in our public consultation. I turn to the specific subject of great apes. We will continue to prohibit the use of great apes. There has been concernthe hon. Gentleman expressed it earlier that the directive weakens the protection of those animals by providing a derogation allowing their use in exceptional circumstances. I can assure him and the House that we foresee no circumstances in which we would use that derogation, and we will put the ban in the legislation, as he asked. That is a full assurance such as he sought. We propose to retain protection for foetal and embryonic forms of birds and reptiles during the last third of their development. That is not a requirement of the directive, but we received persuasive evidence from the public consultation of the welfare benefits of giving the same protection to those species as will be given to mammals during their development stages. I hope that that will

also be welcome. We were persuaded that the burden of providing that additional protection is proportionate to the benefit. That is the test we are operating. We also propose to retain a system of personal licences as a means of monitoring and ensuring the competence of those working with research animals. The directive lists methods of humane killing that may be used without project authorisation. Our current UK legislation takes a similar approach as the directive in this area, but there are significant differences between the UK list of methods and that in the directive. Some methods listed in the directive are not currently permitted in the UK without specific authorisation. The differences have caused widespread concern, and we are minded to maintain the best of our current approach to humane killing. To take that forward, we have recently published a revised list of humane killing methods for consultation, and will incorporate only the best methods in our updated legislation. Again, I hope that that provides reassurance to the many people who are particularly concerned about this part of the directive. Another issue of particular concern to many people is animal care and accommodation standards, specifically those examples in which current UK cage and enclosure sizes are greater than those required under the directive. For some, when there is good supportive evidence, we are minded to continue to mandate the UK dimensions. For others, the difference in dimensions may be so small as to make little difference to the welfare of the animals, but sufficient to add significantly to the costs for the life sciences community if they were retained, which would risk making the UK less competitive than other countries in Europe and beyond. Instead, we are considering ways of using the revision of our current UK code of practice on care and accommodation to encourage voluntary improvements in standards of housing. The UK has a long tradition of housing animals in conditions that are better than those mandated in regulationsfor example, the housing of non-human primates in the UK has significantly exceeded the minimum requirements for many years. Our approach has been driven by sound evidence from our welfare scientists, together with a willingness on the part of both the academic sector and industry to provide the best environment for our animals. We want to support that approach by encouraging the work of welfare scientists and the research community. As scientific evidence for higher standards emerges, we will expect our research community to respond. On freedom of information, which the hon. Gentleman brought up at the start of the debate, most responders to the consultation recognise that section 24 in its current form is not compatible with the directives commitment to transparency, and many also recognise that it may be a barrier to the sharing of best practice and information on the three Rs. At the same time, personal details, intellectual property and commercial information will continue to require protection. We will consider how best to provide that protect under the new legislation, at the same time as meeting the aspiration to greater transparency. The hon. Gentleman also brought up the issue of weighing pain against benefit. UK legislation already requires the Secretary of State to weigh the likely pain against the expected benefit, and in that regard the directive confirms current UK practice.

373WH

EU Directive on Animal Experimentation

27 MARCH 2012

374WH

[Damian Green] The hon. Gentleman referred to transport disruption. We have been working actively with the life sciences community and the transport sector to broker a commercial solution to provide a sustainable and resilient supply chain. That will be important to the future of the life sciences industry. The hon. Gentleman asked about the use of non-human primates, and particularly the definition of a debilitating condition. We do not intend to define further what a debilitating condition is because we believe that that should be done on a case-by-case basis for each project licence application received. Using the current UK code of practice in that way to encourage voluntary improvements, particularly for housing, will lead to better standards. Overall, in addressing these sensitive issues, we believe that good welfare is fundamental to good science. Animal experimentation is an area in which Government policy must recognise a wide range of opinions. Our current policy is based on the belief that there are real benefits to man, animals and the environment that can, at present, be achieved only with the use of animals, but it reflects the need for all animal use to be fully justified, and for animal suffering to be minimised. Any suffering must be carefully weighed against the potential benefits. Those are the foundations of our current legislation, and the directive provides us with the opportunity to build on them. As I have said, my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities and others will consider carefully Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair): Order.

British Expatriates (Punjab)

4.29 pm Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con): I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this debate under your chairmanship and wise guidance, Mr Walker, and I wish to highlight an issue that has important implications for British citizens living and working in India. This debate was inspired by one of my constituents, Mrs Tejinder Soor-Hudson, who contacted me in the summer of 2010 to express her concerns about the death of her mother, Mrs Mohinder Kaur Soor, a British national who owned a house in Jalandhar in the Punjab region of India. Jalandhar is part of the so-called NRInon-resident Indianbelt of the Doaba region. Many Britons of Indian origin own properties there, and it has become an affluent hub of investment. Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab): I am sorry to intervene at the beginning of the hon. Gentlemans speech, but this debate concerns not only those who work or live in India, but visitors and people who live in Britain but travel to India, particularly to that region. I must declare an interest because I was originally a resident of Jalandhar, so I know the area well. People and visitors there are afraid for their properties, as well as for other business in the area, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will mention not only people who work there, but also visitors. Mr Raab: As usual, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentlemans sentiments. I am not seeking to narrow the confines of this debate; this is clearly a serious and substantive issue that affects those who live in the area and those who travel to it. My constituents mother, Mrs Soor, travelled to India in June 2009 with the intention of selling her home in Jalandhar. Instead, she was found dead later the same month. Mrs Soor-Hudson contacted me because she is convinced that her mothers death was organised by a criminal gang in order to facilitate the theft of her property. Worse still, she believes that the Indian authorities were complicit in a cover-up of that appalling murder. The objective evidence is striking. The resulting postmortem, carried out on tissue samples from Mrs Soors body, concluded that she had been the victim of insecticide poisoning. That, however, was in stark contradiction to the official police report, which stated that no poison had been detected in Mrs Soors body, which was then cremated before the results of the post-mortem were made available. On top of that, the official police report did not give any indication about whatif any investigation was carried out at the home where the body was discovered. The most basic details that one might reasonably expect from the scene of a suspicious death, such as what time the police entered the premises, whether there was evidence of forced entry, and the condition in which the body was found, were not properly recorded. Subsequently, Mrs Soor-Hudson discovered that a key suspect in the case is related by marriage to an officer working under a deputy commissioner, who may well have the means and motivation to influence proceedings. There is ample evidence to suggest corruption in this case. Mrs Soor-Hudson was told that if she wanted the suspect brought in for questioning, she had the option

375WH

British Expatriates (Punjab)

27 MARCH 2012

British Expatriates (Punjab)

376WH

to pay an unidentified individual to make false statements about that suspect. That individual would then commit perjury if necessary. Unbelievably, that suggestion was even endorsed by my constituents then solicitor, although I hasten to add that Mrs Soor-Hudson, of course, rejected any notion of becoming involved in such improper or criminal behaviour. However, it is not difficult to see why she believes that such a dark shadow of suspicion lies across the local police investigation into her mothers death. I met Mrs Soor-Hudson at my constituency surgery at the beginning of the year in order to get an update on the case. She is resolute and passionately committed to uncovering the facts about what happened to her mother in June 2009, and after a number of years of bureaucratic frustration, we appear to be making some initial modest progress in the investigation. As the Minister will be aware, over the past 18 months I have written several times to Foreign Office Ministers on behalf of my constituent, and I wish to thank the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for its help and assistance in pursuing Mrs Soor-Hudsons concerns in this distressing case, and for taking it to the Indian authorities via the high commission. As I understand it, a fresh inquiry into the matter has now been ordered by the commissioner of police, who will report to the Indian high commission in due course. I am not aware of any progress beyond that initial statement of intent, but belated though that is, it is a welcome development even if it is a point of departure rather than of arrival. Will the Minister undertake to do everything within his power to press the Indian authorities to ensure that a proper, robust, rigorous and independent investigation is carried out into this tragic case? While particularly distressing to the family, this case is all the more alarming because, as the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) pointed out, it is by no means an isolated incident. A number of other hon. Members have become involved in similar cases that have affected their own constituents, and there is every reason to believe that those cases are only the tip of the iceberg. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) will soon attest, there was also the horrific murder of Surjit Kaur, a 67-year-old mother of three from Chatham, who was kidnapped and beheaded in March last year while visiting the Punjab region. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his tenacity in raising that terrible case with the Prime Minister, and for his support in helping Mrs Kaurs family get an independent investigation into that appalling crime, and a measure of justice. Sadly, there are many other cases of similar nature. Mr Mohan Singh Biring, a Leicester businessman who had gone to India to oversee a property deal, was murderedagain in the Punjabafter a vicious and unprovoked attack in August 2005 by a gang wielding baseball bats and iron bars. Two men were jailed for life for his murder, but only after intervention from the local Member of Parliament, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), and I pay tribute to his efforts. Mr Charanjit Singh ran a business in Plumstead but was shot dead while visiting Jalandhar in 2009, the apparent victim of a financial dispute over a property purchase that had taken place in England.

Those are tragic cases in their own right, but they also tell a wider story and demonstrate a broader trend. A worrying number of murders and other serious crimes are being committed against British citizens of Indian origin, the so-called NRIs, and visitors to the area, particularly in the Punjab region. There are major concerns regarding the allegations of incompetence andlets face itcorruption within the Indian authorities, which seem to feature in so many of these cases. I commend the support that the Foreign Office has given to the victims and their families, but I feel that we must do more to protect British citizens, and others, who are travelling to or residing in the Punjab region. What advice does the FCO offer to British non-resident Indians who are travelling to or living in the Punjab region but who may have real and objective grounds to fear for their safety? What is the FCOs support mechanism for dealing with cases such as those I have described today? Does the Minister feel that that support mechanism is adequate, or is it time to review the current arrangements? I am, of course, acutely aware that primary responsibility for investigating crimes committed overseas must rest with the police and the judicial authorities in that country. However, we can work with India on a bilateral basis to keep our citizens in that region safe from harm. What, if any, formal arrangements are currently in place with the Indian Government to facilitate such a co-operative approach? Is any, or could any of our bilateral aid be focused on co-operation? How does the Minister think that we can work with the Indian authorities to ensure that we offer our citizens, and others travelling to the region, the same protection when they travel abroad that Indian nationals would rightly expect to receive in this country? 4.39 pm Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this important debate on an issue that has real ramifications for British nationals who visit India. I also pay tribute to his excellent work in representing the concerns of his constituents. Like my hon. Friend, I have encountered a tragic and horrific case. It involves the mother of a constituent of mine. Surjit Kaur was a British national who visited India in February and March 2011. I am led to believe from the little information that the family and I, and the Foreign Office, have been provided with by the Indian authorities that Mrs Kaur was murdered on 31 March 2011. Mrs Kaurs tragic case was highlighted in The Guardian on Friday 8 April 2011. It is that newspapers reporting of the facts of the case to which I will refer. As I said, the Indian authorities have not provided the full facts, which were sought by the family and me in our meeting with the Foreign Office. At this point, I thank the Foreign Office Minister, who was very kind in meeting the family, taking on board their concerns and coming back with a number of points that needed clarification. Despite his best efforts, I was very disappointed with the response of the Indian authorities in not providing that information.

377WH

British Expatriates (Punjab)

27 MARCH 2012

British Expatriates (Punjab)

378WH

[Rehman Chishti] I will set out briefly the facts of the case. The report in The Guardian stated:
The decapitated remains of a British woman have been recovered by Indian police who claim she was murdered after a bungled attempt to extort money from her children in the UK. The head and body of Surjit Kaur, who is believed to have been in her 60s, were found separately this week. Two local men, one a relative of the victim, have been arrested and police said they had confessed to the killing. The two arrested men, named by police as Harbhaghan Singh and Gurwinder Singh, visited the home of a close relative of Kaur after her disappearance to express their concern, according to reports.

The Guardian report goes on to say:

Sandip Sharma, the deputy superintendent ofpolice, who is investigating the murder, told the Guardian the attack took place after the two suspects lured her away under false pretencesHe said they strangled Kaur, cut off her head and threw it into a river. Her body was dismembered and scattered in nearby fields, he added.

In the light of that, I asked some specific questions of the Indian authorities in the meeting with the Minister. I have a response from the Foreign Office, dated 21 December 2011; it followed the meeting between the family and the Minister on 23 November. The first question was this: did the two accused plead guilty to the murder of Mrs Kaur? The answer in that letter was yesthey pleaded guilty to the murder of Mrs Kaur. The second question that I asked specifically was whether they were sentenced for the murder of Mrs Kaur. The answer in the letter was that they were not:
The trial collapsed before it reached a conclusion and so the accused were not sentenced.

case, that is even more imperative because the two individuals had previously pleaded guilty to the horrific murder of Mrs Kaur. The authorities need to carry out an independent and thorough inquiry, so that my constituent and his family can get the one thing that they wantjustice for their mother. They want nothing but justice for their mother. I urge the Foreign Office to make the strongest possible representations to the Indian authorities to reopen the case and ensure that those who carried out this horrific murder are brought to justice. I again pay tribute to the work that the Minister has done and how he dealt with the family. I pay tribute to the work done by the consular staff and all the others involved, including the family liaison officers from Kent police in my constituency who worked with the family. But despite all that, what this comes down to is the will of the Indian authorities. In this case, it is clear that there is no will. If they want the Indian legal system to be taken seriously, they must reopen the inquiry and bring the people responsible to account. 4.45 pm The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne): I am grateful for the opportunity to conclude this short but important debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Walker. I start by commending my hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) for their extremely powerful and persuasive speeches. I hope and believe that those speechesindeed, the whole debatewill be read by the Indian authorities and that it will be clear to them just how seriously this issue is treated in the House of Commons. I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton for securing this debate on a subject of great importance to his constituent, Mrs Soor-Hudson, and to him. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to his specific concerns, and I hope that I can go some way towards addressing the issues that Mrs Soor-Hudson has been dealing with during the past three years. My hon. Friend is concerned not just with the difficult situation that faces his constituent, but with the wider issue of the delays in the Indian and Punjabi justice system that can often affect British nationals and that were powerfully articulated a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham as well. First, I extend my condolences to Mrs Soor-Hudson and to her family for the tragic loss of her mother in Jalandhar three years ago. Mrs Soor-Hudsons courage and tenacity in taking forward her subsequent campaign to try to establish the facts behind her mothers death are truly admirable. I hope that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can continue to be of assistance to her during this difficult time. Let me set out what contact the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has had with Mrs Soor-Hudson since her mother passed away and what action has been taken to assist her. The consular directorate in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was first contacted by Mrs Soor-Hudson regarding her mothers death in December 2009. Since then, consular officials in India have contacted the Indian police on numerous occasions, including at senior levels, to seek progress reports and

When two people have confessed to a murder, how can a trial collapse? It defies logic to hear that two people have admitted guilt for the murder of an individual and then to be told that the trial has collapsed. But it gets worse than that, which is why I think that there needs to be a full, thorough investigation. On page 2 of the letter is a question that I asked:
Why did the case collapse and what can be done now?

The answer comes back from the Indian authorities that the police have now confirmed that the case is closed. How can it be closed if Mrs Kaur has been murdered and we have two people who admit to the murder? We are told that the case has collapsed. If it has collapsed, the authorities should reopen the inquiry and try to find out who committed the murder, but in this case the Indian authorities are saying, Sorrycase closed. That causes me real concern. I say this to the Minister. We have so many people, including expat nationals, who travel to India and want to be safe. India is a booming economy, but it also has a moral and ethical obligation for the safety of our constituents. Look at the case to which I am referring. If individuals who have accepted that they committed murder are walking away from a court, that leads meand, indeed, any reasonable personto come to the following conclusions. The legal system is defunct and illogical; the investigation is incompetent; there are corrupt practices; or there is a combination of all three. I urge the Indian authorities to reopen this case. They say that the case has collapsed. In any civilised legal system, if a case has collapsed, the authorities reopen it to get the people who have committed murder. In this

379WH

British Expatriates (Punjab)

27 MARCH 2012

British Expatriates (Punjab)

380WH

ask for contact details on behalf of the family. The Indian authorities have responded in writing to the British high commissioner in Delhi, as well as directly to Mrs Soor-Hudson. Consular officials in London also met Mrs Soor-Hudson to discuss the case in February of this year. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton has written to, and received replies from, two of my ministerial colleagues, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), on this issue. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend is aware, Mrs SoorHudsons case is not unique. The British high commission regularly raises issues in relation to a number of cases that involve the deaths of British nationals in India. Many of those cases are complicated. Some of them are concerned with deaths in suspicious circumstances, and others with murders. In some cases, the cause of death remains unknown. In others, the bereaved family have had strong concerns about the investigations into the death of their family member, as in Mrs Soor-Hudsons case. Such cases illustrate the factthis point was powerfully made by my hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton and for Gillingham and Rainhamthat the Indian authorities need to have a justice system that not only enjoys the confidence of their own population but is seen to perform at standards in which people around the world can feel confident. In an effort to assist all families affected by the cases, I have, on two occasions, raised these issues with my Indian counterparts. Last July, I spoke to the Union Minister of Home Affairs and passed over a note listing a number of outstanding cases that involve British nationals in India. In February, during a visit to India, I met the Minister of State for External Affairs and passed over another note of outstanding cases. I hope that hon. Members will realise that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the whole British Government attach importance to representing individual cases of British nationals who have been involved in terrible circumstances in India and that the families feel that the justice system has not treated their case with sufficient efficiency or, in some cases, seriousness. However, as I am sure my hon. Friends are aware, the investigation into the deaths of British nationals in India is the responsibility of the Indian authorities. Unfortunately, just as in the UK, such processes can take a number of years. The British Government will not interfere in an Indian investigation. Similarly, we would not accept the interference of a foreign Government into an investigation in the UK. I know that my hon. Friends will feel frustrated by that, but it is the only basis on which we can reasonably proceed. The country within which the incident took place has the sovereign authority over the investigation and prosecution of the case. Mr Virendra Sharma: I apologise for not congratulating the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing such a wonderful and important debate. Does the Minister agree that in the light not only of these cases but of the many cases of murder and kidnap in

the state, especially of those people from Britain, that the Department should look into providing information detailing the kind of support that can be secured from the British high commission and others before people leave here? While they are in the country, they need security, guidance and adequate legal support. Such help does not directly interfere with the state, but it would be useful for individuals. Mr Browne: I will come to that point later in my speech. Although it is an important intervention, the House and the wider public must understand the limitations that we in the Foreign Office face in our jurisdiction and our staffing and budgetary restraints. Literally millions of British people travel abroad every year, and we provide a service that is as good and as comprehensive as we can within the constraints that exist. I was talking about the role of the sovereign Governmentin this case, the Indian Governmentin investigating a case. We recommend to the families involved that it is imperative to retain the services of a local lawyer at the earliest opportunity. That lawyer will be best placed to advise the family on how best to proceed within the existing local legal framework and to address any concerns the family may have about any aspect of the investigation. To that end, each British embassy, high commission or consulate maintains a list of English-speaking local lawyers, to which consular officials will refer family members. However, we do not claim to have an expert knowledge of the legal system of every country in which we operate. Rehman Chishti: Just to clarify the point about not knowing the exact legal systems of the country, does the Minister agree that in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world common sense would dictate that, if someone pleads guilty to murder and it is an agreed fact, that person should be sentenced rather than walk free from court? Mr Browne: Perhaps I should not be drawn on that specific case. All the cases that have been raised both inside and outside this debate suggest that the Indian justice system is failing to provide satisfactory justice to a number of citizens and that must surely give the Indian authorities cause for reflection. Mr Raab: The Minister is treating this in a serious and methodical way. I understand his point about resources. We know that there was a dumbing down of bilateral relations under the previous Government and that this Government are trying to address that. May I just challenge his strict approach and focus on sovereignty and the idea that the investigation and the approach of the justice system must be left solely to the domestic authorities in India? Under the Vienna convention on consular relations and as a matter of Indias own human rights obligations on torture or fair trials guarantees and given the endemic corruption that he has rather lightly alluded to, we have every right and it is every bit the British Governments business to raise these issues and to press the Indian authorities to behave properly. Mr Browne: I am grateful for that intervention. I certainly accept that we have a legitimate role, which we exercise with vigour and enthusiasm, to press on countries around the world our desire to see them operate an effective and balanced justice system. Where we feel that improvements can be made, we make that point.

381WH

British Expatriates (Punjab)

27 MARCH 2012

British Expatriates (Punjab)

382WH

[Mr Jeremy Browne] However, it is worth pointing out that British police have no jurisdiction to investigate crimes overseas. If a bereaved family suspects that British nationals were involved in the planning or committing of a crime, I urge them to report their concerns to their local UK police force. There may be occasions when it is appropriate for that force to act, but it is not the decisive and final actor, because that responsibility rests with the host country. FCO officials have met their Indian counterparts to discuss the wider issues that we are discussing today, and we will certainly look for opportunities for future co-operation. As the Minister, I give that undertaking personally, but I also make it on behalf of our high commissioner and his team in Delhi and in other posts across India. Consular officials in India and in London will continue to monitor Mrs Soor-Hudsons case and will keep her informed as and when we receive updates from the Indian authorities. I am aware that Mrs Soor-Hudson is concerned about the financial implications of continuing to work on her case in India. Although I appreciate the pressure that that concern must bring, I am afraid that the FCO cannot provide her with financial assistance in that regard. It is not our policy and, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) a few moments ago, given that there are literally tens of millions of overseas visits by British nationals each year, it is not financially viable for us to provide that service in all cases where it might be thought desirable.

The FCOs role in such cases is to ensure that the family receive information about local police and legal procedures. Where there are concerns that the investigation is not being carried out in line with local procedures or there are justified complaints about discrimination against the person who has died or their family, the FCO can make appropriate representations to the local authorities. To summarise, I am confident that consular officials are doing all that they can, within the remits of our consular assistance policy, to assist Mrs Soor-Hudson in her efforts to establish what happened to her mother. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton and all hon. Members are assured that we will continue to raise her case with the Indian authorities at the appropriate times. The British Government take our consular responsibilities extremely seriously; consular responsibilities are one of our three foreign policy priorities. Although we have a long-standing and close relationship with India, based on a broad range of mutual interests, we will continue to push our consular interests in support of British citizens in India without fear, because we see this as an important area for the Indian authorities to focus on when British nationals and their MPs feel that a shortcoming needs to be addressed. Question put and agreed to. 4.59 pm Sitting adjourned.

101WS

Written Ministerial Statements

27 MARCH 2012

Written Ministerial Statements Bursaries for Initial Teacher Training

102WS

Written Ministerial Statements

Tuesday 27 March 2012

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS Companies House (Public Targets 2012-13) The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Norman Lamb): I have set Companies House the following targets for the year 2012-13:
Public Target Customer Achieve a score of more than 86% in our customer satisfaction survey To achieve an average compliance level for accounts of 99% To achieve an average compliance level for annual returns of 97.8% (new public target) Resolve complaints within five days Web filing services are available 99.5% of the time Software filing services are available 99.5% of the time (new public target) Companies House Direct Service is available 99.5% of the time WebCHeck Service is available 99.5% of the time Document images ordered by search customers are available in the Companies House Direct download area within 40 seconds (new public target) CEO to respond to all letters from MPs delegated to him to reply within 10 working days of receipt Process Electronic transactions received are available to view on the public record (image format) within 72 hours Images placed on Companies House image system are legible and complete To achieve an average electronic filing target for accounts (new public target) To achieve an average electronic filing target for all other transactions (new public target) People Ensure that the average work days lost per person is no more than 10 days Reduce carbon emissions by 5%, based on the previous financial year Finance To achieve taking one year with another, a 3.5% average rate of return based on the operating surplus expressed as a percentage of average net assets Achieve by 2013-14 a reduction, in real terms, of 15% compared to 2010-11 in the operational monetary cost of the organisations operational costs (2nd year of a three-year target) Payment of invoices within five days of receipt (the 80% target set for last year is a statutory Treasury target) 3.5% <10 5% 99.9% 99.8% 53% 80% >86% 99% 97.8% 98.8% 99.5% 99.5% 99.5% 99.5% 98% Target

The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes): I am writing to update the House on the level of bursaries for initial teacher training in academic year 2012-13. On 23 February I announced funding of 11.5 million for bursaries to support initial teacher training undertaken by teachers in the FE sector in 2012-13. As I said then, it is a powerful demonstration of the Governments wholehearted commitment to the FE and skills sector that despite the current financial pressures and in challenging times, we are looking to secure the talents and skills of potential FE teachers. Recruiting the best talent is central to making the sector as good as it can be, and a key element in our approach to driving up standards and increasing professionalism in the sector. Further education is at the heart of economic revival; at the core of social renewal. In my written answer of 1 March, Official Report, column 446W, to a question from the my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), I promised further details of that bursary scheme, which are outlined below. FE Bursaries Two levels of bursary will be available:
(a) a bursary of 1,000 available for up to 10,000 applicants seeking to teach in the FE and skills sector and following an HEI-accredited route; and, (b) a bursary of 1,500 available for up to 1,000 applicants seeking to teach basic maths and English (including functional skills) and also following an HEI-accredited route.

100%

Bursaries are open to both in-service and pre-service trainees who will be following a Diploma in Teaching in the Lifelong Learning Sector (DTLLS) at level 5 or a post-graduate qualification such as PGCE at level 6 or 7. Bursaries will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. BIS officials are discussing the most effective administration of the bursaries with the Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSIS), who will need to discuss with key stakeholders further details of the administration of the scheme. The bursaries are currently for 2012-13 only. Funding arrangements for teacher training beyond 2012-13 will be reviewed in the light of the recommendations announced today in the independent review of professionalism, chaired by my noble Friend Lord Lingfield, and changes to FE and skills funding that will introduce loans for training at this level from September 2013, aligning it more closely with arrangements in higher education. Other related arrangements
(a) Fee grant: there are currently in excess of 2,500 part-time ITT trainees in the first year of their teacher training and who have received their fee grant of 400 from the Institute for Learning (IfL.) These trainees will not be eligible for the FE bursary. However, those continuing into their second year will be eligible for a further 400 fee grant, to be administered by IfL. (b) Awarding body provision: ITT qualifications accredited by awarding bodies and on the qualifications and curriculum framework will continue to be funded in 2012-13 by the Skills Funding Agency.

5%

90%

103WS

Written Ministerial Statements

27 MARCH 2012

Written Ministerial Statements

104WS

(c) Priority subjects: I am reviewing whether more needs to be done specifically within the FE and skills sector to support priority subjects such as STEM.

Finance and Productivity To be flexible and efficient and responsive to market fluctuations whilst funding our future investment needs Key Performance Indicators F1: To increase add value revenue by 20% (to 6 million) and achieve 14% net profit on add value revenue F2: To achieve a unit cost of 28.41 for 2012-13 based on 9 million units F3: Make a 4% reduction in adjusted running costs Key Performance Objective F4: Develop an infrastructure investment plan taking into account the impact of the Public Data Group, Data Strategy Board and the new business strategy by 31st March 2013

Her Majestys Land Registry (Performance Targets)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Norman Lamb): The Land Registry vision is:
Putting the customer, quality and innovation at the heart of land registration services.

To meet this vision, the following four strategic objectives have been adopted with associated key performance indicators and objectives, plus two equality objectives:
Customer To identify, anticipate and satisfy customer needs by constantly refining and developing products, services and channels Key Performance Indicators C1: The percentage of customers who rate our overall products, services and channels as good, very good or excellent 96% C2: Average external e-service availability level at 99.5% or higher C3: Net promoter score 40% Key Performance Objective C4: Launch electronic document registration service (eDRS) in September 2012 with at least six business gateway customers. Launch eDRS to portal customers by March 2013 Quality To continually improve operational delivery to drive efficiencies, quality and value Key Performance Indicators Q1: 97% of completed registrations that meet internally defined quality standards Q2: 96.5% percentage successful changes applied to electronic services at 96.5% or higher Q3: 80% speed of completionsubstantive registrations completed within 12 days Key Performance Objective Q4: All free market trend data released in line with our day 1 transparency commitment to be made compliant with level 4 of the HMG star rating system by 31st March 2013 People and Innovation To identify and implement opportunities for the development of our people and Land Registry business, to the benefit our customers and stakeholders Key Performance Indicators l1: Improve the number of employees positively engaged to 50% l2: Environmental: Reduce carbon emissions by 5% compared with emissions for 2011-12 Key Performance Objectives l3: Successfully introduce performance and innovation into a complete operational office by 31st March 2013 l4: Develop a new business strategy for approval by the Minister by 30th September 2012

Equality Objectives: Internal Equality Objective To drive a culture of inclusion and respect within Land Registry and positively seek to improve engagement with staff from protected characteristics. External Equality Objective To equip our staff to identify, anticipate and satisfy our customers diverse needs by delivering products, services and channels at a cost we can both afford. We will monitor our progress in delivering against these through how well we succeed in it meeting the actions via the diversity steering group.

Financial Reporting Council The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Norman Lamb): In October 2011, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) launched a joint consultation on proposals to reform the FRC. The proposals were designed to clarify the FRCs scope, streamline its governance and structure, and give it greater independence from the accountancy profession and a proportionate range of sanctions against poor quality auditing. The Government continue strongly to believe that these are the right objectives. The response to the consultation helped the Department and the FRC refine the proposals. In particular the proposals have been amended to enhance the status of the expert groups that will advise the FRC board on accounting, auditing and actuarial issues and to make clear the procedural safeguards that will be put in place as part of the FRCs monitoring and enforcement work. This recognises the important and valuable work that the recognised supervisory bodies (RSBs) and the recognised qualifying bodies (RGBs) undertake. The overall reforms will give greater clarity to the boundaries between the professional bodies and the FRC. BIS is today publishing a response to the consultation, which sets out the Governments intention to introduce legislative changes to enable the FRC to implement the finalised reform proposals. The proposed changes will delegate most of the powers to the FRC board rather than its operating bodies as at present, apart from the

105WS

Written Ministerial Statements

27 MARCH 2012

Written Ministerial Statements

106WS

financial reporting review panel (FRRP) powers which will move to the new conduct committee, and will provide the FRC with powers to:
determine and require, rather than request, an RSB to impose proportionate sanctions in respect of poor quality work; conclude disciplinary cases without a public hearing where this is in the public interest and subject to appropriate publicity; and take proportionate action against and RSB or RQB for shortcomings in discharging their regulatory responsibilities.

These changes will ensure the UK has a powerful, joined up voice on the international stage, which involves high quality and informed technical expertise to continue to strengthen our significant influence. Taken as a whole, the proposals are expected to reduce the costs associated with FRC regulatory activities. The Government intend, subject to Parliamentary approval, to bring forward secondary legislation for the changes to come into force from Monday 2 July 2012. The consultation response (which is published jointly with the FRC), and the final stage impact assessment are available on the BIS website at: http://www.bis.gov.uk/ consultations Regional Development Agencies Operational Closure The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk): The Public Bodies Act 2011, which received Royal Assent on 14 December 2011, contains a provision which, when commenced later this year, will abolish eight regional development agencies (RDAs). That provision will be brought into force by a commencement order. I can now confirm that the RDAs will achieve full operational closure on 31 March 2012. Following the eight individual transfer schemes BIS made which came into effect on 1 January 2012 under the Public Bodies Act, transferring the majority of the RDAs remaining projects and contracts, a further eight schemes will come into effect on 30 March removing all remaining operational assets from the RDAs balance sheets. These schemes will be available with those which took effect on 1 January in the Libraries of both Houses. In the period since RDA closure was announced in the Budget on 22 June 2010, those functions that the Government have decided should continue have been transferred to new delivery bodies. This included European regional development fund delivery reverting to DCLG, the rural development programme for England moving to DEFRA, the grants for research and development programme migrating to the technology strategy board and venture capital funds transferring to BIS to be managed by Capital for Enterprise. Residual activity for the grants for business investment scheme has also come to BIS. The majority of RDA land and property assets not already disposed of, valued at in the region of 300 million, transferred to the Homes and Communities Agency on 19 September 2011. As part of the functions transfers, over 500 staff have been transferred in accordance with the requirements of either the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations or the broadly equivalent terms of the Cabinet Office statement of principles on staff transfer, while the remaining

2,200 staff employed when abolition was announced in June 2010 have or will resign, be made redundant or retire. Formal abolition is anticipated at the end of June 2012 but when this is finally confirmed I will make another statement. A third set of transfer schemes in the summer concurrent with abolition will remove from the RDAs any outstanding assets, liabilities and obligations that emerge during the final closure processes. From April 2012 RDAs will concentrate solely on matters relating to financial closure, primarily accounts for the financial year 2011-12, which will be laid in both Houses in the summer of 2012 in the usual way, and clear line of sight consolidation of accounts with BIS for 2011-12. Accounts for the period from 1 April 2012 to the date of abolition will also be laid later in the year by my Department. Since Budget 2010, when abolition was announced, the RDAs have worked diligently with my Department and other bodies to protect the taxpayers interest by securing value from their portfolios. I am grateful for the professional approach shown by both their boards and their staff in achieving an orderly closedown.

TREASURY

Planned Tax Consultations (Publication) The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke): Budget 2012 announced a number of tax policy changes that will be subject to consultation. HM Treasury and HM Revenue and Customs are today publishing the following documents: Simpler income tax for the simplest small businesses A consultation on proposals for introducing a voluntary simplified cash basis for income tax and simplified arrangements for certain expenses for small unincorporated businesses. The Government are also today publishing the response to the Office of Tax Simplifications Small business tax review: final report. Consultation on an above the line credit for research and developmentA consultation on proposals for implementing an above the line research and development tax credit. Proposed changes to the tax rules on manufactured paymentsA consultation on proposals to simplify the tax rules on manufactured payments, including the rules on manufactured overseas dividends. Possible changes to the income tax rules on interest A consultation on proposals for changes to income tax rules on the taxation of interest received, and rules on the deduction of tax from interest paid. The following consultations are due to be published before Parliament returns from recess on 16 April: Week commencing 2 April 2012 Real estate investment trusts (REITs)A consultation on (1) the role REITs can play in supporting the social housing sector; and (2) the tax treatment of REITs investing in REITs.

107WS

Written Ministerial Statements

27 MARCH 2012

Written Ministerial Statements

108WS

Remote gamblingA consultation on the design characteristics of a place of consumption based taxation regime for remote gambling. Herbal smoking productsA consultation on bringing the tax treatment of legally available herbal smoking products in line with the treatment of those containing tobacco. Details of these and other planned consultations are included in a consultation tracker, available from the HM Treasury website:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/tax_updates.htm.

The tracker includes specific anticipated launch dates wherever possible, to help representative groups and others manage their engagement with the Government on tax policy development. HM Revenue and Customs and HM Treasury will discuss the timing of consultations with these groups. Any changes to the dates mentioned above will be publicised on the tax consultation tracker. Royal Mint Advisory Committee The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith): In accordance with the Cabinet Offices guidance on public bodies, I have launched a review of the Advisory Committee on the Design of Coins, Medals, Seals and Decorations, also known as the Royal Mint Advisory Committee. This review will examine the Committees functions and whether it should exist at arms length from Government. If it does, the review will go on to examine whether the Committees control and governance arrangements continue to meet the recognised principles of good corporate governance. I will inform the House of the outcome of the review when it is completed. UK Convergence Programme The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban): Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 requires the Government to report to Parliament for their approval an assessment of the UKs medium-term economic and budgetary position. This assessment comprises the Budget report and the Office for Budget Responsibilitys (OBRs) economic and fiscal outlook. This then forms the basis of the UKs convergence programme, which is therefore based entirely on information already presented to Parliament. The UK is obliged to submit a convergence programme annually to the European Commission under article 121 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the Lisbon treaty). Article 121, along with article 126, is the legal basis for the stability and growth pact, which is the co-ordination mechanism for EU fiscal policies and requires member states to avoid excessive Government deficits. Although the UK is bound by the stability and growth pact, by virtue of its protocol to the treaty opting out of the euro, it is only required to endeavour to avoid excessive deficits. Subject to the progress of parliamentary business, debates are expected to be scheduled in both houses before the end of April in order for both Houses to approve this assessment before the convergence programme

is submitted to the Commission. While the convergence programme itself is not subject to parliamentary approval or amendment, copies will be made available to Members through the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office. The Budget report and the Office for Budget Responsibilitys (OBRs) economic and fiscal outlook were laid on 21 March 2011. All of the information the convergence programme will contain has therefore already been published and made available to Members. The UKs convergence programme will be published in late April. Copies will be deposited in the Library of the House and the document will be available electronically via the HM Treasury website. It will be submitted to the EU by 30 April as required by the European Commission.

CABINET OFFICE Election and Referendum Guidance The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude): Guidance has today been issued to civil servants in UK Departments and those working in non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) on the principles which they should observe in relation to the conduct of Government business in the run up to the forthcoming elections to local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland, to the London Assembly and for the London, Salford and Liverpool mayors. The guidance also covers the referendums on directly elected mayors in several English cities. These elections and referendums are taking place on 3 May 2012. The guidance sets out the need to maintain the political impartiality of the civil service and the need to ensure that public resources are not used for party political purposes. The period of sensitivity preceding the elections starts on 12 April. Copies of the guidance have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Cabinet Office website at:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/electionguidance

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT Post Public Disturbances (Payments to Local Authorities) The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill): On 12 August 2011, as part of a concerted, cross-Government action, the Government announced a series of measures to help rebuild communities following the riots and public disorder in the summer of 2011. The package provided immediate and ongoing support to open up shops and rebuild buildings which were damaged, make sure people who lost their homes were re-housed, and to help councils get their areas back to normal as quickly as possible. Under these schemes, local councils were placed in the lead in providing support to local firms and local residents. Central Government committed to reimburse

109WS

Written Ministerial Statements

27 MARCH 2012

Written Ministerial Statements

110WS

local councils for their incurred costs retrospectively (in a similar way to how the Bellwin scheme has operated historically). As made clear when the schemes were launched, central Government are not funding affected firms or residents directly. Payments are linked to the claims submitted and the costs incurred. In answers to previous parliamentary questions, I committed to update the House on the payments being made. I am now able to confirm the payments paid out by my Department in respect of the following funding schemes: High Street Support Scheme Jointly funded by the Department for Communities for Local Government and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the scheme helped councils to reduce business rates, finance emergency building repairs and encourage customers back to the affected areas. At the request of councils and businesses, the Government extended the payment deadline from 7 November to 3 January to cover the run-up to Christmas. Some 7.4 million has been paid to 24 local authorities for their claims. Examples of the expenditure claimed by each authority include: Birmingham City Council1,217,435Includes grant to 219 businesses in the affected areas to help improve security measures. The other major element of expenditure is associated with the marketing and delivery costs of the backing Birmingham campaign. There was also support for business rate hardship relief. Overall, 900 businesses have benefited from the funding provided through the scheme. The London Borough of Bromley14,198Most of which relates to small grants to local shops to help with minor repair costs. The London Borough of Camden174,277The expenditure claimed largely relates to marketing and promotional activities to encourage local residents and visitors back into town centres. The London Borough of Croydon1,376,951245 individual businesses received grants to support their clean-up costs. Wider support for business was provided through nine local schemes and included security measures, communication support, free parking, business loans, promotional activities as part of the Croydon recovery action plan and improvement works around London Road designed to increase footfall in the area. There was also support through business rate hardship relief. London Borough of Ealing429,90161 individual local businesses received direct grants to help with repairs and minor losses. Wider business support included security measures, shop local marketing campaign and free parking initiatives. There was also support through business rate hardship relief. London Borough of Enfield202,79418 local businesses received direct grants. Wider business support was largely for marketing and promotional campaigns and business recovery advice. London Borough of Greenwich833,31565 local businesses received direct grants. The wider support for businesses was provided through eleven local projects targeted mainly at Greenwich, Eltham and Woolwich town centres and included retail support initiatives, environmental improvements and security measures and Woolwich town centre works to increase footfall. There was also support through business rate hardship relief.

London Borough of Haringey1,081,712Over 300 local businesses were granted hardship relief from business rates and nearly two hundred received direct grants. The wider support for businesses was provided through 15 projects and included one off events and campaigns, assisted car parking initiatives marketing and communication and other services to the business community. London Borough of Hackney176,145The major element of the claim is for business hardship relief, which was provided to over two hundred businesses. London Borough of Islington66,985The major element of the claim is support to groups of businesses and promotional and marketing activity. It included an event to increase footfall in the Nags Head area in the run-up to Christmas. London Borough of Lambeth74,860The major element of the claim is support to groups of businesses and promotional and marketing activity. The funding supported special one off events in Brixton, Streatham and Norwood in the run-up to Christmas. London Borough of Lewisham33,859The major element of the claim is 26,000 for direct grants to nine individual businesses. Liverpool City Council112,040The major element of the claim is support to groups of businesses and promotional and marketing activity through seven projects. Manchester City Council205,879The major elements of the claim included business rate hardship relief for 85 businesses. Wider business support included funding support for a two-day street festival for 40 businesses around the commercial district and marketing material in support of the I love Manchester campaign. Nottingham City Council6,124This provided a direct grant to one local business and some advertising costs. Salford City Council92,115Nine local businesses received direct grants. The wider business support included security measures benefiting 80 businesses and support for an open for business retail festival. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council44,301The major element of the claim was for promotional and marketing activity. London Borough of Southwark148,318Thirty-two businesses received direct grant support and 27 received business rates hardship relief. There was also wider support for businesses through promotional and marketing activity. London Borough of Sutton:71,410The major element of the claim is for wider business support and included event funding for activities to increase footfall in the run-up to Christmas. London Borough of Waltham Forest85,000Which is all in respect of an open for business marketing campaign. London Borough of Wandsworth737,674The major element of the claim is 722,000 for wider business support and included: improvements to the commercial attractiveness of the area around Clapham Junction, assisted car parking initiatives, promotional events in the run-up to Christmas and various marketing and miscellaneous costs such as vinyl coverings for empty shops, signage and websites.

111WS

Written Ministerial Statements

27 MARCH 2012

Written Ministerial Statements

112WS

Westminster City Council30,998The major element of the claim is for promotional and marketing activity for events based in Bayswater and Pimlico and a campaign to encourage people to visit and shop. Wirral Council7,246Which is all in respect of wider support to businesses. It is made up of works to make shopping areas more attractive and assisted car parking funding. Wolverhampton City Council130,676Fourteen businesses received direct grants. Wider support to business included event funding to increase footfall in the run-up to Christmas assisted car parking and other activities to rebuild business confidence. Recovery Scheme The recovery scheme was funded by DCLG to meet councils immediate costs of making their areas safe, clear and clean again. 2.9 million has been paid to 28 local authorities for their claims. Examples of expenditure for each local authority include: The London Borough of Enfield122,029The bulk of the expenditure relates to emergency repairs to roads and other structures and security. Birmingham City Council91,649The costs include emergency works to highways, clearing debris and staff overtime. The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham 81,726The expenditure being claimed relates to emergency repairs, demolition works and associated costs. Liverpool City Council58,706The expenditure being claimed relates to emergency road repairs and the clearing of debris. London Borough of Greenwich34,204The expenditure being claimed is for agency and staff overtime costs for cleaning and building security measures. Medway Council11,687The expenditure being claimed relates to additional staffing, overtime costs and waste removal. Wolverhampton City Council11,078The expenditure being claimed relates to street cleansing and minor emergency repairs. Leicester City Council10,985The expenditure being claimed relates to security measures and some minor emergency highway repairs. Bristol City Council5,968The expenditure being claimed relates to staff overtime costs for the clearance of debris and rubbish. London Borough of Waltham Forest4,249The expenditure being claimed relates to security measures and some very minor emergency repairs London Borough of Sutton3,730The expenditure being claimed relates to staff overtime costs around security issues. West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service2,264The expenditure relates to staff overtime costs. London Borough of Croydon993,749This includes funding for works to deal with dangerous structures, site clearance and emergency works to highways and footpaths, council tax discounts, street lighting and cleaning.

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority 194,484The majority of this claim is for staff overtime costs. London Borough of Lambeth64,989This relates to additional staff costs for youth custody services and the clearing of debris. Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service33,143In respect of overtime and incidental expenses. Nottingham City Council28,482For costs relating to overtime, cleaning and emergency control centre operations, legal costs and youth activities. Salford City Council5,466The expenditure relates to emergency repairs, street cleaning and staff overtime. Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Combined Fire Authority2,206For overtime costs. London Borough of Lewisham2,083Relating to clearing debris. London Borough of Haringey478,564This includes emergency works to highways and street lighting, emergency building control and community centre set up costs. London Borough of Southwark292,058This includes emergency building repairs, staff overtime, community staff and street cleaning. London Borough of Ealing142,548The major eligible costs relate to emergency repairs to highways and a bridge. London Borough of Wandsworth40,627It largely relates to emergency works to secure dangerous buildings and overtime for employees. London Borough of Redbridge23,589It largely relates to street cleaning and removing debris. Manchester City Council15,534This expenditure relates to emergency traffic management costs and street clearance. Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority12,646The expenditure relates to minor vehicle repairs and staff overtime. London Borough of Havering10,717The expenditure being claimed largely relates to overtime and agency staff costs. Homelessness Support Scheme This scheme met the immediate costs of re-housing those made homeless by the disturbances up to a maximum payment threshold of 5,000 per household, with discretion applied for exceptional costs. A total of 380,255 has been paid to the six councils that submitted claims. This figure included 35,000 for two caseworkers to work exclusively with displaced families in Haringey, to ensure they accessed the services to help them to start to resolve their housing issues and rebuild their lives. New Homes Bonus Over and above the commitments made on those three schemes. Ministers also want to ensure that the affected local councils do not lose out on the new homes bonus. We are making payments of 175,118 to five local authorities in riot recovery grant to address losses in new homes bonus arising from the riots last summer. The payment will be made shortly.

113WS

Written Ministerial Statements

27 MARCH 2012

Written Ministerial Statements

114WS

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham London Borough of Croydon London Borough of Ealing London Borough of Haringey London Borough of Wandsworth

1,119 30,066 5,757 130,499 7,676.

I would like to put on the record the thanks of Ministers for the sterling work of local councils in supporting and championing their local communities.

(vi) The benefits of meaningful interaction: Rapid review and assessment of the existing literature. This study reviewed the existing literature on successful approaches to and the benefits of meaningful interaction for individuals, neighbours and communities, for example in terms of improvements in health, welfare and life in general. (vii) Evaluation of the REACH national role model programme. (viii) Media representations of black young men and boys: Report of the REACH media monitoring project.

Research Commissioned by the Previous Administration

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell): Today the Government are publishing the 10th group of reports presenting the findings from research projects commissioned by the previous Administration. There is a significant backlog of unpublished reports that were produced by the previous Government and we have been publishing these in groups themed on a particular topic. The reports and findings are of general policy interest, but do not relate to forthcoming policy announcements. We are publishing these documents in the interests of transparency and as part of our freedom of information commitment to publish the results of all commissioned research. The 14 reports published today represent the findings from nine research projects at a total cost of 708,000. These findings cover the topic of communities.
(i) Engaging Behaviour: Behavioural economics and citizen engagement. This study considered the application of behavioural economics to explain the motivations for people to take part in civic activities such as petitioning and volunteering, particularly among people who buck the trends among their peers. (ii) Quirk asset transfer demonstration programme. This report examines the attitudes of councillors, council officers and community organisations involved in the Advancing Assets for Communities demonstration programme. It explores actual and potential benefits of the programme; perceptions of the risks associated with asset transfer; and how success can be evaluated. (iii) Process evaluation for Communitybuilders. This process evaluation assessed the implementation and operation of the 70 million Communitybuilders fund. It aimed to look at whether the programme was working as planned, understand the early successes and failures, and identify lessons for the programme as it progressed. (iv) Sharing data to improve local employment outcomes: Evaluation of the local data share pilots. This report considers the impact and implications of a project to test ways of sharing data in order to tackle worklessness at a local level, conducted jointly between Department for Work and Pensions and DCLG in 2009-10. The report focuses on the factors that helped the three pilot sites progress their data sharing, factors that the pilot sites found to be more challenging and the results of the data share. (v) Decentralisation outcomes: A review of evidence and analysis of international data. This research reviewed the extensive literature on definitions of decentralisation and empirical research identifying the outcomes of decentralisation. The authors also analysed two large European survey data sets and used econometric modelling techniques to assess the contribution of decentralisation to well-being and satisfaction with Government/democracy/health/education.

These two reports resulted from the REACH programme which was led jointly by the black community and the previous Government and was designed to raise the aspirations and achievements of black boys and young black men. The evaluation and the media analysis project were commissioned in order to support the delivery of the REACH role modelling programme. The media analysis project was based on a survey of media sources in 2008. (ix)-(xiv) Six reports presenting the findings from a series of projects which tested the feasibility of tracking central Government funding into deprived neighbourhoods. The projects sought to discern whether such neighbourhoods received a relatively greater proportion of mainstream funding. The projects covered liveability, crime, worklessness, health care and Department for Education funding.
(ix) Mapping liveability spend and outcomes: A scoping study. (x) Mapping crime reduction and prevention funding. (xi) Mapping the flow of Government spending on tackling worklessness into disadvantaged areas. (xii) Developing a toolkit to map health care expenditure in local areas. (xiii) Mapping the flow of Department for Education funding to disadvantaged areas and investigating the outcomes of this funding: A feasibility study and research review. (xiv) Unlocking Capacitylessons learned from four connecting communities areas

These reports and findings are of general policy interest, but do not relate to forthcoming policy announcements and are not a reflection of the current Governments policies and priorities. DCLG is publishing these reports in the interests of transparency. Copies of these reports are available on the DCLG website and in the Library of the House. The Government are concerned to ensure its research delivers best possible value for money for the taxpayer and that sums expended are reasonable in relation to the public policy benefits obtained. DCLG has in place scrutiny and challenge processes for research. All new projects will be scrutinised to ensure the methodology is sound and that all options for funding are explored at an early stage. This includes using existing work from other organisations, joint funding projects with other Departments or organisations and taking work forward in-house. CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT The Tote The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose): In my written statement to the House on 14 July 2011, Official Report, column 38WS, I announced the completion of sale of the Tote and stated that Government would enter into

115WS

Written Ministerial Statements

27 MARCH 2012

Written Ministerial Statements

116WS

discussions with the racing industry to design a scheme to distribute their share of the proceeds which would be compliant with EU state aid laws. I am pleased today to announce the completion of this piece of work. The conclusion of this process has been the creation of a new racing charity, The Racing Foundation and a grant scheme which will be administered by the British Horseracing Authority. Racings share of the proceeds will be distributed between the grant scheme and the Racing Foundation on an annual basis with the split decided by racing in agreement with Government. The first instalment of the proceeds was made on 14 March 2012 with The Racing Foundation receiving 10 million. I would like to extend my thanks to those representatives of the racing industry who have contributed to the process for their part in establishing what I hope will be a lasting legacy for British racing.

The European Defence Agency Steering Board An EDA steering board at Defence Ministers level was held immediately before the Foreign Affairs Council (Defence). The steering board agreed the following action points:
Joint procurement initiative on common acquisition of EU battle group logistic support be established as a Cat B project; Second joint investment programme on innovative concepts and emerging technologies (ICET 2); Category B Go Green Project; and Mandate to establish negotiations for an administrative arrangement between the EDA and the Republic of Serbia.

DEFENCE EU Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Gerald Howarth): The EU Foreign Affairs Council met in Defence Ministers formation on 22 March in Brussels. I represented the UK. The agenda items covered were current and future operations, a discussion on the changing strategic context in light of the recently issued US Strategic Defence Guidance and a European Defence Agency (EDA) steering board. Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) ThethreecurrentEUOperations,OperationATALANTA (counter-piracy). Operation ALTHEA (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and EU Training Mission Somalia (military training mission) were discussed in the Council. I was pleased to announce that the UK, as a reflection of our strong political support for the executive mandate in Bosnia and Herzegovina, intended to contribute a Company (approximately 120 troops) to the Operation AUFHEA Intermediate Regional Reserve from midDecember 2012 for a period of at least six months. This contribution to the reconfigured EUFOR Operation, which will not start until after the Olympic and Paralympic games, will demonstrate the UKs commitment to the maintenance of EUFORs executive mandate to help maintain a safe and secure environment in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The company will be held in the UK at an appropriate degree of readiness and would only deploy on operations if called forward by the Operation Commander. Council conclusions on the pooling and sharing of military capabilities were agreed in the Foreign Affairs Council (Defence). These can be found at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/ docs/pressdata/en/esdp/129162.pdf Discussion on changing Strategic Context The discussion focused on the changing strategic context, in particular, the implications of new US strategic defence guidance and their shift in focus to the Middle-East and Asia-Pacific.

Whilst the UK does not oppose these projects we will not participate ourselves. We are fully supportive of the mandate to establish negotiations for an administrative arrangement between the EDA and the Republic of Serbia. Finally, in addition to these action points, the steering board was requested to agree to a political declaration on air-to-air refuelling (AAR) capabilities, and sign a declaration of intent for the establishment of multinational modular medical units (M3U). Noting that one of the key lessons learnt from operations in Libya is that there is a gap among other European nations in AAR capabilities and that the declaration on AAR was not for signature, is not legally binding and carries no financial commitment, I agreed this declaration. With regard to M3U, it has been identified as a critical shortfall in European nations capabilities, and it is the EDAs intention to establish these units which should enhance and improve standards, procedures and interoperability among member states. The UK does not wish to participate in the M3U project, as we believe it duplicates activities currently being undertaken in NATO. Joint Forces Command The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond): Lord Levene published his independent recommendations on the structure and management of the Ministry of Defence in his report on Defence Reform on 27 June 2011. Since then, substantial progress has been made in implementing these recommendations. One of the most significant is the creation of a new Joint Forces Command. The Joint Forces Command will be established on Monday 2 April 2012. It will be led by Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach, whose appointment was announced on 15 September 2011, Official Report, column 52WS, and who took up post as the first commander Joint Forces Command on 1 December 2011. The establishment of the new command at its initial operating capability follows just nine months after the publication of Lord Levenes report. The Joint Forces Command will manage, deliver and champion joint capabilities to support the success of current and future military operations, and will reach full operating capability by April 2013. Defence Police and Guarding Agency The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan): Following the comprehensive spending review and the strategic defence and security

117WS

Written Ministerial Statements

27 MARCH 2012

Written Ministerial Statements

118WS

review, and in view of the continuing pressure on the defence budget, the Ministry of Defence has carried out a very wide-ranging examination of civil policing and guarding policy and requirements to ensure that they reflect the main security and crime risks faced by the MOD and are being met as cost-effectively as possible. Safeguarding our sites, people and assetsin particular those associated with our nuclear programmeremains a central priority. We have, however, concluded that we can make sensible and prudent reductions in the number of guarding and civil policing posts at some of our sites, while continuing to maintain effective security. It would not be appropriate to describe in full the specific detail of our future guarding and civil policing requirements or the precise arrangements at individual sites, but I set out below the main elements of the changes we now envisage. Our approach has been to look hard at our requirements, identify what is essential, and retain it. But reductions are possible in areas where activity, personnel, or expenditure is not absolutely essential to protecting our people, our assets or the delivery of defence outputs. In the current fiscal climate it is our duty to make savings in these areas, both to save money for the taxpayer, and to ensure defence can devote as much resource as possible to the front line. We have identified areas for reductions by focusing on sites and activities:
where we can safely rely more on physical security measures and less on the continuous presence of the previous numbers of security personnel; where the regular service occupants of sites can take on a greater role in security while maintaining their operational outputs; where duties currently undertaken by MOD police officers do not, in todays circumstances, require police powers, and could therefore be taken on by other staff at lower cost; and where we can reasonably rely more on support from local police forces, who in any case have primacy in pursuing any incident or investigating any crime.

adjusting guarding numbers at sites where experience has shown that effective security can in practice be maintained with complements lower than previously employed; continuing to provide support and reassurance to defence communities by focusing a reduced number of defence community police officers on areas of greatest need; reprioritising the work of the MOD police criminal investigation department on the crimes that most significantly affect the defence interest, yielding a cost saving; and a rationalisation of the MOD police uniformed operational support capability not permanently allocated to specific sites, with a saving of some posts.

In parallel with the implementation of the changes above, I have agreed some additional measures for departmental consultation with the staff associations and trade unions in 2012. Formal consultative documents will be issued in due course, but the main proposals are:
Making increased use of regular service personnel to carry out unarmed access control duties at (or near) sites where they are stationed, with individuals undertaking periodic duties that will not reduce their operational readiness. At other military sites unarmed access control will be carried out by reallocating existing complements of the specialist military guards of the Military Provost Guard Service. Together these changes will allow the removal of MOD guard service officers from many Navy, Army and RAF sites; Specific determination of guarding and policing numbers at a small number of sites with unique security features; In the light of new analysis, some further rationalisation of the MOD police uniformed operational support capability not permanently allocated to specific sites; Reallocation of security duties at three Navy sites so that, with a small enhancement, the Military Provost Guard Service complements can take over the essential roles of the MOD police complements there; Maintaining essential armed security by replacing some (but not all) MOD police officers at certain sites with Military Provost Guard Service soldiers, allowing duties for which constabulary powers are not essential to be discharged at a lower cost; Greater reliance on local police forces for community support activity on defence families estates in Great Britain, allowing the withdrawal of MOD police defence community police officers; Further rationalisation of the MOD police criminal investigation department in the light of a recent departmental review, to form part of a co-ordinated pan-departmental strategy to combat fraud and other acquisitive crime against defence.

The measures are being progressed as they are developed. The furthest advanced are changes to the MOD police headquarters and management structure, the cost of which will reduce by 41%. These include: cutting the number of divisions from five to two; simplifying processes, centralising services and reducing complements; and civilianising police posts wherever that is sensible. Consultation with the staff associations and trade unions has begun, with implementation expected to start during 2012. Follow-up studies are planned, with the target of identifying a further 9% saving, bringing the total reduction to 50%. At the same time, there will be consultation on proposals to reduce the cost of the MOD guard service headquarters and regional management structure by 50%. Other measures were the subject of general departmental consultation with the staff associations and trades unions in 2011, and are now the subject of further more detailed consultation on implementation. These measures are:
a modest increase in the number of sites where we believe can safely rely for part or all of the week on physical security measures, and therefore do not need guards on duty at all times; changes in guarding policy that make prudent reductions in the security complements at a number of defence sites, and focus effort on the most important security activities;

Further consultation will take place on all these proposed changes, during which we will assess their impact carefully in the circumstances of individual sites. In view of this flexible approach to implementation, we cannot yet state with certainty what the eventual impact will be on personnel numbers. However, on the current assumptions, the likely effect would be to reduce the MOD police from its complement in 2009 of some 3,600 officers to a complement of around 2,400 by 1 April 2016 (compared to a current strength of just under 3,100); and to reduce the MOD guard service from its complement in 2009 of some 4,000 to a complement a little under 2,200 by 1 April 2015 (compared to a current strength of just under 3,300). While consultation on, and implementation of, these measures continues, my Department will continue to seek further efficiencies in guarding and civil policing expenditure. In particular, routine activity to review complements at all our sites continues, taking account of the latest information about specific sites, and seeking improvements in the effective deployment of staff where

119WS

Written Ministerial Statements

27 MARCH 2012

Written Ministerial Statements

120WS

possible. In addition, we are seeking efficiencies in the use of the defence estate, which may change the requirement for guarding and civil policing. Such changes will be subject to consultation with the staff associations and trades unions in the usual way. I do not expect staff affected by these changes to welcome them, and I recogniseand very much regretthe uncertainty and anxiety caused to the personnel involved, who have made a vital contribution to defence security over many years. The fact remains, however, that we must focus our new security requirements, not on the past, but on what is essential for the future. We can and will make savings in guarding and civil policing, but I can assure the House that effective security arrangements will be maintained at all defence sites. Nuclear Security Summit The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey): Along with the US and France, the UK aims to raise the profile of nuclear security on the international agenda. In the interests of increasing transparency, we have decided to release more information about our own capabilities. This includes our ability to respond to terrorist incidents involving nuclear or radiological material, and to improve international standards for the security of nuclear material. The following statement will be released today at the nuclear security summit in Seoul:
The governments of the United States, United Kingdom, and French Republic each understand the threat of nuclear terrorism and share the collective responsibility to inform and strengthen international measures designed to secure sensitive information, technology or nuclear material from access by terrorists and to encourage the development of appropriate emergency response measures. In recognition of these shared principles, consistent with our rights and obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, our three governments are taking the following initial steps: [1] INFCIRC/225/Rev.5 recognises that nuclear security protection levels are critically dependent upon the attractiveness of nuclear materials to potential adversaries with intent to assemble a nuclear explosive device. We will actively engage in international workshops to address graded approaches for the characterisation of nuclear material attractiveness to further enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of physical protection measures. [2] We have the specialised knowledge and capability to diagnose, render safe, characterise and dispose of a nuclear terrorist threat device. We each have a focused effort to continually enhance the technical capabilities of our emergency detection and response assets to any such threat. As such we will seek, wherever possible, to engage with the international community to further strengthen worldwide preparedness to contend with the threat of nuclear terrorism.

The new, simpler and clearer EYFS framework is an integral part of the Governments wider vision for families in the foundation years. It demonstrates our commitment to freeing professionals from bureaucracy to focus on supporting children. Together with a more flexible free early education entitlement and new streamlined inspection arrangements, this is a major step towards a lighter touch regulatory regime. But we need to go further. I will continue to seek opportunities to reduce burdens and remove unnecessary regulation and paperwork which undermine professionals ability to protect children and promote their development. Last summer, I asked Professor Cathy Nutbrown to consider how we might strengthen the early years workforce. Her report is due in June, and I will carefully consider her recommendationsalong with international evidence on staffing levels and qualificationsas we continue to promote early years provision that is high quality and cost effective to parents. Improving the support children receive in their earliest years is central to greater social mobility. Young children develop quickly, and they develop better with the help of high quality early education and good support at homethe cornerstones for childrens success in school and later life. That is why the Government continue to invest heavily in early education, including the expansion of free childcare for three and four-year-olds, and the new entitlement for two-year-olds. The EYFS sets out the standards that early years providers must meet. It has improved quality across the early years sector, but some aspects of the 2008 framework have proved overly bureaucratic and burdensome. The reformed EYFS, which builds on the independent advice of Dame Clare Tickell, will reduce paperwork and bureaucracy for professionals and enable them to focus more strongly on the areas of learning most essential for childrens healthy development. It will also simplify assessment at age five, reducing the early learning goals from 69 to 17, and provide for earlier intervention for children who need extra help. When we published our response to the main EYFS consultation on 20 December 2011, we launched a further one-month consultation on new learning and development requirements (as required by the Childcare Act 2006). The responses to this additional consultation were broadly positive and I have made no significant changes to the framework as a result. I am publishing the report of this consultation alongside the framework. I am also laying before Parliament the amended regulations to enact the reformed framework. Together, the Early Years Foundation Stage (Learning and Development Requirements) (Amendment) Order 2012, and the Early Years Foundation Stage (Welfare Requirements) Regulations 2012, give legal effect to the requirements set out in the framework. I am also laying the Childcare (Early Years Register) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, which amend the Childcare (Early Years Register) Regulations 2008. These amendments secure alignment between the conditions which providers must meet for registration with Ofsted, the requirements of the EYFS, and providers general responsibility to ensure that all staff are suitable to work with young children.

EDUCATION Early Years Foundation Stage The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather): I am today publishing the reformed statutory framework for the early years foundation stage (EYFS), which will take effect from 1 September 2012.

121WS

Written Ministerial Statements

27 MARCH 2012

Written Ministerial Statements

122WS

I am placing copies of the EYFS framework, the statutory instruments, and the report of the learning and development consultation, in the Libraries of both Houses. Quango Reform The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): As part of the structural reforms set out in the schools White Paper The Importance of Teaching (November 2010), I am today announcing that three new executive agencies of the Department for Education will be established on Sunday, 1 April, the same day that their seven predecessor organisations will cease to function. The Teaching Agency will be responsible for the supply and quality of the majority of the education workforce and for the regulation of teacher conduct. This work was previously carried out by the Training and Development Agency for Schools, the General Teaching Council for England, the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency and the Childrens Workforce Development Council. The Education Funding Agency will be responsible for the revenue and capital funding of education and training, taking over the functions of the Young Peoples Learning Agency and Partnerships for Schools. The national college, which is responsible for improving the quality of leadership in schools and early years, will change status from non-departmental public body to executive agency. Copies of the framework documents for each agency have been placed in the House Libraries. Teachers Powers to Discipline The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb): Further to my statement of 7 July 2010, I would like to update the House on the progress the Government have made in meeting a number of the important commitments set out in that statement. We have taken the steps we promised to strengthen teachers powers to search pupils. As well as a more general power to search for items that have been or could be used to cause harm or break the law, teachers can also search for items banned by the school rules. We have also added fireworks, tobacco and pornographic images to the list of specified items that teachers can search for. We have reduced the bureaucratic burden on schools when giving pupils detentions. Teachers are no longer required to give parents 24 hours written notice of detentions outside school hours. Schools are now free to determine their own rules on notice for detentions so that teachers can deal with misbehaviour on the day it occurs. We revised the advice to teachers on their powers to use reasonable force. This revised advice makes clear that teachers can remove disruptive pupils from the classroom. It provides clear advice that suspension should not be the automatic response of a head teacher when a member of staff has been accused of using excessive force and reminds head teachers that they should support their staff when they use reasonable force.

These are very important changes which, taken together, put beyond doubt the authority of teachers to enforce the school rules and maintain discipline in the classroom. Other important changes, included in the Education Act 2011, will come into force over the coming months. These include granting teachers anonymity when accused by pupils and changing the current system of independent appeal panels for exclusions so that pupils who have committed a serious offence cannot be re-instated by a panel. Schools have the professional freedom to decide how these powers will work best for them. School governing bodies and head teachers should review their behaviour polices now to ensure they clearly set out the schools approach to searching, to issuing notice of detentions and to the use of reasonable force. Carbon Capture and Storage The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey): I am writing to inform you that during recess I will launch the CCS commercialisation programmethe Governments competition for CCSand publish our CCS road map. CCS has the potential to be one of the most cost-effective technologies for decarbonisation of the UKs power and industrial sectors, as well as a significant green growth opportunity. Launching the competition and publishing the CCS road map will be a major step forward on our CCS agenda. Our CCS commercialisation programme will, subject to state aid clearance, support commercial scale CCS with the 1 billion in capital funding that we have made available. The focus will be on reducing the cost of CCS to enable cost-competitive deployment in the 2020s. The road map will set out the strategic context and describe our approach to enabling commercialisation of CCS in the UK, including the wider programme of interventions which we are putting in place. I believe that we now have one of the best CCS packages offered by any country in the world and that the launch of the programme and road map will ensure that the UK continues to be a global leader on CCS. A copy of the road map will be laid in the House on publication.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS Parliamentary Written Question (Correction) The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice): I regret to inform the House that incomplete information was provided in the answer I gave to parliamentary question 98309 on 6 March, Official Report, column 669W, concerning how many cattle have been culled as a result of contracting diseases in (a) England, (b) the North West and (c) Cumbria in each of the last 10 years. My answer to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) did not reflect the full range of notifiable diseases which were relevant to the question.

123WS

Written Ministerial Statements

27 MARCH 2012

Written Ministerial Statements

England Northwest (Cumbria, Cheshire & Lancashire)

124WS
Cumbria

The information that should have appeared is set out below: Cattle culled as a result of contracting bovine TB, foot and mouth disease (FMD), bluetongue, BSE and Brucellosis in the formats held by DEFRA, follows: For bovine TB, the figures can be found on DEFRAs website at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/foodfarm/ landuselivestock/cattletb/ The following table shows the number of cattle and sheep culled by DEFRA for exotic notifiable disease control purposes. The 2007 figure for cattle comprises of 982 for FMD and 5 for bluetongue:
Year England Cattle 0 0 0 0 0 987 0 0 0 0 North West Cattle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cumbria Cattle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year

Slaughtered Confirmed Slaughtered Confirmed Slaughtered Confirmed BSE BSE BSE cases cases cases 2009 2010 2011 2012 Totals 0 0 0 0 1,265 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0

The following table shows the number of cattle culled as birth cohorts of confirmed BSE cases and the number of confirmed cases:
Year England Northwest (Cumbria, Cheshire & Lancashire) Cumbria

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Slaughtered Confirmed Slaughtered Confirmed Slaughtered Confirmed BSE BSE BSE cases cases cases 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Totals 0 0 3 2,428 528 317 131 45 184 25 8 3,669 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 283 41 4 7 5 123 1 0 464 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 16 2 5 3 0 0 0 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

The following table shows the number of cattle culled on suspicion of BSE and the number of confirmed cases:
Year England Northwest (Cumbria, Cheshire & Lancashire) Cumbria

Slaughtered Confirmed Slaughtered Confirmed Slaughtered Confirmed as BSE as BSE as BSE suspects cases suspects cases suspects cases 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Totals 687 341 259 122 96 53 28 12 11 9 1 1,619 387 141 70 35 10 7 1 1 0 0 0 652 61 27 35 14 8 10 2 0 1 0 0 158 28 10 9 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 54 40 21 16 9 3 5 1 0 0 0 0 95 17 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 29

The following table shows the number of cattle culled under the over 30 months scheme and older cattle disposal scheme and the number of confirmed BSE cases:
Year England Northwest (Cumbria, Cheshire &Lancashire) Cumbria

Slaughtered Confirmed Slaughtered Confirmed Slaughtered BSE BSE cases cases 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Totals 101,790 149,235 216,877 194,243 29,106 14,684 16,645 280 0 0 0 722,860 11 13 7 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 38 11,611 21,905 32,770 30,569 4,335 1,811 1,765 22 0 0 0 104,788 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6,286 12,638 19,153 18,641 2,739 1,202 1,165 4 0 0 0 61,828

Confirmed BSE cases 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

The following table shows the number of cattle culled as offspring of confirmed BSE cases and the number of confirmed cases:
Year England Northwest (Cumbria, Cheshire & Lancashire) Cumbria

Slaughtered Confirmed Slaughtered Confirmed Slaughtered Confirmed BSE BSE BSE cases cases cases 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 620 292 200 126 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 20 23 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 11 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

The following table shows the number of cattle culled as a result of Brucellosis which, it should be noted, is based on the best information available:
Year 2002 2003 2004 England 0 0 167 North West 0 0 0 Cumbria 0 0 0

125WS
Year 2005

Written Ministerial Statements

England 20 (represents whole of GB.; England only figure not available) 5 (includes Scotland; England only figure not available) 0 0 0 1 0 North West 0

27 MARCH 2012

Written Ministerial Statements HOME DEPARTMENT

126WS

Cumbria 0

Police Air Support (Collaboration Agreement)

0 0

2006

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

HEALTH

Public Health Workforce Consultation The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton): Today I am publishing Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Towards a workforce strategy for the public health system. The consultation document aims to:
set out proposals for a work force strategy that would support highly qualified, motivated public health specialists who will be employed in a range of settings including local authorities, the NHS and Public Health England in the future public health system; and explore opportunities for employers to develop and embed public health knowledge and skills into the wider work force.

The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has today laid before the House a draft of The Police (Collaboration: Specified Function) Order 2012. This order requires the police service to collaborate in the provision of air support through a single collaboration agreement. I have consulted the police service about the proposed order and, having carefully considered the responses received, I have decided to make the order. In 2009 Bernard Hogan-Howe, then chief constable of Merseyside, carried out a review of the arrangements for police air support for the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). This identified scope to rationalise the current patchwork of provision and make savings, as well as ensuring a consistent level of air support across England and Wales. On the basis of that review, the National Police Air Service (NPAS) project has been led by Chief Constable Alex Marshall and has the full support of ACPO. The advantages of NPAS include the following:
It will give all forces access to helicopter support 24 hours a day, 365 days a yearin contrast to the current system which sees some force helicopters grounded for days a time while they are being repaired. 97% of the population of England and Wales will remain within 20 minutes flying time. It will also save the police service 15 million per year when fully operational.

The skills of people working throughout the public, voluntary and private sectors are crucial to protecting and improving the health and well-being of the population, and addressing health inequalities. The consultation document considers how future systems for education and training can support the development and use of those skills to help achieve this goal and make the progress we need to address our big health challenges. It considers what roles people working as specialists in public health and in a wide range of other sectors can and should play to make public health everyones business and how they can support individuals to promote their own health and well-being and make more informed decisions. The development of this consultation has been an inclusive process, with involvement from key stakeholders to help us build a work force that can transform public health. The subsequent strategy, which we plan to publish in autumn 2012, will be shaped by a range of views. It will be an important contribution to making the future public health system a success. Under the proposals in the Health and Social Care Bill, local government will take on a significant new leadership role in public health, employing a substantial proportion of the public health work force. The consultation document has been developed, and is co-branded, with the Local Government Association. Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Towards a workforce strategy for the new public health system has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.

Chief constables of all forces in England and Wales have given their support to the proposal for NPAS. The vast majority of police authorities have also given support in principle. However, realisation of the full benefits available through NPAS depends upon the commitment of the whole of the police service in England and Wales. These proposals have been under discussion for over two years. It is time for the police service to move on from considering the principle and to focus on agreeing the details of a collaborative approach. This order will ensure such a focus. While the Government have removed central targets from the police and are giving elected police and crime commissioners the power to set local strategic priorities, it has also introduced new powers under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act to ensure that forces work effectively together. This is the first use of new powers brought in by the Act.

Police Officers and Staff (Remuneration and Conditions of Service)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May): On 15 March I issued a written statement to the House to announce that Tom Winsor had published the final report of his review of remuneration and conditions of service for police officers and staff in England and Wales.

127WS

Written Ministerial Statements

27 MARCH 2012

Written Ministerial Statements

128WS

When the review was launched, I said that it is vital that we have a modern and flexible police service to meet the demands placed on it, and this is still true today. We have the finest police service in the world, and our police do one of the most important jobs in the country with great courage, skill and commitment. However, we need to support the service in maximising its potential and in its progress to become the 21st century service the public deserve. The review has an important role to play in this as part of the Governments wider police reform agenda, along with other reforms including the introduction of police and crime commissioners, the reduction in bureaucracy, developing professionalism in the service and the creation of the police professional body, and improving service to the public through collaboration between police forces, with other public services and with the private sector. Police officers and staff deserve to have pay and work force arrangements that recognise the vital role they play in fighting crime and keeping the public safe, and enable them to deliver effectively for the public. We also need a work force that can respond to the reality of policing in the 21st century. The Winsor review began its work on 1 October 2010. Its terms of reference asked for recommendations on how to:
Use remuneration and conditions of service to maximise officer and staff deployment to frontline roles where their powers and skills are required; Provide remuneration and conditions of service that are fair to and reasonable for both the public taxpayer and police officers and staff; Enable modern management practices in line with practices elsewhere in the public sector and the wider economy.

The review was asked to report in two stages: the first on short-term improvements and a second on longer-term reforms. On 30 January 2012 I laid a statement about recommendations made in Tom Winsors Part 1 Report. I accepted the recommendations from the Police Arbitration Tribunal and the Police Negotiating Board on these matters. These recommendations represented an important first step in modernising police pay and conditions so that they are fair to officers and to taxpayers. The Government remain committed to further reform and to the principles set out in the Winsor Part 1 Report:
Fairness is an essential part of any new system of pay and conditions The office of constable is the bedrock of British policing The demands of policing should be given full and proper weight People should be paid for what they do, the skills they have and are applying in their work, and the weights of the jobs they do People should be paid for how well they work A single police servicedistinctions in pay and other conditions of service between police officers and staff should be objectively justified Arrangements should be simple to implement and administer Phased introduction of reform

These include proposals to reform officerspay structures, to change the ways in which they join and leave the service, and for a new system for determining pay and conditions. The Government have now had the opportunity to consider the final report. I am minded to direct the Police Negotiating Board and Police Advisory Board for England and Wales to consider as a matter of urgency proposals on pay, a fast-track scheme to the rank of inspector and other matters that are within their respective remits. I am consulting the independent chair of those bodies on this. I asked Tom Winsor to consider the findings of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission, led by Lord Hutton, concerning the normal pension age for police officers. The final report recommends a pension age of 60, in line with Lord Huttons recommended pension age for police officers. This recommendation will be reflected in a proposal for long-term reform of police pensions on which I will now consult the Police Negotiating Board. In common with the reforms which are being developed across public service pension schemes, the Government are committed to ensuring that police pensions are affordable and sustainable for the future. Those who work in the police and across public services will continue to have access to pension schemes that are among the very best available. Tom Winsor has also made recommendations for entry to the service at the rank of superintendent and, for those with relevant policing experience overseas, at the rank of chief constable. I do not believe it is in the best interests of the service to restrict its ability to appoint officers to senior positions to a limited number of individuals. While police leaders have undoubted strengths, I want to ensure that the police service is able to draw upon the best pool of talent available. The Government believe that the reviews recommendations on entry could support this and I will therefore consult partners on them. The review also recommends significant changes to the way in which police pay and conditions are determined, including abolishing the Police Negotiating Board, establishing a pay review body for officers, and including the remuneration of chief officers in the senior salaries review bodys remit. The Government will consult on proposals for implementing the necessary changes to the police officer pay machinery. The recommendations made in the report are matters of serious national importance for the service, which could play a vital role in reform. They represent significant changes to structures for pay, conditions, careers and leadership. I will therefore be taking forward the steps I have described as a matter of urgency.

Migration Advisory Committee and the Technical Advisory Board

The final report sets out a further package of specific recommendations for police officersand staff remuneration and conditions of service, based on these guiding principles.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May): I am announcing today that my Department will shortly commence the first triennial review of the Migration Advisory Committee and the

129WS

Written Ministerial Statements

27 MARCH 2012

Written Ministerial Statements

130WS

technical advisory board. Triennial reviews of nondepartmental public bodies (NDPBs) are part of the Governments commitment to ensuring accountability in public life. I will announce the findings of the review later this year.

JUSTICE Community Sentences and Probation Consultation The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke): I am today publishing proposals for consultation in two key areas of the justice reform agenda: sentences in the community and the shape of probation services that deliver them. These proposals are set out in full in the consultation papers Punishment and Reform: Effective Community Sentences and Punishment and Reform: Effective Probation Services respectively. There is an urgent need to reform our criminal justice system in order to improve public safety. Reoffending rates remain too high despite recent improvements. Almost half of all adult offenders reoffend within a year of leaving custody. Reoffending of offenders sentenced to less than 12 months in prison is estimated to cost the economy up to 10 billion annually. Most seriously of all, left unchecked, these rates of repeat crime mean thousands of people are unnecessarily becoming victims. That is why the Government have embarked on wholesale reform, beginning with the publication of the Green Paper Breaking the Cycle: effective punishment, rehabilitation and sentencing of offenders, in December 2010. This set out our ambition to reduce reoffending, deliver better punishment and improve public protection. We have made good progress in delivering reforms in this area, but we need to go further. The next stage of reform is sentences in the community and the operation of the probation service which supervises them. In these two publications I set out radical plans to make sentences in the community more credible and more effective in reducing crime and to reform probation so that it makes the fullest contribution by extending competition and opening up the management of lower risk offenders to the innovation and energy of the widest possible range of providers. We propose wide-ranging reforms to the way sentences in the community operate. Our aim is to provide sentencers with a robust community sentencing framework that is effective at punishing and reforming offenders, and in which they and the public can have confidence. Our plans include intensive community punishment to be delivered through a tough package of requirements that would involve community payback, a significant restriction of liberty backed by electronic monitoring and effective financial penalties. We also propose that every community order includes a punitive element. We will build on these options by being creative with the technology available for monitoring offenders movements and by exploring the use of asset seizure as a stand alone punishment. With regard to probation services, our consultation proposals are the result of the Governments review of the future shape of probation services, aimed at ensuring

that they punish and reform offenders, and protect the public more effectively. They also take forward our Competition Strategy for Offender Services published in July 2011, which set our intention to compete all offender services unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. We need to reform probation services to cut crimeby making better use of the innovation, capacity and diversity of different providers. We intend to extend the principles of competition in probation services as envisaged by the Offender Management Act 2007. The safety of the public is our number one priority. Under our proposals, public sector probation will retain control of the management of those criminals who pose the highest risk, including the most serious and violent offenders. The public sector will also retain responsibility for all advice to court, and for public interest decisions over all offenders including initially assessing levels of risk, resolving action where sentences are breached, and decisions on the recalls of offenders to prison. Through carefully managed competition, including competing the management and supervision of lower risk offenders, we will bring greater effectiveness and quality to probation services by ensuring that they are delivered by those best placed to do so, whether they are in the public, voluntary, or private sectors. Under our proposals, public sector probation trusts will have a stronger role as commissioners of competed services, responsible for buying competed services and holding those who deliver them to account for the outcomes they achieve. In particular, we will devolve more responsibility to probation trusts by giving them control of local budgets including, for example, for electronic monitoring of curfews, so they can deliver programmes targeted at local needs and reducing reoffending. The aim of giving further discretion and responsibility to providers and front-line staff is that public safety can be protected and resources can be targeted effectively, including extending the principles of payment by results where possible. We will encourage the participation of the voluntary, private and public sectors, alongside new models for delivering public services like mutuals. We are also consulting on the potential over time for other public bodies, such as local authorities or Police and Crime Commissioners, to take responsibility for probation services. This consultation and subsequent Government response will form the basis of stage 1 of the triennial review of probation trusts, as part of the coalition Governments commitment to transparency and accountability. The triennial review will be aligned with guidance published by the Cabinet Office: Guidance on Reviews of NonDepartmental Public Bodies. The final report and findings will be laid in this House. The Governments goal is to reform sentences in the community and probation services so that they are able to both punish and reform offenders much more effectively. We will actively consult with stakeholders on these proposals. Copies of Punishment and Reform: Effective Community Sentences and Punishment and Reform: Effective Probation Serviceswill be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The documents will also be available online, respectively, at:

131WS

Written Ministerial Statements

27 MARCH 2012

Written Ministerial Statements TRANSPORT Motoring Agencies Business Plans and Performance Frameworks

132WS

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/effectivecommunity-services

and
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/effectiveprobation-services

Coroner Services

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly): The Government are today publishing the new Charter for Coroner Services. Charter for Coroner Services The charter sets out for the first time the standards that bereaved family members and others who come into contact with coroner services across England and Wales can expect to receive. It also sets out what someone can do if they are unhappy with the level of service they have received. The charter has been revised following a public consultation in 2011 and, as proposed in the consultation, is being published in a single booklet with an updated version of the Ministry of Justices Guide to Coroners and Inquests. Combining the guide and charter in this way will ensure that those coming into contact with coroner services have accessible and concise information on the processes and standards in a coroner inquiry and know their rights under the system. It will also ensure that all coroners offices in England and Wales are aware of the standards they should be meeting. The guide and the charter apply to current coroner services under the Coroners Act 1988. We will update the booklet as and when changes to the coroner system are introduced. The charter is an integral part of the Governments plans for reform of the coroner system and, alongside the appointment of a chief coroner and implementation of most of the provisions in part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, will help to ensure much more consistent standards of service between coroner areas. The charter comes into effect today and we are distributing hard copies of the booklet to all coroners offices across England and Wales, as well as publishing it on the Justice and Directgov websites. Copies of the guide and charter booklet have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, in the Vote Office and in the Printed Paper Office. The guide and charter is also available online at:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/burials-and-coroners/ coroners.htm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning): I am pleased to announce the publication of the business plans for the Highways Agency and the Department for Transports Motoring Agenciesthe Driving Standards Agency (DSA), the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), the Vehicle Certification Agency (VGA), and the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA). The business plans set out:
i. the services each agency will deliver and any significant changes they plan to make; ii. the resources they require; and iii. a framework of measures by which their performance will be assessed.

The measures allow service users and members of the public to assess how the agencies are performing in delivering their key services and reforms and in managing agency finances. The business plans will be available electronically on agency websites and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses in due course. EU Transport Council The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers): I attended the first Transport Council under the Danish presidency (the presidency) in Brussels on Thursday 22 March. The presidency sought agreement to a general approach on a proposal for a regulation which defines the transEuropean transport network (TEN-T). This sets out the actions to be undertaken at EU and member state level to develop the network. I was able to support the general approach after securing a UK amendment that will ensure that progress on the projects required by the regulation would be subject to the availability of financial resources. This amendment received support from Germany, Latvia, Finland, Romania, Ireland, Bulgaria, Slovenia and France. In my contribution to the debate, I also argued that governance structures on corridors should be less burdensome, more flexible and focus on contentious cross-border projects. Most member states supported the compromise text which was viewed as a balance between the Commissions initial proposals and what they could accept. The Council also agreed a general approach on a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on ground-handling services at EU airports and repealing Council directive 96/67/EC. This proposal is part of the airports package. My intervention emphasised the UKs reservations about the cost impact and administrative burdens of the original proposal, but I acknowledged that these had been largely addressed in the presidencys revised text. In particular, I welcomed the removal of compulsory licensing and of the Commissions proposed powers to tell a member state to close its markets to third country operators that

and
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/ Death/WhatToDoAfterADeath/DG_066713

Appointment of the Chief Coroner Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, appointment of the chief coroner is a matter for the Lord Chief Justice, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor. Detailed discussions are taking place and I will make a further statement once these discussions have concluded.

133WS

Written Ministerial Statements

27 MARCH 2012

Written Ministerial Statements

134WS

refused to open theirs. Another important point secured in the negotiations in the run up to the meeting was the assurance that service quality would be set locally, with enforcement centred on the contractual relationships between airports, airlines and ground-handlers, with efforts to set homogenised Europe-wide standards removed from the proposal. In the light of these changes and the fact that the regulation is expected to deliver more competition in ground-handling at airports in other European countries and hence reduce costs for airlines (and indirectly for passengers), I felt able to support the presidencys compromise text. Under any other business, the Commission set out their future intentions on the follow up to the Costa Concordia accident in Italy in January. They intend to carry out a review of legislative proposals on domestic passenger ships, to be submitted for consideration at the IMO (International Maritime Organisation). The Commissioner also indicated there may be a revision to the ship stability directive, and work on watertight doors, with a second wave of regulatory activity later in the year. The Commissioner was supportive of renewed discussion both with the EU and the IMO on passenger ship safety. Italy gave an account of the emergency response to the accident and noted there would be an administrative enquiry. I intervened to stress the need for a considered response that takes on board the outcome of the investigation currently underway before any decisions are taken as to whether regulatory changes are needed. Also under any other business, the Commission provided an update on the international reaction to the inclusion of aviation in the emissions trading system (ETS). The Commission reported that the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) had initiated new work to identify a global market-based measure for the aviation sector. If this work leads to an international agreement on tackling climate change emissions from aviation, the EU could, as set out in the ETS directive, review its legislation. I stressed the importance of maintaining a unified and robust European position and there was clear support from other member states for the aviation ETS. The proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport on which the presidency was hoping for a general approach and the any other business item Galileo and EGNOS programmes on which the Commission was providing information, were not discussed at the Council. During my visit, I was also able to hold a bilateral discussion with the vice-president of the Commission, Siim Kallas on the main items for Transport Council discussion. A constructive exchange took place on upcoming Commission proposals for airport slots and rail policy. I used the opportunity to highlight the UKs work with the Commission on the better regulation agenda. I also met my counterparts from Cyprus and Ireland to discuss plans for their forthcoming presidencies of the EU, in July-December 2012 and in January-June 2013, respectively. The Cypriots main priorities focus on re-energising the integrated maritime policy, and promoting Blue Growth. The Irish are at an early

stage in their preparations and sought UKs views ahead of their presidency. My discussion with the Cypriots and Irish Ministers also included an overview of the important work that the UK is taking forward with the European Commission on the better regulation agenda.

High Speed Rail The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening): At the end of this month I will receive HS2 Ltds route and station advice for high speed rail lines to Leeds, Manchester and Heathrow. This is an important next step in our aspiration for a truly national high speed network, as set out in our programme for government. Phase 2 of High Speed 2 will spread the benefits of high speed rail further across the country, increasing capacity and enhancing connectivity by extending high speed rail lines to Leeds and Manchester and connecting other major conurbations in the north and in Scotland through seamless transition onto the existing network. In fulfilment of its remit, HS2 Ltds advice will include options for stations in Manchester, Leeds, South Yorkshire, the East Midlands and at Heathrow Airport, as well as advice on the case and potential locations for additional stations. It will also cover the impact of phase 2 of the network in releasing capacity on the midland and east coast main lines, as well as further extending the benefits of released capacity within the west coast corridor. I will consider this advice objectively and in detail over the coming months, and I intend to publish it in the autumn together with a Government response setting out initial preferred route and station options. An important part of this process will be to consider the views of delivery partners in the cities where HS2 stations may be located, including any underpinning evidence which they have identified. Understanding local desires and plans for development will be crucial in helping me reach initial preferences for station locations. I am particularly keen to ensure that the network best supports the economic potential of the cities and regions it serves, through well-integrated station locations that build on local and regional plans. Minimising the risk of blight is a serious consideration, and it is for this reason that I expect to publish HS2 Ltds advice once I have reached a view on routes and station options. Publishing a detailed range of possible options without an indication of the Governments preferences would generate unnecessary and harmful blight across areas that ultimately might never be affected by the lines. I will be working with national environmental stakeholders to discuss key sustainability issues and how best to consult on lines of route going forward to help meet the needs of different stakeholders and the public. Following publication, the input of interested parties, including MPs and their constituents, will be valuable to help further develop the proposals that will go forward for subsequent formal public consultation. Only once a full public consultation has been launched and completed will any decisions be reached.

135WS

Written Ministerial Statements

27 MARCH 2012

Written Ministerial Statements

136WS

When preferred route options are published in the autumn we will consult on and introduce an exceptional hardship scheme to assist property owners impacted by the proposals. Further, in order to reduce uncertainty for those affected by the proposals, and to ensure that the benefits for passengers and business of a national high speed rail network are realised as soon as possible, I have asked my officials to explore options for bringing forward formal public consultation on phase 2 of High Speed 2 to 2013, and I will set out my proposed timetable later this year. Driving Tests (Taking Testing to the Customer)

to work in partnership with the DSA to identify and provide locations from which the practical car test could be delivered. DSA will encourage engagement by a wide section of the business community, including retail and hotel groups to provide premises from which the agency could operate. Tests will continue to be conducted by DSA examiners.

WORK AND PENSIONS

Universal Credit (Passported Benefits) The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning): Last year I asked the Driving Standards Agency (DSA) to consider arrangements for delivering practical car driving tests from premises other than traditional driving test centres such as local authority buildings or leisure centres to provide a more local service for candidates. Early indications from a limited pilot are encouraging and I am pleased feedback so far has been positive. I have now asked the agency to further develop the model. Five additional areas have been identified in and/or surrounding: Kettering, Glasgow, Manchester, Worcester and Watford. These will be centred on an existing driving test centre hub. They represent a mix of urban and rural locations. Examiners based at the hub will conduct tests from additional satellite locations within the zone. Subject to finding suitable premises and the availability of driving test standard routes I have asked DSA to explore the possibility of providing tests from the following satellite locations:
KetteringCorby, Market Harborough and Wellingborough GlasgowJohnstone, Renfrew, East Kilbride, Cathcart and Bearsden ManchesterCheadle, Altrincham, Salford, Middleton, Ashton-under-Lyne and Oldham WorcestershireKidderminster, Droitwich and Bromsgrove WatfordHemel Hempstead, Harpenden, Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City.

I am also pleased to announce the publication of a prior information notice in the Official Journal of the European Union for public and private organisations

The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling): In May 2011, the Department for Work and Pensions commissioned the Social Security Advisory Committee to undertake an independent review of passported benefits and their interaction with universal credit. The Committee has completed the review. Later today I will publish its final report which includes the Governments response. I will place a copy in the House Library. The Committees report does not make specific recommendations on the future design of passported benefits but suggests a number of high level principles that may help guide the direction of travel in future. These principles are focused on simplification and making work pay. We recognise that the immediate priority is to determine how passported benefits will operate when universal credit is introduced in 2013. The Governments response to the Committees report therefore sets out how various organisations are considering new eligibility criteria for individual passported benefits. In the longer term, our aim is to explore a generic approach for the current suite of passported benefits. This approach could enable people to claim universal credit, but with added components for a range of other benefits and public services. The total award, including the additional components would then be withdrawn gradually as income rises. We will consider this alongside other priorities for the next spending review.

1017W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1018W

Written Answers to Questions

Tuesday 27 March 2012

Establishing a Womens Business Council to ensure Government get the best advice on how to maximise womens potential to drive economic growth.

In addition, because womens safety is a priority for this Government, we are ensuring that economic reforms do not compromise protection for victims. For example, we are:
Ring-fencing nearly 40 million of stable funding up to 2015 for specialist local domestic and sexual violence support services, rape crisis centres, the national domestic violence helplines and the stalking helpline; Allocated 1.2 million over three years to improve services for young people affected by sexual violence and exploitation, including from gangs; and Continuing to provide legal aid for the victims of domestic violence to apply for protective injunctions and continue to waive the financial eligibility limits in these cases.

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES Business: Females Priti Patel: To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities what recent progress she has made on her mentoring scheme to help women fulfil their potential in business. [91785] Lynne Featherstone: In November last year the Home Secretary announced that funding would be provided to recruit and train 5,000 mentors as part of a package of support for women in business. The Department for Business Innovation and Skills subsequently announced that a further 10,000 mentors would be recruited to support entrepreneurs who are setting up or growing their business. As of the second week in March over 7,500 mentors have joined the programme and, of the 4,000 mentors that have completed their training, 42% are women. We expect all 15,000 mentors to have been recruited and trained by the end of September 2012. Females: Fiscal Policy Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities what assessment she has made of the effects of the Governments deficit reduction plan on [99024] women. Lynne Featherstone [holding answer 12 March 2012]: Reducing the deficit this Government inherited requires difficult decisions to be made as this is the only way back to a strong economy that creates opportunities for the next generation and supports world class public services. However, the Government are ensuring that economic reforms are implemented fairly, with the most vulnerable protected. For example:
Raising the personal tax free allowance will lift two million of the lowest-paid workers out of income tax altogether, more than half of whom (59%) are women; Allocating an additional 300 million for child care support under universal credit on top of the 2 billion already spent under the current system will help around 80,000 more families with children to work their chosen hours; and Extending the entitlement to 15 hours a week of free early education will benefit 260,000 of the most disadvantaged two-yearolds.

Work Experience Chi Onwurah: To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities pursuant to the answer of 7 June 2011, Official Report, column 221W, on departmental work experience, how many people (a) worked as an intern, (b) undertook a work experience placement and (c) worked as a volunteer in her Department in accordance with the hiring criteria set out in that answer in the last 12 months for which data are available; and how many such people were employed other than according to [100729] those criteria. Lynne Featherstone: From 1 April 2011, the Government Equalities Office became part of the Home Office. Information relating to the Government Equalities Office is included in the reply of 21 March 2012, Official Report, column 790W, from the Minister for Immigration, the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green).

NORTHERN IRELAND Departmental Responsibilities Mr Dodds: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to the answer of 5 March 2012, Official Report, column 491W, on departmental responsibilities, for what reason he does not disclose the dates of his and his ministerial colleagues meetings with the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive.
[101997]

Beyond getting the public finances under control, the Government are also laying the foundations for a stronger, more prosperous Britain with women at the heart of the economy by:
Removing barriers for women in the workplace through improving transparency, extending the right to request flexible working, introducing flexible parental leave, and ensuring more women progress into the boardroom; Providing resources to identify and train 15,000 new mentors to support anyone setting up and growing a business, including 5,000 specifically for female entrepreneurs, and providing 2 million over the next three years to support women entrepreneurs in rural areas; and

Mr Paterson: I and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), meet regularly and often informally with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive. These meetings and discussions take place in a variety of circumstances not all of which are recorded and it would therefore be misleading to provide a list of dates that I know is not comprehensive. Police Service of Northern Ireland Mr Dodds: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to the answer of 19 March 2012, Official Report, columns 443-4W, on Police Service of Northern Ireland, for what reason he does not disclose the dates of his and his ministerial colleagues meetings with the Chief Constable of the [101996] Police Service of Northern Ireland.

1019W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1020W

Mr Paterson: I and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), meet regularly and often informally with the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. These meetings and discussions take place in a variety of circumstances not all of which are recorded and it would therefore be misleading to provide a list of dates that I know is not comprehensive. Serious Organised Crime Agency Vernon Coaker: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to the answer of 13 March 2012, Official Report, column 169W, on security and the answer of 19 March 2012, Official Report, column 444W, on the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), whether matters relating to SOCA work in Northern Ireland are reserved or a matter for the [102051] devolved Administration. Mr Paterson: The Serious Organised Crime Agency is a reserved body under Schedule 3 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The work of the body is a mix of devolved and reserved matters.

Welsh Government to ensure that the changes the UK Government are making in the Health and Social Care Bill that relate to Wales will have a positive impact in Wales. Public Sector: Pay Paul Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if she will have discussions with her ministerial colleagues on the potential effects of introducing regional pay for public sector workers in Wales.
[101967]

Mrs Gillan: I will continue to have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a range of issues that affect Wales, including local pay reform. At the 2011 autumn statement, the Government asked the independent pay review bodies (PRB) to consider how public sector pay can be made more responsive to local labour markets. At Budget 2012, the Government announced that they have provided evidence to the PRBs setting out the economic case for local pay reform, which is now available on the PRB website:
www.ome.uk.com

SCOTLAND Mass Media Dr Whiteford: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what media monitoring services his Department has purchased in each of the last five [100905] years. David Mundell: The Scotland Office has purchased media monitoring services from Press Data (press cuttings) in each of the last five years. In addition, it has purchased transcription services on an ad hoc basis from Newslink Scotland.

The PRB is expected to report on local pay reform in July. Remploy Paul Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what meetings she has had with the Welsh Government to discuss devolving responsibility for Remploy.
[101969]

Mrs Gillan: I have discussed a range of issues relating to the future of Remploy factories in Wales with both Welsh Government Ministers and ministerial colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions as the lead Department, particularly in light of the Sayce review recommendations last July.

WALES Devolution Paul Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent meetings she has had with members of the Commission on devolution in Wales on the revised [102007] timetable for the report. Mrs Gillan: I have regular meetings with Paul Silk, chair of the Commission on Devolution in Wales, to discuss the Commissions work programme. Health and Social Care Bill Paul Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent meetings she has had with the Secretary of State for Health on the potential effects of the provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill on health [102008] bodies in Wales. Mrs Gillan: I have regular meetings with Ministers in the Department of Health about a range of health matters relevant to Wales. While the NHS in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Government, there has been close engagement between the Department for Health, the Wales Office and the

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT Arts: Crime Prevention Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what assessment his Department has made of the contribution of the arts to reducing (a) racism, (b) homophobia, (c) disability hate crime and (d) anti-social behaviour; and what projects are planned to increase the arts involvement in [101856] the prevention of these crimes. Mr Vaizey [holding answer 26 March 2012]: Arts Council England (ACE) has made no assessment of the contribution of the arts to reducing discrimination and hate crime. However, they do see the arts as haying a considerable contribution to make towards promoting greater tolerance, social cohesion, equality of opportunity and the reduction of discrimination in all walks of society. ACE ensure fairness and consistency in their decision making and undertake Equality Analyses (formally, equality impact assessments) both as a legal requirement and as a best practice tool and methodology. They have supported a wide range of organisations that specialise in working in the criminal justice system.

1021W

Written Answers Betting: Dormant Accounts

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers Broadband: North East

1022W

Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with betting companies and their representatives on unclaimed winnings and [101593] dormant betting accounts. John Penrose: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 21 March 2012, Official Report, column 693W. Broadband Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport with reference to his Departments Business Plan 2011-15, what steps his Department took to complete action (a) 5.1.i on examining external barriers to new providers seeking to invest in fibre optic networks and (b) 5.2.ii on delivery of super-fast broadband; and if he will make a [102226] statement. Mr Vaizey: The main barriers to deployment were identified as part of the UKs broadband strategy Britains Superfast Broadband Future, published in December 2010. Work to address these issuessuch as ensuring the business rate regime is appropriate, and examining options for deploying new overhead infrastructureis ongoing. As well as this, the Department has delivered a number of outcomes including the publication of the advice note on micro trenching and street works, published in November 2011. Where barriers exist, we are committed to working with industry to remove them where possible. Regarding access to existing infrastructure, BT were required to offer access to their infrastructure as part of Ofcoms most recent Wholesale Local Access Review, published in October 2010. Ofcom have worked closely with industry to bring these products to market and have been available for competitors to use since November 2011. The implementation of the EU Communications Regulatory Framework in May 2011 also gave Ofcom the power to impose infrastructure sharing on other telecoms infrastructure where proportionate. This will be entirely Ofcoms decision. Huw Irranca-Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport with reference to the Budget 2012, what assessment he has made of the potential benefits of expanding high-speed internet infrastructure into rural areas as well as large cities.
[102242]

Guy Opperman: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what recent progress he has made on his plans to extend superfast broadband to the North East and Northumberland.
[102032]

Mr Vaizey: The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), approved, on 21 March 2012, the local broadband plan for Northumberland project area and the county council is now preparing for procurement using the Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) Broadband Delivery Framework. Also on 21 March 2012, Official Report, columns 793-808, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), announced that Newcastle city will receive between 4 and 6 million from the Urban Broadband Fund. This money will help Newcastle to become a Super-Connected City, up-grading its fixed broadband infrastructure to ultra-fast and providing wireless broadband connectivity across the city. Leisure: Industry Justin Tomlinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (1) what his Departments definition is of the leisure industry; and whether his Department differentiates between the leisure industry and the tourism industry for purposes [101778] of data-gathering; (2) how his Department measures the contribution of the leisure industry to the economy; and what [101779] metrics it uses to do so. John Penrose: This Department has policy responsibility for a number of sectors which are counted within the leisure industry, such as gambling and entertainment. Metrics on these can be found in the Office for National Statistics (ONS) national datasets, for example using the Standard Industrial Code (SIC) 92.00 Gambling. The definition of tourism that is in use at this Department comes from the Tourism Satellite Account (TSA), which is an ONS publication
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/tourism/tourism-satelliteaccount/2008---the-economic-importance-of-tourism/ index.html

Mr Vaizey: The Government recognise that bringing high speed internet to rural areas will help benefit local communities and businesses and that a good communications infrastructure is vital to the growth of the economy. McKinsey report that the digital economy accounts for 23% of all growth and Boston Consulting Group estimate that internet-driven businesses made up 8.3% of the UKs economy, rising to 12.6% by 2016. This is why we are investing 830 million in digital communications infrastructure that will deliver superfast broadband to 90% of the country, with a good level of service for everyone else, ultra-fast broadband in 10 of our largest cities and an extra 50 million to support ultrafast broadband in smaller cities.

It is grounded in a definition of tourism that relies upon the principle of apportioning a share of activities such as accommodation, restaurants, or transportation that are used by individuals making trips to a main destination outside of their usual environment, for any main purpose other than to be employed by a resident entity in the country or place visited. This Department does not hold a comparable definition for the leisure industry and therefore does differentiate between the two industries for the purposes of data collection, although some elements of the leisure industry are included within the TSA. Manpower Stephen Barclay: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport how many people are employed in interim posts by the Department, or a non-ministerial department or arms length body controlled by his Department, through (a) Penna Consulting, (b) Reed Personnel Services and (c)

1023W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers Sports

1024W

Capita Resourcing Ltd (trading as Veredus); how many such people have been in post for over a year; and how [102111] many are full-time. John Penrose: This Department does not have any people employed in interim posts through Penna Consulting, Reed Personnel Services or Capita Resourcing Ltd (trading as Veredus). We do not collate this information for our arms length bodies. Accordingly, I have asked each chief executive to write to my Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire directly. Copies of the replies will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Olympic Games 2012 Brandon Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Olympic Delivery Authoritys learning legacy website in sharing knowledge of and lessons learned from the construction of the Olympic Park; and what further steps he is taking to promote this objective across the [101773] UK. Hugh Robertson: The Olympic Delivery Authoritys (ODA) Learning Legacy website is a very valuable resource for capturing the positive learning from the construction of the park. It contains 250 case studies setting out the lessons learned and best practice developed by the ODA, its contractors and industry partners. It has had more than 15,000 visitors since its launch in October 2011. In addition, more than 50 targeted events have been arranged with the relevant construction industry bodies, or have already taken place. The website is also promoted through industry journals and publications. Radio Frequencies Alun Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the cost to an individual of purchasing a femtocell to benefit from his Mobile Infrastructure [101079] Project. Mr Vaizey: The Mobile Infrastructure Project is in the process of defining the areas worst affected by poor and non-existent mobile coverage, and the best means of addressing it in those areas. The role of femtocells in addressing coverage will become clearer through this process. Femtocells are currently commercially available at comparable prices to those for wireless internet routers. Remploy Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (1) whether his Department has procured any goods from Remploy factories in the last three years; and what the value was [102146] of any procurements; (2) what recent discussions his Department has had with Remploy on the procurement of goods. [102147] John Penrose: This Department has not procured any goods from Remploy factories in the last three years, or had recent discussions concerning the subject.

Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what plans he has to increase participation in sport; and what targets he has set. [101595] Hugh Robertson: We have not set a target for increasing participation in sport but through the Whole Sport Plans, and other programmes being delivered as part of the new strategy, we expect to see consistent year on year increases in participation. In particular, we want to raise the number of 14-25 year olds regularly playing sport. Sports: Schools Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the likely effect of withdrawing targets for increasing participation in school sport on numbers of young people joining sports clubs set up under the 14 to 24 Sport England [101594] programme. Hugh Robertson: The School Games and the new Youth Sport Strategy will create the opportunities for children and young people to participate in sport. Through the new strategy, every one of the 4,000 secondary schools in England will be offered a community sport club on its site with a direct link to one or more of the sports governing bodies. This will complement curriculum physical education, and help address the drop off in the numbers of young people doing sport. PRIME MINISTER Early Intervention Foundation Mr Allen: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his oral answer of 21 March 2012, on what date he expects the full tender document to be issued for an early intervention foundation; and on what dates he expects a final decision on the winner of the tender process to [102009] be announced. The Prime Minister: The full tender document for an Early Intervention Foundation was issued by the Department for Education on Thursday 22 March and the deadline for bids is midday Thursday 31 May. Once bids have been received there are a number of procurement requirements that have to be met before an announcement can be made. It is expected that an announcement will be made by 31 July. ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS Dogs: Electronic Training Aids Huw Irranca-Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what rationale her Department used when permitting the participation of the Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association in its commissioned research on the use of electronic shock devices on dogs; and what steps her Department has taken to ensure that any involvement of the Association in this research is independent and [102237] impartial.

1025W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1026W

Mr Paice: DEFRA officials had sight of the memorandum of understanding between Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association and the research group and did not consider it posed a risk to the independence of the research. We are peer reviewing the outputs of this DEFRAfunded research using independent academic experts. As with all DEFRA-funded projects, we have encouraged publication of the results in scientific journals, which will involve further peer review for each element of the project that is published. Food Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much the Food Standards Agency paid for the work commissioned from Imperial college London as part of its project on anecdotal reports of food tolerance associated with low calorie sweeteners; what scientific tests are being undertaken by Imperial college; what hypothesis is being tested by the college; and if she will place in the Library a copy of the protocol for that [101570] work. Anne Milton: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Department of Health. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has a contract with Hull university for this project and they subcontracted part of the work to Imperial college London. The initial subcontract was for 137,000, however, the additional recruitment referred to in my answer of 20 February 2012, Official Report, column 685W, will increase the costs of the subcontract. The FSA will be updating interested parties on this work shortly. Imperial college are undertaking metabolomic profiling (the global analysis of small molecules generated by the process of metabolism) of blood and urine, using a range of complex analytical and computational techniques. This is part of the overall project to increase our knowledge of what is happening for those individuals who consider they react badly after consuming food or drink containing aspartame. The protocol for the Hull university project entitled the Determination of the symptoms of aspartame in subjects who have reported symptoms in the past compared to controls: a pilot double blind placebo crossover study has been placed in the Library. The FSA does not hold a separate protocol for the subcontracted work. Food: Exports Huw Irranca-Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with reference to the Budget 2012, what assessment she has made of the role of food and drink exports in the Governments export target for the next decade.
[102240]

with UK Trade and Investment, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The action plan, Driving Export Growth in the Farming, Food and Drink Sector, published in January, sets out how Government and industry will work together to open up and take advantage of key markets. It focuses on opening international markets for the food and farming sector, ensuring the right information and support is available to help companies succeed overseas, simplifying the process for food specific export paperwork, and strategically promoting the best of British food and drink overseas. In addition, UK Export Finance has new products which are available to exporters in the food and drink industry who are unable to obtain credit insurance or trade finance from the private market. Manpower Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many employees of the Environment Agency are assigned to regulating the EU emissions trading system (a) full-time, (b) full-time equivalent and (c) part-time.
[101275]

Richard Benyon: The number of Environment Agency employees assigned to regulating the EU emissions trading system (ETS) as of March 2012 is 39.4 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff, composed of 37 full-time and four part-time staff. This includes staff that provide registry services to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Northern Ireland Environment Agency, since the Environment Agency administers the EU ETS registry for the whole of the UK. Nature Conservation: EU Law Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of her Departments review of the implementation of the EU Habitats and Wild Birds [101972] Directives in England. Richard Benyon: The report of the DEFRA-led Habitats and Wild Birds Implementation Review was published on 22 March by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman). The report contains a strong, practical set of measures that DEFRA will be implementing over the coming months in partnership with other Government Departments, regulators, developers and environmental groups. These will help ensure that the directives are easier to implement on the ground without compromising their fundamental objectives. The report is available on the DEFRA website and I am arranging for copies of the report to be placed in the Libraries of the Houses. Rural Areas: Broadband Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 19 March 2012, Official Report, column 551W, on rural areas: broadband, what proportion of the 530 million budget is available to technologies [102286] which do not deliver superfast speeds.

Mr Paice: Food and drink exports can play a key role in reaching the Governments export target for the next decade which will boost our economy and generate jobs. UK food exports grew for the sixth year in a row in 2010 to 15.8 billion. To take advantage of new opportunities in overseas markets DEFRA works closely

1027W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1028W

Mr Vaizey: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The Government aim to stimulate private investment to deliver superfast broadband to 90% of premises and universal standard of 2 Mbps for virtually all premises. There is no funding allocation for a specific technology. The technology solutions to deliver the Governments objectives will be determined by supplier responses to local authority procurements. Schmallenberg Virus Huw Irranca-Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the costs and benefits of [102251] making the Schmallenberg virus notifiable. Mr Paice: Our knowledge of this new virus and the UK disease situation is still evolving. We are satisfied that enough cases are being reported to enable us to build an accurate picture of how widespread the disease is in the UK. Estimates of the cost to Government of making the Schmallenberg virus notifiable, depending on the measures put in place, are between 5 million and 20 million. Current weekly Government resource used is around 25,000. Compulsory notification would impose additional costs and burdens on sheep and cattle farmers at this busy time of year, with few disease control benefits to livestock farmers and the taxpayer. DEFRA continues to work with industry representatives to promote voluntary reporting. Current indications are that Schmallenberg disease is not having a significant impact on lambing and calving and additional regulatory burdens are not warranted. Taxis Jon Trickett: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much her Department spent on taxis for (a) Ministers and (b) civil servants between August 2011 and January 2012.
[101418]

The Attorney-General: As part of the Whitehall Internship Scheme which aims to provide internships in every Whitehall department for under-represented groups, the Treasury Solicitors Department (TSol), Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) each offered a single placement to a year 12 student who was allocated a two-week placement in the respective organisation. As part of these placements, each of the three students were also allocated a one-day placement at the Attorney-Generals Office. TSol also recruits legal trainees via the Government Legal Service legal trainee scheme and at any given time has about 18 people on the scheme. In advance of commencing their training contracts, TSol offers work experience to the trainees so that they have some familiarity with the organisation and the wider GLS. The Treasury Solicitors Department (TSol), AttorneyGenerals Office (AGO) and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) have not operated any other work experience or vacation placement schemes in the last 12 months. During the 12 months to March 2012, the Crown Prosecution Service provided 356 work experience placements. Since May 2011, the SFO have placed two interns from the university of Bath as part of their BSc Business Administration and MSc Advanced Management Practice programmes, and provided five work experience posts. Apart from the employment of permanent staff, and the hiring of temporary agency staff and contractors, TSol, AGO and HMCPSI have not employed people other than according to those in the criteria outlined in the earlier answer of 4 May 2011, Official Report, column 737W. None of the Law Officers Departments have engaged anyone in a voluntary capacity during the last 12 months.

EDUCATION Academies: Pensions Nic Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when his Department plans to issue guidance to local authority pensions managers on academies pooling with their former local authority.
[100107]

Richard Benyon: Taxi journeys are only used when no other option is available, and when it is appropriate to do so. Between August 2011 and January 2012, the costs for taxis were 1,132.99 for Ministers. In the same period Core DEFRA spent 28,858.73 on taxis for civil servants in the Department.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL Work Experience Chi Onwurah: To ask the Attorney-General pursuant to the answer of 4 May 2011, Official Report, column 737W, on departmental work experience, how many people (a) worked as an intern, (b) undertook a work experience placement and (c) worked as a volunteer in the Law Officers Departments in accordance with the hiring criteria set out in that answer in the last 12 months for which data are available; and how many such people were employed other than according to [100748] those criteria.

Mr Gibb: The first edition of informal guidance about academies and the local government pension scheme (LGPS) was issued to LGPS pension managers by the Department of Communities and Local Government on 29 February 2012. The guidance was developed in consultation with the Department for Education. A second edition will be issued shortly, dealing with the implications of an academys LGPS arrangements being pooled with their local authority. Catering Jon Trickett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much his Department spent on complimentary refreshments for (a) staff and (b) visitors in the latest period for which figures are [101449] available.

1029W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1030W

Tim Loughton: The Department does not hold this information centrally. Hospitality for official meetings is provided where appropriate. Hospitality is not provided for internal DfE meetings unless it is proven to be cost-effective, or in the interests of good business to do so. Childrens Centres: Leeds Greg Mulholland: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much funding he has allocated to Sure Start childrens centres in (a) Leeds North West constituency and (b) Leeds for 2012-13; and whether [101562] such funding will be ring-fenced. Sarah Teather: In April 2011 the Department for Education introduced the Early Intervention Grant (EIG). The grant is un-ringfenced in order to give local authorities greater freedom and flexibility in how they spend their funding, enabling them to make judgments based on local needs and what works best. Subject to that local decision making, the EIG can support a full range of services for children, young people and families including Sure Start childrens centres. Leeds City Council has been allocated 32,723,512 through the Early Intervention Grant for 2012-13. It is up to the authority to decide how best to spend this funding. It is important to note that this amount may change during the year in respect of funding for pilot activities. Citizenship: Education Lindsay Roy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps his Department is taking to [102061] improve citizenship education in schools. Mr Gibb: Ofsted reported in 2010 that citizenship education is improving. Our reforms are designed to build on this by giving greater autonomy to schools. The National Curriculum Review is aiming to establish a core of essential knowledge in key subjects that all children need to learn. This will leave teachers free to use their professional judgement and expertise to design curricula that best meet their pupils needs. We are also committed to empowering young people to become active citizens. The National Citizen Service will support 30,000 young people to develop the skills and attitudes they need to become responsible citizens. Our recent publication, Positive for Youth, will help to ensure that local areas give young people genuine and wide ranging influence. We are establishing an advisory group of young people to advise on national policy across Government. Finally, we have awarded grant funding of 850,000 to the British Youth Council to support youth participation in England, both nationally and locally, including support for the UK Youth Parliament. Day Care: North East Guy Opperman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many families will receive the extension of 15 hours of childcare to the poorest families in (a) the North East and (b) Hexham constituency. [101923]

Sarah Teather: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), announced in the autumn statement that the early education entitlement for two-year-olds will be expanded to cover more children. The Government intend to take a phased approach to the implementation of the new entitlement. Around 130,000 two-year-olds will be eligible from September 2013. From 2014, the entitlement will be extended to around 260,000 two-year-olds. We have recently consulted on a proposal that twoyear-olds who meet the criteria for free school meals, and looked after children, will be eligible in the first phase of the entitlement. This would mean that around 7,900 two-year-olds in the North East, including 600 in Northumberland, would be eligible for the entitlement in 2013. Our analysis goes down to local authority level, and not to areas within local authorities such as Hexham. These figures are derived from a sample and are indicative only. We will publish further proposals in due course about eligibility criteria to reach 40% of two-year-olds from 2014. We will carry out further analysis on what this means for the numbers of eligible children in local areas. Departmental Drinks Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much his private Ministerial office spent on (a) tea and coffee, (b) wine, (c) alcoholic refreshments other than wine and (d) bottled water in the last 12 months for which figures are available.
[97324]

Tim Loughton [holding answer 29 February 2012]: We do not hold separate information for each ministerial office. During the 12 months from February 2011 to the end of January 2012, the total expenditure for all five ministerial offices was as follows:
(a) 14,003 on tea, coffee and other refreshments for meetings, and (b) 508 on wine.

There was no expenditure on other alcoholic refreshments or on bottled water. All expenditure is incurred in accordance with the principles of Managing Public Money and the Treasury handbook on Regularity and Propriety. English Baccalaureate Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of pupils were (a) entered for and (b) passed the English Baccalaureate in [101388] 2010-11 in each parliamentary constituency. Mr Gibb: The information requested has been placed in the House Libraries. English Language: National Curriculum Tests Stephen Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what his policy is on the weight given to the internally-assessed writing element of Key Stage 2 [102228] English in setting the level of achievement.

1031W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1032W

Mr Gibb: Following Lord Bews independent review of key stage 2 testing and assessment, interim arrangements will apply to the assessment of writing in 2012. A pupils writing result will be a teacher assessment judgment of their work across year 6. This will be informed by, but not be limited to, their results in a national test. Schools have been able to choose whether to administer the test at a time of their choosing and mark it internally, or to administer it on 9 May and have it externally marked. A pupils teacher assessment result will be reported to parents, along with their results in the externally marked tests for reading and mathematics. Stephen Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many primary schools have opted for an external assessment for the writing element of the Key Stage 2 English assessment in the latest period for [102229] which figures are available. Mr Gibb: Following Lord Bews independent review of key stage 2 testing and assessment, interim arrangements will apply to the assessment of writing in 2012. A pupils writing result will be a teacher assessment judgment of their work across year 6, which will be informed by and take account of their results in a national test. Schools have been able to choose whether to administer the test at a time of their choosing and mark it internally, or to administer it on 9 May and have it externally marked. A total of 2,762 schools have opted to have their KS2 English writing test externally marked this year. This figure does not include the 1,500 schools that were selected to participate in the key stage 2 writing sample test which will be used to monitor national standards. In line with Lord Bews recommendations, the teacher assessment of writing will be subject to external moderation in 15 to 25% of schools. Stephen Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment criteria will be issued to primary schools for Key Stage 2 English writing [101854] assessments. Mr Gibb [holding answer 26 March 2012]: Lord Bews independent review of key stage 2 testing, assessment and accountability recommended significant changes to the assessment of writing, which the Government accepted. Those recommendations will be implemented in full in 2013, but in 2012 interim arrangements will apply to the assessment of writing. A pupils English writing result will be a teacher assessment judgment of their work across year 6 against the National Curriculum level scale. Teachers judgments will be informed by and take account of pupils results in a national test. Schools have been able to choose whether to administer the test at a time of their choosing and mark it internally, using a mark scheme that has been provided, or to administer it on 9 May and have it externally marked.

In line with Lord Bews recommendations, the teacher assessment of writing will be subject to external moderation in 15 to 25% of schools. Free Schools Stephen Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many free schools due to open in September 2012 have secured sites. [99756] Mr Gibb [holding answer 13 March 2012]: Around half of the free schools due to open in September 2012 have confirmed sites, and negotiations on a preferred site are under way for the large majority of the other projects. At the same stage last year, under half of free schools had confirmed sites. Free Schools: School Meals Dan Rogerson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many (a) academies and (b) free schools are adhering to his Departments regulations [102022] on school food standards. Sarah Teather [holding answer 26 March 2012]: The Department does not hold this information. Free schools and new academies which have been set up from September 2010 are not required to comply with the school food standards. Academies that signed their funding agreements before July 2010 are still required by those agreements to meet the nutritional standards, but they can move to the new funding agreement if they wish to do so. Schools that have converted to become academies will already have been complying with the school food standards. There is no reason to believe that they would stop doing so on conversion. In order to assess any changes in school food provision in schools which have converted to academy status, the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), has asked the School Food Trust to undertake a qualitative study to look at the approach taken by academies and free schools to providing healthy school food. The results are expected to be published in late spring 2012. GCSEs: GCE A-Levels Gareth Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many children were awarded A*-C grades in GCSE (a) mathematics and (b) English in (i) Kent and (ii) Dartford constituency in each of the last [101944] five years; (2) how many children were awarded A-C grades in A-level in (a) mathematics and (b) English in (i) Kent and (ii) Dartford constituency in each of the last five [101945] years. Mr Gibb: The information requested can be found in the following tables. A* grades at A level have been included for the 2009/10 and 2010/11 academic years.

Numbers and percentages of pupils1, 2, 3 achieving A*-C grades in mathematics and English GCSEs4, 5 in Dartford constituency6, Kent local authority7 and England8 Years: 2007-11 Coverage: England Numbers and percentages of KS4 pupils achieving A*-C grades in: Mathematics: Dartford (Number) Dartford (Percentage) 864 62.1 846 61.4 852 64.4 931 67.9 960 72.6 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

1033W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1034W

Numbers and percentages of pupils1, 2, 3 achieving A*-C grades in mathematics and English GCSEs4, 5 in Dartford constituency6, Kent local authority7 and England8 Years: 2007-11 Coverage: England Numbers and percentages of KS4 pupils achieving A*-C grades in: Kent (Number) Kent (Percentage) 2006/07 9,473 56.0 2007/08 9,895 58.1 2008/09 9,989 59.8 2009/10 10,671 63.5 2010/11 10,731 66.4

England (Number) England (Percentage)

323,044 54.0

335,453 56.3

339,196 58.8

360,532 62.6

368,911 65.3

English: Dartford (Number) Dartford (Percentage) 914 65.7 902 65.5 870 65.8 975 71.1 990 74.8

Kent (Number) Kent (Percentage)

10,052 59,4

10,167 59.7

10,194 61.0

11,223 66.8

11,077 68.5

England (Number) England (Percentage)

1 2 3

349,086 58.3

357,983 60.1

358,136 62.1

382,870 66.5

392,117 69.4

Percentages are based on all pupils at end of key stage 4 in each area. Figures do not include pupils recently arrived from overseas. Figures include all maintained schools (including CTCs and academies). 4 Full GCSEs have been included (Full GCSEs, double awards, accredited international certificates and their predecessor iGCSEs) and AS levels. Figures from 2006/07-2008/09 exclude iGCSEs, 2009/10 and 2010/11 figures include accredited iGCSEs. 5 Including attempts and achievements by these pupils in previous academic years. 6 Parliamentary constituency figures are based on the postcode of the school. 7 Local authority figures are based on the local authority maintaining the school or in the case of CTCs and Academies the local authority in which the school is situated. 8 England figures are the sum of all local authority figures. Source: National Pupil Database (2006/07 to 2009/10 final data, 2010/11 revised data) Numbers and percentages of students aged 16-181, 2, 3 achieving A*-C4 grades in mathematics5 and English6 A levels7 in Dartford constituency8, Kent local authority9 and England10Years: 2007-11 Coverage: England Numbers and percentages of students achieving A*-C grades in: Mathematics: Dartford (Number) Dartford (Percentage) Kent (Number) Kent (Percentage) England (Number) England (Percentage) English: Dartford (Numbers) Dartford (Percentage) Kent (Number) Kent (Percentage) England (Number) England (Percentage)
1

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

2009/10

2010/11

62 5.6 863 10.4 30,707 10.9

74 6.5 992 11.8 33,547 11.4

69 5.1 1,038 11.1 37,605 11.9

93 6.1 1,087 10.8 40,764 11.9

65 4.1 1,083 10.9 42,989 12.8

137 12,5 1,552 18.7 48,315 17.1

141 12.4 1,616 19.2 50,805 17.2

118 8.7 1,645 17.6 53,509 17

118 7.7 1,578 15.6 52,686 15.4

127 8.0 1,631 16.4 52,520 15.6

Percentages are based on all 16-18 year old students in each area. 2 Age at the start of the academic year, for example 31 August 2010 for the 2010/11 academic year. 3 Figures include all maintained schools (including academies and CTCs) and further education (FE) sector colleges. 4 A* grades have been included from 2009/10 onwards. 5 Includes pupils achieving an A-C grade at A level in at least one of mathematics, pure mathematics, statistics, additional mathematics or further mathematics. 6 Includes pupils achieving an A*-C grade at A level in at least one of English, English language or English literature. 7 Includes cumulative results obtained in the previous academic year. 8 Parliamentary constituency figures are based on the postcode of the school or college. 9 Local authority figures are based on the local authority maintaining the school or college or in the case of CTCs and Academies the local authority in which the school is situated. 10 England figures are the sum of all local authority figures. Source: National Pupil Database (2006/07 to 2009/10) final data, 2010/11 revised data)

1035W

Written Answers Intellectual Property

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers Remploy

1036W

Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether his Department has a role in [101252] intellectual property policy development. Tim Loughton: The overall policy lead for Intellectual Property is held by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills via the Intellectual Property Office. Many Government Departments have an interest in intellectual property, and the policy making process, including collective ministerial consideration of proposals, reflects those interests. Literacy: Teaching Methods Ian Mearns: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have applied for matched funding to purchase phonics material; and which providers they have indicated they will be purchasing [101998] from. Mr Gibb: Schools can apply for match-funding by purchasing phonics resources from a catalogue The Importance of Phonics. The catalogue includes resources from a range of providers that meet the Departments criteria for a systematic synthetic phonics programme. By 16 March 2012 around 6,710 schools had purchased phonics materials from all of the publishers included in the catalogue. Ian Mearns: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have applied for matched funding to purchase phonics material; and from which [102260] providers such materials will be purchased. Mr Gibb: Schools can apply for match-funding by purchasing phonics resources from a catalogue The Importance of Phonies. The catalogue includes resources from a range of providers that meet the Departments criteria for a systematic synthetic phonics programme. By 16 March 2012 around 6,710 schools had purchased phonics materials from all of the publishers included in the catalogue. Pupils: Disadvantaged Guy Opperman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools and pupils have received the pupil premium in (a) the north-east and (b) [101922] Hexham constituency. Sarah Teather: The following table shows the number of schools and pupils benefiting from the pupil premium in 2011-12 in the north-east and Hexham constituency.
North-east region Number of schools Number of pupils 1,068 75,190 Hexham constituency 51 679

Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent discussions his Department has had with Remploy on the procurement of goods.
[102145]

Tim Loughton: The Department has not had any recent discussions with Remploy. Schools: Admissions Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many (a) applications have been received and (b) places were available for the 2012-13 academic year in (i) free schools and (ii) all state schools. [101387] Mr Gibb: There were a total of 585,825 places in England for admission in 2012-13. We do not collect separate information for free schools. These statistics can be viewed at:
http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STA/t001061/ index.shtml

I have placed a copy of my written ministerial statement of 22 March 2012, Official Report, columns 69-70WS, relating to the statistical release, in the House Libraries. Schools: Birmingham Shabana Mahmood: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the (a) demand for and (b) supply of school places in Birmingham in the next five years. [101849] Mr Gibb [holding answer 26 March 2012]: It is the responsibility of each local authority to manage the supply and demand for primary and secondary school places in their area and secure a place for every child of statutory school age who wants one. The Department does collect information from each local authority on school capacity in maintained schools through an annual survey, which includes local authorities own pupil forecasts (five years for primary places and seven years for secondary places). The most recent survey data relates to the position at May 2011 and is available on the Department for Educations website. In this financial year (2011-12), we have made available 1.3 billion to fund school places in England. Birminghams share in 2011-12 is 17.8 million. We will continue to provide capital funding and monitor the situation with all local authorities to increase the supply of school places. Schools: Fire Extinguishers Jim Fitzpatrick: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will issue guidance to free schools on the installation of fire sprinkler systems in new school [101077] premises. Mr Gibb: We have no plans to issue guidance specifically for free schools. Free schools, like all schools, need to comply with current premises and building regulations, including the need to meet fire protection standards. A consultation on proposed changes to school premises regulations that will apply to all schools ended in January 2012. Once the results of that consultation have been thoroughly assessed, revised guidance for all schools (including free schools) will be published.

These figures do not include looked after children and service children in these areas as the final figures are not currently available.

1037W

Written Answers Schools: Inspections

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1038W

Ian Mearns: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to publish the Education (Exemption from School Inspection) (England) Regulations under section 5 of the Education Act 2005, as amended by section 40 of the Education Act 2011.
[101697]

(xiv) sociology/social studies, (xv) psychology, (xvi) media studies, (xvii) business studies, (xviii) dance, (xix) performing arts, (xx) textiles and (xxi) food technology.
[101386]

Mr Gibb: We will be publishing the Education (Exemption from School Inspection) (England) Regulations under section 5 of the Education Act 2005, as amended by section 40 of the Education Act 2011, in the summer term 2012. Ian Mearns: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what additional costs he estimates will arise for (a) Ofsted, (b) his Department and (c) local authorities as a consequence of changes proposed in the Ofsted consultation, A good education for all; and [101698] how such cost will be funded. Mr Gibb: Ofsteds consultation, A good education for all, has not yet closed, and accordingly decisions have not yet been taken on the final form of changes to school and college inspection proposed for introduction from September 2012. Schools: Sanitation Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment has been made of the standard of school toilet facilities; and whether an assessment has been made of any relationship to the incidence of continence problems in young people.
[101835]

Mr Gibb: The percentages of people recruited to secondary initial teacher training in (a) 2010/11 and (b) 2011/12 in the subjects listed are shown in the following table:
Initial teacher training: Proportions of all secondary recruits training to teach specified subjectsAcademic years 2010/11 and 2011/12 Coverage: England Percentage Subject Art Citizenship English Drama Geography Leisure and Tourism History Mathematics Modern Foreign Languages Classical Languages Religious Education Science Vocational/Diploma Subjects Sociology/Social Studies Psychology Media Studies Business Studies Dance Performing Arts Textiles Food Technology Other subjects Total 2010/11 3.0 1.4 11.4 1.8 3.7 0.2 3.3 14.4 7.9 0.2 4.4 17.8 2.1 0.6 0.6 0.3 2.9 0.6 0.0 0.2 1.0 22.0 100.0 2011/12 2.2 1.1 13.1 1.9 4.1 0.1 4.1 17.0 8.8 0.2 2.9 20.0 1.4 0.5 0.4 0.1 2.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.6 18.6 100.0

Mr Gibb [holding answer 26 March 2012]: A number of organisations have carried out studies in these areas and sent details of these among the responses to the consultation on the proposed new school premises regulations. All responses are currently being analysed by officials and relevant evidence will be taken into account when finalising the requirements for school toilet and washing facilities. Teachers: Trade Unions Mr Offord: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether local authorities can re-charge schools for the employment costs of teachers engaged [101356] in trade union activities. Mr Gibb: It is a matter for local authorities in consultation with their Schools Forums to decide what funding, if any, should be made available to support the cover needed for teachers engaged in trade union activities. Teachers: Training Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of people recruited to initial teacher training courses for secondary schools in (a) 2010-11 and (b) 2011-12 trained as teachers in (i) art, (ii) citizenship, (iii) English, (iv) drama, (v) geography, (vi) leisure and tourism, (vii) history, (viii) mathematics, (ix) modern foreign languages, (x) classical languages, (xi) religious education, (xii) science, (xiii) vocational subjects/diploma subjects,

Notes: 1. Includes all postgraduate, undergraduate, college-based and employmentbased routes of initial teacher training (ITT). 2. Includes trainees on both secondary and combined key stage 2 and 3 ITT courses. 3. Recruitment figures for 2011/12 are based on data at 1 January 2012 and are provisional. 4. The proportions shown are of all secondary ITT recruits for the period in question. 5. Science includes Biology, Chemistry, Physics and General Sciences. 6. Vocational/Diploma Subjects include Applied Information and Communications Technology, Applied Art and Design, Applied Business, Applied Science, Engineering, Creative and Media, Health and Social Care and Society Health and Personal Development. 7. Other subjects comprise Design and Technology, Graphics, Information and Communications Technology, Music, Economics, General Studies and Physical Education.

Teachers: Wales Jonathan Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions he has had with Ministers in the Welsh Government on the transfer of responsibility for the pay and conditions of teachers to [102193] the Welsh Government. Mr Gibb: The Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), has not had any discussions with Ministers in the Welsh Government on the transfer of responsibility for the pay and conditions of Welsh teachers to the Welsh Government.

1039W

Written Answers Truancy: Leeds

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1040W

Greg Mulholland: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many days of truancy were recorded in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the City of [101566] Leeds in each of the last three years. Mr Gibb: The closest measure we have to truancy is unauthorised absence. However, this includes family holidays not agreed, late arrival, other unauthorised circumstances, and no reason given, not all of which is truancy. Information on unauthorised absence in 2007/08, 2008/09 and 2009/10 is shown in the table.
Maintained primary and state-funded secondary schools1, 2: Pupil absence by type of school. Academic years 2007/08 to 2009/10 (2.5 terms). England and Leeds local authority Unauthorised absence Maintained primary schools1 Number of days missed3, 4 2007/08 England Leeds local authority 2008/09 England Leeds local authority 2009/10 England Leeds local authority
1 2

State-funded secondary schools1, 2 Number of days missed3, 4 Percentage of half days missed5

Percentage of half days missed5

2,847,740 40,360

0.57 0.57

6,553,900 153,420

1.49 2.48

3,178,660 52,430

0.64 0.74

6,501,070 156,500

1.49 2.61

Sarah Teather [holding answer 26 March 2012]: Although most school-age children have never had an alcoholic drink, and the numbers who have done so are declining, the levels of binge drinking among 15 to 16-year-olds in the UK still compare poorly with other European countries. The Governments Alcohol Strategy was published on 23 March 2011. It announced a number of further measures to tackle the issue of excessive alcohol consumption which will encourage children to delay the age at which they have their first alcoholic drink and minimise the amount of alcohol they consume if they do start drinking. The strategy outlines the action to be taken to improve alcohol education for children and young people, raise their awareness of the harms, and ensure that parents are aware of their own responsibilities and the chief medical officer for Englands guidance on alcohol consumption and young people. We will also work with regulators and industry to ensure the controls on alcohol advertising, marketing and retail continue to provide appropriate levels of protection for children and young people. As increases in the price of alcohol are linked to decreases in alcohol consumption, particularly among those who regularly drink heavily and young drinkers under 18, we will consult on the level to be set for a minimum unit price for alcohol and a proposed ban on multi-buy discounts in supermarkets and off-licences. We are also doubling the maximum fine for persistently selling alcohol to a person under 18 to 20,000 and making it easier to close down premises found to be persistently selling alcohol to young people.

WORK AND PENSIONS

3,332,700 58,660 0.67 0.82 6,297,870 160,920 1.45 2.67

Action for Employment Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether any new contracts have been let by his Department to A4e between [102112] 28 February and 27 March 2012. Chris Grayling: There have been no new contracts awarded to A4E between 28 February and 27 March 2012. Apprentices: Pay Hilary Benn: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average wage paid to apprentices undertaking one year workplace-based [100285] apprenticeships is. Mr Hayes: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Department for Education. We do not have pay broken down by apprenticeship duration. The length of an apprenticeship varies depending on prior skills levels of the apprentice, the qualification being obtained and industry sector. Generally, apprenticeships take between one and four years to complete. However, research commissioned by BIS, taken from a survey of Apprentice Pay1 undertaken between June and July 2011, of apprentices who therefore typically began their apprenticeships in 2008, 2009, and 2010,

Includes middle schools as deemed. Includes city technology colleges and academies. 3 Number of sessions missed due to unauthorised absence divided by two. 4 Number of days missed has been rounded to the nearest 10. 5 The number of sessions missed due to unauthorised absence expressed as a percentage of the total number of possible sessions. Source: School Census

The latest data on absence for the whole year (2.5 terms) is published as Statistical First Release 03/2011 Pupil Absence in Schools in England, Including Pupil Characteristics: 2009/10 at:
http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000994/ index.shtml

Information for the 2010/11 academic year will be published on 28 March 2012 in Statistical First Release 04/2012 Pupil Absence in Schools in England, Including Pupil Characteristics: 2010/11 at
http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001060/ index.shtml

Unauthorised absence rates (percentages of half days missed) will be available in Table 7.1. Young People: Alcoholic Drinks Ms Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps his Department is taking to reduce alcohol consumption by 11 to 15-year-olds who [101931] drink regularly.

1041W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1042W

shows that the average (median) gross hourly rate for paid apprentices in England was 5.83.
1

BIS Survey of Apprentice Pay 2011, published 15 March 2012.

The Department has recently implemented improved processes for dealing with child claims and should be in a position to provide information on decision outcomes and appeals for children in the next two years. Alun Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many decisions have been made by his Department to end disability living allowance in respect of those aged 16 to 18 in (a) each of the last five years and (b) 2012 to date; and in what proportion of such cases an appeal was made in respect of that [101078] decision in each such year. Maria Miller: The Department does collate information relating to decision outcomes on disability living allowance claims but cannot provide this information in respect of 16 to 18-year-olds. Published information on disability living allowance decision outcomes and appeals can be found on the following link:
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/adhoc_analysis/2011/ analysis_of_disability_living_allowance_DLA_awards.pdf

Departmental Consultants Mr Byrne: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 21 November 2011, Official Report, column 113W, on consultants, what (a) reports on implementation of universal credit and (b) other reports have been received by his Department from (i) management consultancy and (ii) [85544] audit firms since 1 January 2010. Chris Grayling: The Department has not commissioned any report on the implementation of universal credit from management consultancy and audit firms since January 2010. I have placed a list of all consultancy and audits projects commissioned (a) in 2010 before May, and (b) from May 2010 onwards in the Library. Disability Fuel Poverty Mrs McGuire: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to work with disabled people and disability organisations to ensure that the Disability Strategy is co-produced and not [101821] only consulted on. Maria Miller: Before publishing our discussion document Fulfilling Potential on 1 December 2011 we regularly met with a variety of disabled people and their organisations to co-produce the discussion exercise. Fulfilling Potential has generated over 500 written responses and the Office of Disability Issues has funded around 100 events run by disabled peoples organisations. We estimate over 5,000 disabled people have had the opportunity to put forward practical ideas for making a real difference to their lives. We are continuing to work together with disabled people and disability organisations, for example, in bespoke groups, through the Independent Living Scrutiny Group, the Disability Charities Consortium and Equality 2025, and they will be helping to analyse and take forward the responses received. Disability Living Allowance Alun Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many decisions have been made by his Department to end disability living allowance in respect of children in (a) each of the last five years and (b) 2012 to date; and in what proportion of such cases an appeal was made in respect of the decision in each [101075] such year. Maria Miller: The Department does collate information relating to decision outcomes on disability living allowance claims but currently cannot provide this information in respect of children. Published information on disability living allowance decision outcomes and appeals can be found on the following link. I will place a copy of this information in the Library.
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/adhoc_analysis/2011/ analysis_of_disability_living_allowance_DLA_awards.pdf

I will place a copy of this information in the Library.

Susan Elan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent progress he has made [102184] on reducing fuel poverty. Gregory Barker: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Department of Energy and Climate Change. DECC is committed to helping people, especially low-income vulnerable households, heat their homes more affordably. Since 2000, the Warm Front scheme has assisted 2.3 million households, providing energy efficient heating and insulation measures to households vulnerable to fuel poverty. We expect the scheme to assist a further 90,000 households between April 2011 and March 2013. In addition, the Government have introduced the Warm Home Discount scheme which requires the six largest energy companies to provide discounts on energy bills. The scheme is worth up to 1.1 billion and will run from April 2011 to March 2015, helping around two million low income and vulnerable households per year. The Government also provides winter fuel payments to pensioner households and cold weather payments to eligible households during periods of cold weather. This winter, Government have made 5,166,900 cold weather payments totalling 129,172,500. Housing Benefit Ann Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the numbers of people in work who are claiming (a) housing benefit and council tax benefit, (b) housing benefit alone and (c) council tax benefit alone.
[102274]

Steve Webb: The economic status of all housing benefit/council tax benefit (HB/CTB) recipients is not available. Information is only available for those HB/CTB recipients whose claim is not passported: that is for those who do not receive either income support, jobseekers

1043W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1044W

allowance (income-based), employment and support allowance (income-based), or pension credit (guaranteed credit). A small proportion of the passported cases will be in part-time employment. The available information is shown in the following table:
Housing benefit and council tax benefit recipients, non-passported, in employment, Great BritainDecember 2011 Total Housing benefit only Council tax benefit only Housing benefit and council tax benefit 576,220 1,501,370 4,376,030 Non-passported (standard claims) in employment 234,520 114,900 630,690

Steve Webb: This information is not available by sector. Our approach to assessing the cost and burden of automatic enrolment on business was to look at the impact on business as a whole, including the agency worker sector. The total contribution costs for all employers are estimated to be 3.3 billion each year in 2011-12 earnings terms once contributions are fully phased in. The estimated total administrative cost to all employers is 446 million in year one and 126 million in ongoing years in 2011-12 earning terms. Brandon Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will assess the financial effect of the implementation of auto-enrolment on the [101785] agency worker sector. Steve Webb: The Department is committed to a full evaluation of the impact of the workplace pension reforms on different sectors of the economy. A copy of the workplace pension reform evaluation strategy can be found here:
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2011-2012/ rrep764.pdf

Notes: 1. The data refers to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple. 2. Recipients are as at second Thursday of the month. 3. This data incorporates the local authority changes from 1 April 2009. 4. SHBE is a monthly electronic scan of claimant level data direct from local authority computer systems. It replaces quarterly aggregate clerical returns. The data is available monthly from November 2008 and December 2011 is the most recent available. 5. Passported status does not include recipients with unknown passported status. 6. These data refer to people receiving housing benefit and/or council tax benefit not in receipt of a passported benefit and are recorded as being in employment if their local authority has recorded employment income from either the main claimant, or partner of claimant (if applicable), in calculating the housing benefit award. People receiving passported benefits who are working part-time cannot be identified and are therefore not included in this analysis. 7. For those claiming both housing benefit and council tax benefit, the claimants passported and economic status have been taken from the housing benefit data. 8. Data is rounded to the nearest 10. Source: Single Housing Benefit Extract (SHBE).

I am placing a copy of this document in the Library. Pay Jonathan Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has had on the introduction of regional pay in his Department.
[102195]

Intellectual Property Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether his Department has a role [101249] in intellectual property policy development. Chris Grayling: The overall policy lead for intellectual property is held by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills via the Intellectual Property Office. The Department for Work and Pensions becomes involved insofar as intellectual property issues require collective ministerial consideration. New Enterprise Allowance Shabana Mahmood: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the level of take-up has been of the (a) New Enterprise Allowance and (b) New Enterprise Allowance Loan in Birmingham, Ladywood [101832] constituency since its introduction. Chris Grayling: I refer the hon. Member to the written answer to PQ 101191 which I gave on the 21 March 2012, Official Report, column 711W. Occupational Pensions Brandon Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the (a) cost and (b) administrative burden of introducing auto-enrolment for the agency worker [101784] sector.

Chris Grayling: DWP entered the pay freeze in 2010 and will exit it this year. We are actively engaged with Cabinet Office and other Government Departments regarding principles for reform and an agreed view of the market rates and metrics for different roles in different locations. We will then develop our strategy for local market facing pay, as set out in the pay guidance issued by the Treasury. Personal Income Debbie Abrahams: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the (a) median and (b) mean income was of households with (i) no children, (ii) one child, (iii) two children, (iv) three children, (v) four children, (vi) five children and (vii) more than five children on the latest date for which information is [101761] available. Maria Miller: The Households Below Average Income (HBAI) series uses household income adjusted (or equivalised) for household size and composition, to provide a proxy for standard of living. The HBAI data are sourced from the Family Resources Survey (FRS) and can be used to estimate mean and median income of households of differing compositions. For 2009-10, the most recent year for which statistics are available, median and mean weekly equivalised (Table 1) and unequivalised (Table 2) incomes are shown for households with different numbers of children.

1045W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1046W

Table 1: Median and mean weekly equivalised household incomes Before Housing Costs by number of children in the household, United Kingdom, 2009-10 Median No children One child Two children Three children Four children Five children or more Source: Family Resources Survey 2009-10, DWP Table 2: Median and mean weekly unequivalised household incomes Before Housing Costs by number of children in the household, United Kingdom, 2009-10 Median No children One child Two children Three children Four children Five children or more 362 502 544 540 551 531 Mean 482 641 698 797 830 565 415 408 384 331 291 246 Mean

how their disability or health condition affects them in all the activities, in writing and at a face-to-face consultation where one is required. Remploy

512 509 482 474 440 260

Susan Elan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what incentives he plans to offer to local businesses to employ disabled people made redundant by Remploy. [101575] Maria Miller: We are committed to providing a comprehensive package of personalised support for every disabled member of staff who is affected by these announcements. The support package is designed to be flexible so that support is tailored to meet each individuals specific needs, including providing support to help people who have difficulties fitting into mainstream employment and includes access to other work related opportunities available from Remploy and Jobcentre Plus employer networks. We will also be working with employers, including local employers, and the Employers Forum on Disability to look to offer targeted work opportunities for displaced staff. Additionally through referral to existing back-to-work support including Access to Work, individuals and employers will receive additional advice and support with extra costs which may arise because of an individuals needs. We want disabled people to be treated in the same way as any other person in the workplace. Businesses will be able to access the same incentives to employ displaced Remploy disabled employees as are available for other workers. Remploy: Wales Susan Elan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assistance he has offered to Remploy factories in Wales to become more profitable.
[101574]

Notes: 1. These statistics are based on Households Below Average Income (HBAI) data sourced from the 2009-10 Family Resources Survey (FRS), available at: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbai_arc This uses disposable household income, adjusted using modified OECD equivalisation factors for household size and composition, as an income measure as a proxy for standard of living. 2. The income measure used in Table 2 is unequivalised, i.e. it has not been adjusted for household size and composition. This is because the groups requested are based on household size and composition, and in this specific instance, equivalisation would cloud the comparison between household types. This means that the statistics presented are on a different basis to those in the HBAI publication. 3. Net disposable incomes have been used to answer the question. This includes earnings from employment and self-employment, state support, income from occupational and private pensions, investment income and other sources. Income tax, payments, national insurance contributions, council tax/domestic rates and some other payments are deducted from incomes. 4. Figures have been presented on a Before Housing Cost basis. For Before Housing Costs, housing costs are not deducted from income, while for After Housing Costs they are. 5. All estimates are based on survey data and are therefore subject to a degree of uncertainty. Small differences should be treated with caution as these will be affected by sampling error and variability in non-response. Information on households with six or more children have been combined with households with five children due to small sample sizes. 6. The reference period for HBAI figures is the financial year. 7. Incomes are presented in 2009-10 prices and have been rounded to the nearest pound. 8. A household will consist of one or more families and therefore the households being considered may be a combination of families with and without dependent children. Families are defined as a single adult or couple living as married and any dependent children, including same sex couples (civil partnerships and cohabitees) from January 2006. A household is made up of one of more families. Source: Family Resources Survey 2009-10, DWP

Personal Independence Payment Sheila Gilmore: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will take steps to ensure that the application form for personal independence payment will ask for information on peoples difficulties with (a) communication and (b) mobility.
[102224]

Maria Miller: Communication and mobility needs cover three of the 11 activities against which the assessment for entitlement to personal independence payment will be made. We will be asking claimants to personal independence payment to explain in their own words

Maria Miller: Following publication of the 2008 Modernisation Plan, a great deal of work was taken forward across Government to increase public procurement opportunities for supported businesses. This activity raised awareness and increased opportunities as part of the 555 million of investment through the modernisation plan. It is clear that the performance targets for the factories set out in its plan will not be met. Independent advice has demonstrated that many of the businesses will never even break even. Remploy has started collective consultation with trade unions and the management forums on the proposed closure of the 36 factories that the Remploy Board considers (subject to consultation) are unlikely to be able to break even. Remploy will look carefully at proposals for the exit of any parts of the Remploy businesses currently subject to consultation along with any other proposals for avoiding compulsory redundancies. As part of this process the Remploy Board would be happy to discuss any proposals for Remploy factories in Wales/Scotland identified in stage 1.

1047W

Written Answers Social Security Benefits: Fraud

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1048W

Andrew Percy: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of people who are claiming benefits to which they are not entitled by (a) region, (b) sex and (c) age; what estimate he has made of the cost to the Exchequer of such claims; and what measures are being put in place [102154] to reduce that number. Chris Grayling: The information requested is not available because the National Statistics that provide estimates of the level of fraud and error across the benefit system are based on a sample of claims. The sample survey is designed to provide data at a national level, and cannot produce robust results at a regional level of detail, or by sex and age. Unemployed People: Travel Andrew Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Flexible Support Fund in helping [101638] people find work. Chris Grayling: The Flexible Support Fund will be evaluated as part of the overall Jobcentre Plus support evaluation. District managers have local information which they use to identify and prioritise local spend, contributing to effective local solutions for tackling the issues that help to meet DWPs objectives. Universal Credit Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 7 November 2011, Official Report, column 65W, on universal credit, how much of the 2 billion allocated to the introduction of universal credit he estimates will be spent in 2012-13; and how much of that will be spent on (a) increases in benefit expenditure, (b) additional benefit administration costs in the transition period, (c) IT development and implementation, (d) communications, (e) staff training and (f) programme [101860] management. Chris Grayling: It is estimated that a total of 332 million will be spent in 2012-13 on universal credit. This will be spent on IT development, programme management, implementation planning, communications and staff training in preparation for the launch of a universal credit pathfinder at the start of 2013-14. The initial breakdown of the total budget between these headings is still the subject of final discussions and is not yet available. Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 7 November 2011, Official Report, column 65W, on universal credit, how much of the 105 million allocated to the introduction of universal credit which is to be spent in 2011-12 will be spent on (a) increases in benefit expenditure, (b) additional benefit administration costs in the transition period, (c) IT development and implementation, (d) communications, (e) staff training and (f) programme [101861] management.

Chris Grayling: Of the 105 million allocated to the introduction of universal credit in 2011-12, we expect 79 million will have been spent on IT related development with the balance being spent on programme management and implementation planning, subject to finalisation of year end accounts. Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects to announce what role local authorities will play in delivering universal [102219] credit; and if he will make a statement. Chris Grayling: The universal credit programme team are currently working with the Local Government Association, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Welsh Local Government Association in order to develop proposals for how local authorities will fit into the delivery model for universal credit. We will be able to describe the outcome over the next months. Work Capability Assessment Teresa Pearce: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the value is of payments made to ATOS in respect of the Harrington changes to work capability assessments for employment and support [102105] allowance claims. Chris Grayling: To date payments made to ATOS for the changes to the work capability assessment for employment support allowance in order to implement the changes recommended by Professor Harrington are 3.58 million. In the period April 2010 to March 2011 the total cost of running the Atos Medical Services contract was 112.8 million.

DEFENCE Afghanistan Mr Douglas Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the US Secretary of Defense since his statement on American forces ending their combat role in 2013. [99679] Mr Philip Hammond: I have regular and routine discussions with the US Defense Secretary on a range of issues. There is no substantive difference between the United States approach in Afghanistan and our own. Both the US and the UK are committed to the strategy agreed at the Lisbon summit in 2010 and which NATO Defence Ministers reaffirmed on 2 February 2012. Stephen Barclay: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many supply and re-supply operations there have been to Afghanistan since (a) operations began and (b) January 2011; and what the cost of [101836] those operations was in each period. Nick Harvey [holding answer 26 March 2012]: It will take time to compile the information held by the Ministry of Defence about the number of movements to transport supplies to and from Afghanistan. I will write to the hon. Member once the information has been collated.

1049W

Written Answers Air Force: Languages

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1050W

Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF pilots have learnt foreign [101843] languages as part of the carrier programme. Mr Robathan [holding answer 26 March 2012]: No RAF pilots have undergone a foreign language training course as part of the Carrier Enabled Power Projection programme. Air Travel Mr Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions he has taken flights to overseas countries on official business since August 2010; what class of travel was used on each such flight; and by whom he was accompanied on each such flight.
[99394]

reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed. The Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), will announce the outcome of this process at the earliest opportunity. Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the (a) cost and (b) time period of installation will be of installing catapult and arrestor gear on one Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier.
[101175]

Mr Philip Hammond: Details of all Ministers overseas visits, including the cost of flights and number of officials accompanying the Minister, are published every quarter on the Ministry of Defence website at:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/ CorporatePublications/FinancialReports/Expenses/ MinistersHospitalityReceived.htm

Peter Luff: I am withholding the information as its disclosure would prejudice commercial interests. We are currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the equipment plan. As part of this process we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed. The Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), expects to announce the outcome of this process to Parliament at the earliest opportunity. Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) at the time of the Strategic Defence and Security Review, what the estimated cost was of installing catapult and arrestor gear on one Queen [101176] Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier; (2) whether it is his intention that the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers will be fitted with the US [101180] Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System. Peter Luff: We are currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the Equipment plan. As part of this process we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed. The Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), expects to announce the outcome of this process to Parliament at the earliest opportunity. Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what weight of jet is able to take off from the [101816] French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. Peter Luff: The UK co-operates closely with France on a number of collaborative programmes; but we are unable to comment on the technical specification of other nations capabilities. Armed Forces Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what guidance he has issued to members of the armed forces on contact with hon. Members;
[101115]

The Secretary of State is accompanied by a Private Secretary, and a special adviser and officials if the business requires. Section 10 of the Ministerial Code provides guidance on travel for Ministers and makes clear that Ministers must ensure that they always make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. Aircraft Carriers Mr Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of cats and traps on the Queen Elizabeth [99133] Class aircraft carriers. Peter Luff [holding answer 12 March 2012]: We are currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the equipment plan. As part of this process we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed. The Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), expects to announce the outcome of this process to Parliament at the earliest opportunity. Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent examination he has made of the comparative cost of (a) fitting catapults and arrestor gear to one of the future carriers and (b) acquiring instead short take-off and vertical landing aircraft for use on either of the carriers; whether both carriers would be used in the fixed-wing strike aircraft role if VSTOL aircraft were acquired for the Fleet Air Arm; what assessment he has made of the potential effects this would have on the availability of a continuous fixed-wing carrier-strike capability; and if he will make [100397] a statement. Peter Luff [holding answer 26 March 2012]: We are currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the equipment plan. As part of this process we are

(2) what discussions (a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department have had on the rules governing contact between hon. Members and members of the armed [101116] forces; (3) whether his Department has changed the rules governing contact between hon. Members and members of the armed forces in the last 12 months.
[101117]

1051W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1052W

Mr Philip Hammond [holding answer 20 March 2012]: There have been no changes to the rules governing contact between hon. Members and members of the armed forces. A Defence Instruction and Notice (DIN) was published on 8 March 2012, sponsored by the Permanent Secretary, which brought together in one document the extant rules and authorisation procedures for Ministry of Defence employees having contact with parliamentarians. It also provided MOD employees conducting parliamentary business with a list of points of contact within the Department. A copy of the document has been placed in the Library of the House. Armed Forces: Police Graeme Morrice: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the role of defence community police officers and the services they provide to members of the armed forces [101751] and their families. Nick Harvey: We consulted last year on proposals to focus the Ministry of Defence police defence community police officers on the Army garrisons where the greatest benefit was derived from their presence. I refer the hon. Member to the written statement made today by the Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), that includes proposals for further changes. Armed Forces: Scotland Sandra Osborne: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of UK armed forces are [101468] Scottish regiments. Nick Harvey: Of the 141 Regular Regiments/Battalions in the British Army, nine draw their historical origin from Scotland. These are:
The Royal Scots Borderers, 1st Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland (1 SCOTS) The Royal Highland Fusiliers, 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland (2 SCOTS) The Black Watch, 3rd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland (3 SCOTS) The Highlanders, 4th Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland (4 SCOTS) The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, 5th Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland (5 SCOTS) 1st Battalion Scots Guards The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards 19th Regiment Royal Artillery (The Highland Gunners) 40th Regiment Royal Artillery (The Lowland Gunners).

in June 2011. I anticipate that the implementation of NATOs Ballistic Missile Defence capability will be assessed at the forthcoming Chicago summit in May. The ballistic missile early warning capability at RAF Fylingdales has been fully operational since 1963. Falkland Islands Mrs Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the potential effects of the privatisation of search and rescue services in the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement; [102094] (2) how many military helicopters will be stationed in the Falkland Islands following the privatisation of search and rescue services; and if he will make a [102097] statement; (3) what consideration he has given to retaining military search and rescue capability in the Falkland Islands following the privatisation of search and rescue [102098] services; and if he will make a statement. Nick Harvey: The current search and rescue helicopter service in the Falkland Islands is provided by the RAF using Sea King helicopters, which will go out of service no later than 31 March 2016. The Ministry of Defence is currently examining alternative means of supplying a search and rescue helicopter capability in the Falkland Islands from 2016 onwards. This project will consider all options to determine which would best deliver this capability, and no decisions have yet been made. Intellectual Property Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has a role in [101246] intellectual property policy development. Peter Luff: The overall policy lead for intellectual property is held by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills via the intellectual property office. The Ministry of Defence has an interest in copyright, registered and unregistered designs, trade marks and patents. We work closely with the intellectual property office in these areas. Intelligence and Security Committee Fabian Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether members of the Intelligence and Security Committee are given full access by the US authorities to (a) the inner Operations area, (b) other parts of the Operations area and (c) other areas of [101738] NSA Menwith Hill. Nick Harvey: The Intelligence and Security Committee does not comment on the details of its work programme. Where appropriate it publishes information on visits it has undertaken in its annual reports. Fabian Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when members of (a) the Intelligence and Security Committee, (b) the Joint Intelligence Committee, (c) the Assessment Staff, (d) the Intelligence, Security and Resilience Group, (e) the Defence Intelligence Staff, (f) the Joint Intelligence Organisation, (g) the National Security Secretariat in

Defence Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to achieve interim (a) missile defence capability and (b) alert capability of a missile [95358] attack. Nick Harvey: The UK has no indigenous ballistic missile defence capability. However, we are party to the decisions made at the NATO Lisbon summit in November 2010 and the NATO Ballistic Missile Defence Action Plan as approved by NATO Defence Ministers

1053W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers Military Aircraft

1054W

the Cabinet Office, (h) Defence Intelligence in the Ministry of Defence and (i) the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism in the Home Office last visited NSA Menwith Hill; and what the (i) names of the [101739] visitors and (ii) dates of the visits were. Nick Harvey: We do not comment on the work programme of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Where appropriate the Committee publishes information on visits it has undertaken in its annual reports. We do not comment on the detailed day to day workings of members of intelligence organisations. Iraq Conflict: Depleted Uranium Katy Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many pieces of Iraqi military equipment were destroyed using depleted uranium ammunition by coalition forces during the 2003 Iraq conflict; and how many of these (a) have been made inaccessible to [101970] civilians and (b) remain in urban areas. Nick Harvey: There is no record of the quantity of Iraqi military equipment destroyed using depleted uranium (DU) ammunition by UK armed forces. There is no requirement for and no central records are held of military equipment destroyed by UK armed forces beyond that for necessary operational analysis. In the UK area of operations, the practice was for destroyed, broken down and abandoned equipment to be secured at the Al Basrah International and Shaibah airfields. Control of this equipment and of any that may remain elsewhere is the responsibility of the Government of Iraq. Details relating to other coalition forces are matters for them alone. Our own reports and scientific consensus conclude DU intakes are only likely to be a concern for those in or on vehicles at the time they are struck by DU munitions or for those who enter immediately afterwards. Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the F-35B joint strike fighter variant will be able to fire advanced medium range air-air missiles.
[101916]

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to lease additional C-17 aircraft to transport equipment from Afghanistan. [101696] Peter Luff: There are no plans to lease additional C-17 aircraft to transport equipment from Afghanistan. As the Prime Minister announced in Parliament on 8 February 2012, Official Report, columns 300-01, the Ministry of Defence has purchased an eighth C-17 which is due to be delivered in July 2012, and will be able to transport equipment from Afghanistan as well as a wide range of other tasks. Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions a foreign-requested aircraft has provided search and rescue assistance over UK territorial waters in the last five years; what role each aircraft played; and what the location of each [101744] incident was. Nick Harvey: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 23 November 2010, Official Report, column 224W. Since 23 November 2010 to 21 March 2012 there has been one occasion where a foreign aircraft was requested to provide search and rescue assistance over UK territorial waters. On 25 November 2011, a helicopter from the Republic of Ireland assisted with the medical rescue of a crewman from a fishing vessel 12 nautical miles East of Downpatrick in Northern Ireland. This aircraft was tasked as the condition of the casualty required use of the closest possible asset. Military Bases Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost is of the relocation of [101721] Waterbeach Barracks to Kinloss. Mr Robathan [holding answer 26 March 2012]: I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 6 March 2012, Official Report, column 646W, to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the relocation of Waterbeach [101722] Barracks to Kinloss was brought forward. Mr Robathan [holding answer 26 March 2012]: In the Defence Transformation announcement of 18 July 2011, the previous Secretary of State for Defence said that we would place Army units in Kinloss in around 2014-15, subject to further detailed planning. He also said that we planned to vacate and dispose of Waterbeach by 2014-15. In November 2011, we announced that 39 Engineer Regiment (Air Support) would move from Waterbeach to Kinloss in the summer of 2012 and, consistent with this, we anticipate this move will take place in July. The RAF had always intended vacating Kinloss by 31 March 2013, thereby creating space for the Army. The summer 2012 timeline was governed by the need for Army personnel to access secondary education at the

Peter Luff: All three joint strike fighter variant aircraft (F-35A, F-35B and F-35C) are capable of firing the AIM-120 advanced medium range air-to-air missile. Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who attended the Joint Strike Fighter Executive Steering Board Meeting in Sydney on [101992] 15 March 2012; and what was discussed. Peter Luff: Rear-Admiral H. H. Parker represented the Department at the recent Joint Strike Fighter Executive Steering Board (JSFESB) Meeting in Sydney, as Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) Carrier Enabled Power Projection. The JSFESB exercises executive level guidance and oversight of the JSF programme.

1055W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1056W

correct time and has also allowed the continuation of local schools and services in the area. The move has also been timed to fit around 39 Engineer Regiment (Air Support) operational commitments and has the added benefit of allowing the Army to take advantage of the RAFs knowledge of the site and local issues, thereby helping the Army to integrate into the community. Ministry of Defence Police Sir Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Ministry of Defence Police are based at Colchester Garrison.
[101359]

Nick Harvey: The shuttle bus that runs between Harrogate and RAF Menwith Hill is funded by the US authorities. Somalia: Piracy Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many suspicious vessels UK armed forces have intercepted off the Somali coast in the last 12 months. [100531] Nick Harvey: In the 12 months to 23 March 2011, there have been 13 incidents in which the Royal Navy has intercepted vessels suspected of being involved in piracy off the Horn of Africa. Syria Karen Lumley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to work with the US Administration to resolve the situation in [102038] Syria. Nick Harvey: The Ministry of Defence has regular engagement with our US counterparts on defence and security related issues, including ongoing events in Syria. Taxis Jon Trickett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent on taxis for (a) Ministers and (b) civil servants between August [101407] 2011 and January 2012. Mr Robathan: The Defence Ministers spent 337 on taxis between 1 August 2011 and 31 January 2012. Taxi fares reimbursed to civil servants are not recorded separately from fares incurred for travel by bus or on the underground. Ministry of Defence staff may only use a taxi for official duty when there is a business benefit to the Department or when it saves money. A taxi is typically used where no other suitable form of public transport is available or where heavy baggage or equipment has to be carried. TRANSPORT Cycling: Safety Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will publish data on public perceptions of the safety of cycling in each local authority area.
[102088]

Mr Robathan: There are currently two Ministry of Defence Police constables, based at Colchester Garrison. This will reduce to one police constable from 1 April 2012. Essex police retain primacy for the Colchester Garrison area. In addition, there are two Royal Military Police elements present, comprising approximately 90 military police personnel. Graeme Morrice: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has considered reducing the number of Ministry of Defence police [101515] officers at HMNB Clyde. Mr Robathan: The Ministry of Defence (MOD) keeps its security arrangements under close review at all times to ensure that these are appropriate, proportionate and are met as cost-effectively as possible. There are no current plans to reduce the core MOD police role at Her Majestys Naval Base Clyde. The security of our nuclear establishments remains our highest priority and we would never contemplate changes that would place these in jeopardy. Nuclear Power Stations: Safety Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role was played by the RAF Regiment radiation monitoring team in Japan following the accident at Fukushima in March 2011; and what the cost was of [101255] the deployment of this team. Nick Harvey: A three-man RAF Regiment radiation monitoring team, along with a Ministry of Defence health physicist, deployed to the British embassy in Tokyo from 21 March to 21 April 2011. They conducted air and soil sampling around the embassy and local area and monitored equipment and vehicles for contamination to advise and reassure embassy staff. The team also devised plans to protect UK personnel working at the embassy in the event of a further release from Fukushima. The team were tasked solely on a UK national basis to support British embassy staff and to assist with providing advice to British citizens in Japan. The cost to the MOD was approximately 20,000. RAF Menwith Hill Fabian Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who pays for the operation of the Menwith Hill shuttle bus that runs between NSA Menwith Hill [101740] and Harrogate.

Mike Penning: The Department for Transport sponsors a set of questions on the NatCen British Social Attitudes survey. This contains questions on peoples confidence about cycling on the roads and whether they believe it is too dangerous for them to cycle on the roads. In 2011, this survey achieved interviews with 3,311 adults in Great Britain. This response is not large enough to produce robust statistical estimates at a local authority level. However, national results are available in the report at
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/2011-british-socialattitudes-survey-attitudes-to-transport/bsa-2011-report.pdf

(pages 18-19) and in these tables

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/tables/att0321.xls

1057W and

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1058W

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/tables/att0322.xls

sample sizes for these results means that many of the apparent differences are not statistically significant.

Results for the English regions, Scotland and Wales are presented in the following table. The relatively small
Percentage North East How confident would you say you feel about cycling on the roads? Very confident Fairly confident Not very confident Not at all confident Dont know It is too dangerous for me to cycle on the roads Agree strongly Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Disagree strongly Dont know Proportion of cyclists1 Number of responses 31 34 12 31 32 14 30 29 17 27 36 16 31 33 16 25 31 17 36 23 11 22 35 16 28 32 14 32 33 11 24 32 17 37 30 15 30 32 15 9 20 32 40 9 21 33 36 9 23 26 39 3 12 20 28 40 1 8 22 34 33 3 11 23 33 33 21 22 17 40 12 26 30 30 2 9 25 28 38 0 11 13 36 39 1 13 21 28 36 1 5 19 34 41 2 10 21 30 37 1 North West Yorkshire and Humberside East Midlands West Midlands Inner London Outer London South East Great Britain

SW

Eastern

Wales

Scotland

18 4 26

18 5 28

18 3 2 24

19 1 1 31

15 3 2 31

22 4 38

22 7 29

17 8 2 25

24 2 37

19 5 33

23 2 1 28

15 3 29

19 4 1 31

165

414

261

272

321

353

133

210

453

277

179

273

3,311

Indicates value is negligible (less than half the final digit presented) 1 Has access to a bicycle and cycled at least once in the previous 12 months Source: NatCen British Social Attitudes survey, 2011

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps she is taking to encourage non-London local authorities and the Highways Agency to identify and prioritise junctions where cycle [102089] safety improvements are most needed. Mike Penning: We take the issue of cycle safety very seriously. The Department for Transport collects data on all personal injury road accidents reported to the police. Data on all individual accidents in the years 2005-10 is available to download at
http://data.gov.uk/dataset/road-accidents-safety-data

analysing the data to identify areas where high numbers of cycling accidents have occurred. I, along with my colleague the Minister for Cycling, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), have recently written to all local highway authorities in England explaining what the Government are doing on cycling and cycle safety and also what action they could consider taking in their areas. Furthermore, the safety sub-group of the Cycling Stakeholder Forum, which brings together government, cycling groups and local authority representatives has already started looking into the issue of road sharing. Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will make it her policy to keep Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority data services in the [102315] UK; and if she will make a statement.

Data for 2011 will be uploaded in late summer. These data are used widely by local authorities across Great Britain to target safety improvement work on the roads they manage. Departmental officials are also currently

1059W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1060W

Mike Penning: All the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agencys data services are currently carried out within the UK and there are no plans to change this. Although users of this data can apply to access this data from abroad, no data storage would be allowed and access would only be permitted under a very strict control framework. One such case has recently been put forward and is being considered. High Speed 2 Railway Line Andrea Leadsom: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the route options for the Y route of HS2 proposed by HS2 Ltd will be published. [100512] Justine Greening [holding answer 20 March 2012]: I expect to publish the advice from HS2 Ltd at the same time as announcing my initial preferred route and station options later this year. Andrea Leadsom: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment she has made of the effects on local businesses of the construction of HS2; and what estimate she has made of the number of such businesses likely to close as a result of HS2 [100513] construction. Justine Greening [holding answer 20 March 2012]: We will seek to minimise the effects of construction works on continued trading by local businesses, wherever possible. Where business premises have to be wholly or partly acquired then the owners have a statutory right to compensation that will reflect their relocation costs and their interest in the property. As was set out in the documents accompanying my decision to proceed with HS2, the Government have already committed to a comprehensive code of construction practice. We will consult on the detail of this, during 2013. Intellectual Property Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether her Department has a role in [102278] intellectual property policy development. Norman Baker: The Governments overall policy lead for intellectual property is held by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills via the Intellectual Property Office. My Department becomes involved in so far as intellectual property issues require collective ministerial consideration. Large Goods Vehicles: Fees and Charges Laura Sandys: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans her Department has for the revenue raised from charging foreign HGVs to use the [101350] UK road network. Mike Penning: The proposed lorry road user charge is defined as a tax so, in common with all other taxes, revenue goes into the consolidated fund. Decisions on how revenue is allocated to Government Departments are made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, independently of how money is raised. As I set out to the House in my written statement of 25 January 2012, Official Report, columns 19-20WS,

the Government will come forward with measures to offset, as far as possible, the additional user charges for UK hauliers through reductions in other taxes, duties or charges they currently face, or through appropriate spending measures. Olympic Games 2012 Mr Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment she has made of the possibility of increased congestion and delays at British airports before, during and immediately after the London 2012 Olympics; and if she will make a statement. [101775] Mrs Villiers [holding answer 26 March 2012]: My Department has commissioned work to assess the likely demand for air travel during the Olympics period and the capacity of airports and airspace to accommodate this level of demand. Our expectation is that the projected level of additional demand can be accommodated providing the available airport and airspace capacity are carefully managed. My Department has therefore been working with the CAA, NATS, LOCOG, Border Force, other Government Departments, airports, airlines and other aviation providers to ensure that a wide range of measures is in place to achieve this. These include, among others, slot controls at 40 airports and airfields across southern England during the Olympics period, the creation of additional temporary controlled airspace, the construction of a temporary games terminal at Heathrow and the deployment of additional Border Force staff at airports. Railways: Fares Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if she will estimate the change in income from rail fares that would arise from changing the cap on fare increases from retail prices index (RPI) plus [101935] three per cent. to RPI minus one per cent; (2) if she will assess the financial effects on (a) the public purse, (b) train operating companies and (c) Network Rail of changing the cap on rail fare increases from retail prices index (RPI) plus three per cent. to [101936] RPI minus one per cent. Mrs Villiers: We have no current plans to estimate the revenue effects of such changes to the cap on regulated fares. As we set out in the Rail Command Paper, we are committed to tackling the 2.5 billion to 3.5 billion of inefficiencies in the rail system we inherited. Once those savings are realised and the improvement in the wider economic situation permits, we plan to reduce and then abolish above-inflation rises in average regulated fares. Rescue Services Mrs Ellman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many leisure vessels have received assistance from each of the maritime rescue [101742] co-ordination centres in the last five years. Mike Penning: The following table provides the number of incidents that have involved leisure vessels over the last five calendar years by each maritime rescue co-ordination centre (MRCC). The Maritime and

1061W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1062W
Number

Coastguard Agency does not hold data in a format which specifically breaks down the number of leisure vessels involved in each incident.
Leisure incidents1 by MRCC, 2007-11 MRCC Aberdeen Belfast Brixham Clyde Dover Falmouth Forth Holyhead Humber Liverpool London Milford Haven Portland Shetland Solent Stornoway Swansea Thames Yarmouth Total
1

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

0 1 2 2 2

2007 114 161 443 254 117 209 91 204 206 193 63 149 383 22 727 38 230 378 184 4,166

2008 56 131 415 231 122 274 49 185 163 175 49 156 398 32 653 50 205 339 151 3,834

2009 82 170 406 302 197 271 107 264 194 211 62 127 415 22 801 57 232 415 180 4,515

2010 96 143 443 268 173 318 92 214 209 205 85 176 374 26 806 61 232 393 178 4,492

2011 92 145 472 330 198 309 63 209 224 174 66 136 405 27 906 52 242 416 180 4,646

CABINET OFFICE Business Appointments Advisory Committee Mr Jenkin: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office whether he or his Department have provided any briefing or other guidance to witnesses other than Ministers appearing before the Select Committee on Public Administration in connection with its inquiry on the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and what the names and job titles are of the (a) witnesses and (b) officials responsible for the [102062] briefing. Mr Maude: When requested, officials provided witnesses with copies of links to publicly available material. Manpower Mr Thomas: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many staff in his Department are responsible for cross-Whitehall policy on commissioning and procurement; and if he will make a [98805] statement. Mr Maude: Since June 2010 the number of staff working in the central Efficiency and Reform Group has reduced by over 25%. The cost of running the Government Procurement Service this year is down by more than a quarter compared with 2010-11. This Government are ensuring that we do more with fewer people: the Group, working across Whitehall, helped drive 3.75 billion of cash savings for the taxpayer last year and is on track to make another 5 billion of savings this year. Last years savings included 357 million from centralising procurement and a further 295 million. On 1 March 2012 there were around 49 full-time equivalents (FTE) in the central Efficiency and Reform Group working on procurement projects, including those relating to commissioning. Stephen Barclay: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many people are employed in interim posts by the Department, or a non-ministerial department or arms length body controlled by his Department through (a) Penna Consulting, (b) Reed Personnel Services and (c) Capita Resourcing Ltd (trading as Veredus); how many such people have been in post for [102106] over a year; and how many are full-time. Mr Maude: The Cabinet Office, including its nonministerial departments and arms length bodies currently employs no interim staff contracted from these agencies. There are six temporary staff from Reed doing clerical work; three have been here longer than 12 months.

Leisure vessel incidents (including sail, motorboat, dinghy, rowing, vessel angling). Source: UKSAR Vision database (MCA).

Mrs Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many (a) training and (b) flying hours will be stipulated in the contract to provide search and [102093] rescue services. Mike Penning: The future contract requires a total of 50 flying hours for Search and Rescue role flying training per month to be completed at each base. The requirement includes the provision of training for normal and abnormal situations e.g. dunker training and simulator training. Any training above 50 hours will be a cost for the contractor to meet. Or they will be able to seek a variation to the contract at a later date. Traffic Penalty Tribunal James Wharton: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many staff the Traffic Penalty Tribunal employed on a (a) full-time equivalent and (b) headcount basis in the latest period for which [101349] figures are available; (2) what correspondence her Department received on the Traffic Penalty Tribunal in each of the last five [101351] years. Norman Baker: Information about staffing levels is not held by the Department for Transport. Information about the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) is available at:
http://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk

In the last five years, the Department has received a total of seven items of correspondence on the TPT, broken down as follows:

1063W

Written Answers Statistics

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1064W

Paul Uppal: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office pursuant to the answer of 12 March 2012, Official Report, column 56W, on Homes and Communities Agency: statistics, (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the UK Statistics Authority guidance on communicating notifications under section 16 of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and any guidance on the practice of [102143] pre-releasing notifications; (2) on what date the Board of the UK Statistics Authority took the decision under section 16 of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 to write to the Minister of State for Housing and Local Government and to make a notification; and whether that decision was made at a formal meeting of the [102144] Board. Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply. Letter from Sir Michael Scholar KCB, dated March 2012:
As Chair of the UK Statistics Authority, I am replying to your questions asking (i) for a copy of the UK Statistics Authority guidance on communicating notifications under section 16 of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and any guidance on the practice of pre-releasing notifications [102143] and (ii) on what date the Board of the UK Statistics Authority took the decision under section 16 of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 to write to the Minister of State for Housing and Local Government and to make a notification; and if that decision was made at a formal meeting of the Board [102144] Section 16 of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 sets out the requirements placed on the UK Statistics Authority (referred to as the Statistics Board in the Act) in respect of the process for making notifications under that section. The Statistics Authority complies with these requirements in all cases, The Statistics Authority ensures that all notifications under this section are laid before Parliament as the Act requires. Once the notification has been laid, a copy is placed on the Authoritys website. The Authoritys notification to the Minister of State for Housing and Local Government in respect of statistics produced by the Homes and Communities Agency and the Tenant Services Authority was sent to the Minister on 6 December 2011, laid before the House on 7 December 2011, and published on the Authoritys website on 8 December 2011. As Chair of the UK Statistics Authority I took the decision, following discussions within the Authority, to make a notification to the Minister of State for Housing and Local Government under section 16 of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 in respect of statistics produced by the Homes and Communities Agency and the Tenant Services Authority. This was reported to the Authority Board at its meeting on 16 December 2011. Under section 16 of the Act, the Minister, as the appropriate authority, is required to provide the Statistics Authority with a statement as to whether he intends to make a request for such an assessment. No reply has yet been received.

Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply. Letter from Stephen Penneck, dated March 2012:
As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking what estimate has been made of the (a) number and (b) proportion of households in (i) England and (ii) each constituency in England which spent more than 10 per cent of their income on transport costs in the latest period for which figures are available. (102050) The table provided shows the number and proportion of households in England whose expenditure on transport exceeded 10 percent of their disposable income in 2009-10, the latest period available. For comparison, two measures of expenditure on transport are used. The first covers all transport costs including the purchase of vehicles, vehicle running costs including fuel and servicing, plus rail/ bus, coach and airfares. The second measure of expenditure excludes vehicle purchases. The disposable income estimates are taken from the ONS analysis The Effects of Taxes and Benefits on Household Income. This analysis is based on data from the Living Costs and Food Survey (LCF), which is a sample survey covering approximately 5,000 households in the UK. The LCF has been used for this response because it collects both income and expenditure data. Estimates by parliamentary constituency are not available due to small sample sizes. The estimates provided, as with any involving sample surveys, are subject to a margin of uncertainty.
Table 1: Households where expenditure on transport exceeds 10% of disposable income1, England, 2009-10 Households where expenditure exceeds 10% of disposable income Average weekly expenditure () All travel expenditure Travel expenditure excluding vehicle purchases
1

Percentage 37.9 26.1

Number of households (million) 8.22 5.67

60.20 40.10

Household disposable income is income from employment, occupational pensions, investments and other non-government sources, plus cash benefits, less direct taxes. Notes: 1. All travel expenditure includes purchases of vehicles, spares and accessories, fuel, servicing and other motoring expenses, train, bus and coach tickets, air fares, taxis and other transport costs. 2. Analysis based on a sample of 4,321 households in England. Source: Effects of Taxes and Benefits and Living Costs and Food survey, Office for National Statistics

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT Affordable Housing: Birmingham Shabana Mahmood: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many affordable homes have been (a) begun and (b) completed in Birmingham, Ladywood constituency [102171] since May 2010. Andrew Stunell: Data are not available at constituency level. There were 658 starts and 1,342 completions of affordable homes in Birmingham City local authority between April 2010 and September 2011, the latest period for which data are available, as reported in the Homes and Communities Agencys six monthly National Housing Statistics. These statistics only cover affordable housing that is delivered through the Homes and Communities Agencys affordable housing programmes;

Transport: Costs Lilian Greenwood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what estimate he has made of the (a) number and (b) proportion of households in (i) England and (ii) each constituency in England which spent more than 10 per cent. of their income on transport costs in the latest period for which figures are [102050] available.

1065W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1066W

affordable housing delivered outside these programmes is not included. Housing starts cover new build starts only while completions include both new build and acquisitions. Total affordable completions, including those delivered outside the Homes and Communities Agencys programmes are published annually in the Departments Affordable Housing Supply statistics available on the Departments website:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/ housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/ affordablehousingsupply/livetables/

place suitable and sufficient fire safety precautions, and appropriate management and maintenance procedures. Guidance on the risk assessment process and range of measures it would be appropriate to consider to deliver compliance with the requirements of the Order in educational premises is available on the DCLG website:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/fire/ firesafetyrisk6

Housing: Energy Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the answer of 1 March 2012, Official Report, columns 469-70W, on housing: energy, what steps his Department has taken to consult on the implementation of the recast of the energy performance of buildings directive and the requirement that all new buildings occupied and owned by public authorities after 31 December 2018 shall be nearly zero energy buildings; what his timetable is for submitting the UKs plans to the European Commission; and if he [102233] will make a statement. Andrew Stunell: The Department published a consultation paper on the recast of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive in 20091. In accordance with article 9 of the directive, a national plan is being developed for increasing the number of nearly zero energy buildings. This plan will be submitted to the European Commission later this year.
1

Community Relations Debbie Abrahams: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what steps his Department plans to take to evaluate the implementation of the measures contained in its document Creating the Conditions for Integration.
[101850]

Andrew Stunell [holding answer 26 March 2012]: The written ministerial statement Creating the Conditions for Integration of 21 February 2012, Official Report, column 73WS, sets out the Governments approach to enabling and encouraging integration, including the role of exemplar projects. This policy document complements the Governments Social Mobility Strategy and Equality Strategy. Specific projects in Creating the Conditions will be monitored and evaluated against each projects objectives. Integration is predominately a local issue which requires a local response, and therefore evaluation is a matter for local areas. Fire Extinguishers: Schools Jim Fitzpatrick: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government if he will assess the (a) costs and (b) benefits of installing fire [100994] sprinkler systems in new schools. Andrew Stunell: We have no plans to carry out such an assessment. A cost benefit analysis tool was published by the then Department for Children, Schools and Families in 2007. This tool allows the costs and benefits of sprinklers to be fully considered for each school on an individual basis. Fire Prevention: Free Schools Jim Fitzpatrick: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what fire safety requirements apply to free schools where buildings are converted from other uses to educational use. [101076] Andrew Stunell: In most cases the conversion of a building for use as a school would be a material change of use under the Building Regulations 2010 and would require the building to be upgraded to meet the current Building Regulations fire safety standards. In any event, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies to all non-domestic premises, including schools. Under these regulations, a responsible person (usually the employer, owner or occupier) must carry out a fire risk assessment of the premises and put in

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planninga ndbuilding/ recastepbdconsultation

Housing: Rural Areas Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what assessment he has made of the adequacy of housing survey [102064] coverage in rural areas. Andrew Stunell: The English Housing Survey is representative of all households in England. A random sample of addresses is selected covering the whole of England equally, irrespective of type of area. Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many new affordable rural homes in smaller settlements have been [102103] completed since 2008. Andrew Stunell: Local authorities are asked to report on their Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix the number of affordable homes delivered in settlements with populations of 3,000 or less. The Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix data can be downloaded from the Departments website at:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/ housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/localauthorityhousing/ dataforms/

During 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11 there were nearly 12,000 affordable homes reported as being delivered in these smaller settlements.

1067W

Written Answers Shared Ownership Schemes

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers
Number of households in temporary accommodation at 31 December 20111 38,310 2,590 3,560 1,730 1,370 1,360 48,920

1068W

Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what representations his Department has received from housing associations on provision of credit to those seeking to purchase property under shared ownership schemes from lenders (a) wholly in the private sector and (b) wholly or partly publicly-owned; and what information his Department holds on the level of cash deposits requested by lenders granting mortgages for those participating in shared ownership schemes.
[102063]

Urban/rural classification category Major Urban Large Urban Other Urban Significant Rural Rural-50 Rural-80 England
1

Number of local authorities 71 39 58 55 48 55 326

Rounded to the nearest 10. Source: PIE returns from local authorities

Grant Shapps: My Department is not aware of any recent representations from housing associations of the kind described. Decisions concerning the pricing and availability of mortgages and loans, including loan-to-value ratios, remain commercial decisions for the boards of the individual banks and building societies. There are currently over 20 lenders, both wholly in the private sector or partly publicly-owned, supporting shared ownership. The current average level of cash deposit requested by lenders is generally 10% of the share being purchased. Social Rented Housing Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what steps his Department is taking to minimise noise transference in [102041] newly built social housing. Andrew Stunell: All new housing in England is required to provide reasonable resistance to sound from other parts of the same building and from adjacent buildings in accordance with part E (Resistance to the passage of sound) of the Building Regulations. Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what information his Department holds on the number of complaints received by local authorities on noise transference within social housing in each of the last [102057] five years. Andrew Stunell: The information requested is not held centrally. Temporary Accommodation: Rural Areas Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many households in rural areas were living in temporary accommodation on the latest date for which [102104] information is available. Andrew Stunell: The information requested is given in the following table, grouping local authority areas in line with the latest version of the local authority rural-urban classification.

The six classification categories are defined as follows:

Major Urban: districts with either 100,000 people or 50% of their population in urban areas with a population of more than 750,000. Large Urban: districts with either 50,000 people or 50% of their population in one of 17 urban areas with a population between 250,000 and 750,000. Other Urban: districts with less than 26% of their population in rural settlements and larger market towns. Significant Rural: districts with more than 26% of their population in rural settlements and larger market towns. Rural-50: districts with at least 50% but less than 80% of their population in rural settlements and larger market towns. Rural-80: districts with at least 80% of their population in rural settlements and larger market towns.

Further details of the classification are available on the DEFRA website at:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/rural/what-is-rural/ruralurban-classification/

More generally, statistical releases on Statutory Homelessness are available both in the Library of the House and from the DCLG website:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/ housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/homelessnessstatistics/ publicationshomelessness/

The provision of affordable housing is vital to enable people to stay in their communities. That is why we have already announced that nearly 10% of the agreed bids outside London for the Affordable Homes Programme are for homes in communities with under 3,000 people Under the Localism Act we are giving local authorities more freedom, so that they can quickly move people out of expensive temporary accommodation and into a suitable settled home, reducing costs on councils and housing waiting lists. We recently announced additional funding of 70 million this year to tackle and prevent rough sleeping and prevent repossessions. This comes on top of the existing 400 million homelessness grant this Government have protected over the next four years. Troubled Families Initiative: Peterborough Mr Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many families will be included in his Departments Troubled Families initiative in the Peterborough City Council area in 2012-13; how much funding he expects to allocate for such purposes; and if he will make a [101684] statement.

1069W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1070W

Robert Neill: The director general of the Troubled Families programme, Louise Casey, wrote to all relevant council chief executives in December 2011 giving an initial estimate of numbers of troubled families in their council area. For Peterborough city council, this figure was 450 families. Work to verify these numbers is currently underway. Information on what proportion of these families will be dealt with in each year of the programme is not currently available. Payments to local authorities as part of the Troubled Families programme will be determined primarily on a payment-by-results basis. Further details on the arrangements for the programme, including funding and payment arrangements, success measures, and the definition of a troubled family which will underpin these arrangements, will be announced shortly. Wind Power: Planning Permission Mark Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government with reference to the editorial in the British Medical Journal of 8 March 2012, concerning potential health effects of wind farms, whether he plans to propose changes to [101457] planning policy relating to wind turbines. Charles Hendry: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Department for Energy and Climate Change. A number of independent peer reviewed research studies commissioned by DECC and its predecessor Departments have looked at the impacts of noise from wind farms and concluded that there is no evidence of direct health effects arising from infrasound or low frequency noise generated by wind turbines. The Government review new evidence carefully to assess whether these conclusions remain valid. In our assessment the British Medical Journal editorial article of 8 March 2012 on wind turbine noise does not change the conclusion that appropriately sited wind turbines do not have a direct effect on public health. On 23 June 2011, DECC published an independent report1 on matters arising from the consideration of noise impacts when determining wind farm applications in England. This found that current guidance (ETSU -R- 97) is fit for purpose and recommended that further good practice guidance is developed to confirm, and where necessary, clarify the way it is implemented in practice in the planning process to ensure consistency. The Institute of Acoustics is producing this additional guidance.
1

The estimated average annual overall cost per prisoner in England and Wales for financial year 2010-11 is 37,000 (to nearest 1,000). These are the latest figures. Average prisoner costs are calculated for each prison establishment and grouped by prison function on the basis of the major use of each prison. The calculations do not analyse costs by type of sentence or prisoner, and therefore, an average cost for a prisoner serving remand is not available. The annual average cost per prisoner equates to an average cost per day of 102. This is across all prisoner types and lengths of custody. This does not represent the marginal cost (or saving) from spending one day more (or less) in prison, as most prison costs are fixed in the short-term. Nor should it be used to calculate the cost of a particular term in custody as costs are not necessarily incurred evenly across a period of custody. A predominantly, large number of remand sentences are served in local adult male prisons. The estimated average overall annual cost per prisoner in local adult male prisons for financial year 2010-11 is 35,000 (to nearest 1,000). The calculation for cost per prisoner is based on net resource expenditure related to prisons included in the annual accounts of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) expressed in terms of the average prison population. This includes some estimation. Expenditure which is met by other Government Departments, such as expenditure on health and education, is not included. Expenditure recharged to the Youth Justice Board in respect of young people is included. Full details of average cost per prisoner by prison function for financial year 2010-11 can be accessed from the Ministry of Justice website under Management Information Addendum at the following link:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/corporate-reports/ noms/annual-report-accounts-2010-11.htm

Bill of Rights Andrew Percy: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent assessment he has made of the likelihood of the Commission on a Bill of Rights [102155] delivering on its terms of reference. Mr Kenneth Clarke: The Commission is independent of Government and will decide for itself how they organise their work in order to fulfil their terms of reference. The Government look forward to receiving the Commissions final report, with their assessment of all of the topics within their terms of reference, by end of this year. Chief Coroner Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate his Department has made of the cost of establishing an independent appeals process for decisions made by the newly appointed Chief Coroner.
[101983]

Analysis of How Noise Impacts are Considered in the Determination of Wind Farm Planning Applications by Hayes McKenzie PartnershipJune 2011 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/wind/ onshore/comms_planning/noise/noise.aspx

JUSTICE Remand in Custody: Expenditure Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate he has made of the average daily [96160] cost of remanding a person in custody. Mr Blunt: The cost of a prisoner on remand in custody is not separately calculated.

Mr Djanogly: There are no proposals to establish an independent appeals process for decisions made by the Chief Coroner, therefore the Government have not undertaken work to estimate the cost of establishing such a process.

1071W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1072W

Robert Flello: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to his removal of the power of the Chief Coroner under section 40 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, where responsibility lies for drawing general lessons from the conduct and findings [101780] of inquests. Mr Djanogly: The Chief Coroner, once in post, will be responsible for drawing general lessons from the conduct of investigations and the findings of inquests. In particular, the Chief Coroner will be under a duty to produce an annual report on the coroner system to the Lord Chancellor which must include information about investigations lasting more than 12 months, a summary of matters reported by coroners to prevent future deaths and the responses to those reports, as well as any matters the Chief Coroner wishes to bring to the attention of the Lord Chancellor, and any matters the Lord Chancellor has asked the Chief Coroner to cover in the report. Corruption: EU Action Mr Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to EU Council Decision 2003/642/JHA, what assessment his Department has made of the likely benefits of applying the convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of members states of the [101929] European Union to Gibraltar. Mr Kenneth Clarke: The Government have not made any assessment of the likely benefits of applying the convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of member states of the European Union to Gibraltar. Courts: Translation Services Mr Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much was spent on translation and interpretation at (a) Peterborough Crown Court and (b) Peterborough Magistrates Court in each year since [101384] 2004; and if he will make a statement. Mr Djanogly: The figures for Peterborough Combined Court are set out in the following table. Figures are provided for the year 2006-07 onwards. Data relating to the period before the creation of HM Courts Service in 2005-06 are not available. Expenditure for magistrates courts is not available centrally and could be made available only at disproportionate cost.
Peterborough Combined (Crown) () 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 36,447 54,195 67,253 50,952 75,328

Mr Djanogly: The contract with Applied Language Services was introduced in criminal courts in the north west in December 2011 and was implemented across the rest of HMCTS on 30 January 2012. No figures are available on the number of court cases delayed as result of problems with interpreters. Criminal Records: EU Action Ben Gummer: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what plans he has to implement a system of information sharing on sexual and serious offenders [100428] across EU borders. James Brokenshire: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Home Department. Since 2006 an EU Council Decision has been in place to enable the sharing of criminal records data across the EU. This requires other member states to notify us when a British citizen is convicted in their jurisdiction. It also allows us to request information from other member states about their nationals who are subject to criminal proceedings here. This council decision will be replaced by a new framework decision in April this year and the going live of the European Criminal Records Information System. This will make responding to requests compulsory and will also allow the secure electronic transfer of data between member states using common codes for offences and sanctions. We expect this to increase both the volume and efficiency of exchange. The UK is keen to build upon this measure by encouraging our EU partners to adopt a more proactive approach to sharing information about serious sexual and violent offenders who might seek to travel across the EU and who pose a risk to the public. We have recently submitted a bid to the European Commission seeking funding to lead a project across a number of member states to assess the risk posed by sexual and violent offenders crossing internal EU borders. This aims to develop and share best practice across member states in managing this group of offenders both domestically and as they cross internal EU borders. Departmental Expenditure Jon Trickett: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how much his Department spent on taxis for (a) Ministers and (b) civil servants between August 2011 [101414] and January 2012; (2) how much his Department spent on (a) cut flowers and (b) pot plants between May 2010 and [101430] February 2012; (3) how much his Department spent on complimentary refreshments for (a) staff and (b) visitors in the latest period for which figures are [101444] available. Mr Djanogly: The Department spent 460.29 on taxis for Ministers between August 2011 and January 2012. No central records are available for expenditure on taxis for civil servants. The Departments policy on travel by taxi (or use of the Government car service) is that it is not an entitlement and, where possible, journeys should be made by public transport. Taxi fares may be reimbursed only where there is no other suitable form of public transport, or

David T. C. Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many court cases have been delayed in the last 12 months as a result of Applied Language [101934] Solutions not providing an interpreter.

1073W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers Family Courts: Expert Evidence

1074W

where heavy luggage has to be transported, or where the saving in officials time is important. Where necessary, a standing arrangement may be made, say, for the conveyance of a large number of files from a court office to a separate court building. The use of pot plants in the Departments buildings is very minimal. It is likely that some courts and prison buildings have pot plants in the reception area to give a welcoming atmosphere to visitors. For the Departments HQ estate, the expenditure on plants for this financial year is 14,000. The Department regularly reviews its policy on the use of pot plants to maximise value for money. Our accounting systems do not record expenditure in sufficient details to allow us to extract cost of cut flowers and pot plants from other miscellaneous expenditure. The Department does not hold central records for expenditure on complimentary refreshments for staff and visitors separately. However, the following restrictions apply to all staff:
No lunches, tea or coffees can be ordered for any internal meeting (i.e. a meeting between MOJ staff). Water and jugs are freely available in most of our offices. For all external meetings (i.e. a meeting between MOJ staff and external stakeholders), lunch, tea and coffee purchases require director-level sign-off and are only allowed in exceptional circumstances.

Guto Bebb: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will consider the report commissioned by the Family Justice Council on Evaluating Expert Witness Psychological Reports; and if he will make a statement.
[101465]

Mr Djanogly: The Ministry of Justice will look carefully at the findings of this study. We accept that there is a need for reform of the use of expert witnesses in family proceedings. The Government published their response to the Family Justice Review on 6 February. This set out our intention to work with expert witness representative bodies and others to improve the quality of expert witness reports. We also intend to legislate to reduce over-reliance on expert witness reports in care proceedings. Fines: EU Law Mr Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to Article 4 of EU Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA, how many final decisions requiring a financial penalty to be paid by a natural or legal person the UK has (a) transmitted to and (b) received from other EU member states in each year since 2005; and how many such decisions were [101926] enforced. Mr Kenneth Clarke: The provisions of EU Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 were implemented into England, Wales and Northern Ireland law in 2009, through the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. There was a minor amendment made through the Criminal Procedure Rules 2011. In Scotland the Order was made under powers conferred by sections 56 of the Criminal Proceedings etc. (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007. Then implemented by the Mutual Recognition of Criminal Financial Penalties in the European Union (Scotland) Order (SSI 2009/342). The first cases to be sent to and received from member states were in 2010.
Number of cases transmitted to other EU member states 2010 2011 2012 1 21 19 Number of cases received from other EU member states 68 175 59 Incoming cases that are ongoing and being enforced 25 61 4

To provide information on Departmental expenditure on taxis for civil servants, cut flowers, pot plants and complimentary refreshments for staff and visitors would involve disproportionate cost. Employment Tribunals Service Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 29 February 2012, Official Report, columns 368-9W, on Employment Tribunals Service, how many of the 1,495 unpaid employment tribunal awards and ACAS settlements passed to High Court enforcement officers in financial year 2010-11 have been fully enforced; how many have been partially enforced; how many could not be enforced; and how many cases remain unresolved.
[102099]

Mr Djanogly: Recently updated figures show that in financial year (FY) 2010-11, 1,499 employment tribunal and ACAS settlements were passed to High Court enforcement officers. Of those, 418 were paid in full; 49 were paid in part; 66 were paid by instalments; 49 are ongoing; 762 were unenforceable; and, 155 are currently being investigated further. Of the 762 cases individual reasons for non enforcement are set out in the following table:
Category Unable to make contact with debtor Debtor insolvent Enforcement stopped by order of court Enforcement stopped by creditor Writ expired1 GeneralOther reasons 1 Writs are valid for a period of 12 months from issue Cases 111 298 13 135 169 36

Incoming cases paid in full 25 44

Number of incoming cases remitted 1 2

The difference in the overall numbers of incoming orders and the above will be those that where rejected and returned back to the member states. Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Stephen Phillips: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps his Department is taking to encourage the accession of additional countries to the 1980 Hague Convention on international child [101342] abduction.

1075W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1076W

Mr Djanogly: The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), is responsible for international child abduction cases between Contracting States to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and has the overall policy lead. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), is responsible for the decision on whether the UK should enter into treaty relations with new countries acceding to the 1980 Hague Convention. Officials from both Departments work together to encourage accession to the Convention by countries capable of operating the Convention effectively. In principle the UK supports the accession of such countries. Ministry of Justice officials participate in meetings in the UK and abroad to explain the legislative and procedural framework for effective operation of the Convention. Legal Aid Scheme Mr Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many law firms in the London Borough of Bexley received payments for legal aid work in each of the last five years; and what the total value of payments was in [101704] each year. Mr Djanogly: Information on the total amount spent on providers in the London borough of Bexley for years other than the most recent year, 2010-11, is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The total value of payments to legal aid providers in the London borough of Bexley during 2010-11 was 6.5 million. The number of provider offices with legal aid contracts enabling them to undertake work in the London borough of Bexley in each of the last five years is outlined in the following table. One firm may operate from several offices therefore the number of offices may exceed the number of firms. The Legal Services Commission contracts with not-for-profit organisations as well as solicitor firms. The figures therefore include not-for-profit organisations.
Number of offices 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 21 22 19 15 14

(3) what assessment he has made of the effect on court caseloads of the reduction in face-to-face advice [101818] and assistance from the Courts Service. Mr Djanogly: My written ministerial statement of 17 May 2011, Official Report, column 11WS, explained that Her Majestys Court and Tribunal Service was exploring the potential to modernise the way in which it provided face to face services in the civil and family courts. As that statement made clear such exploration is in the context of the 2008 document Framework for the provision of front office services in civil courts and subject to local consultations. Local consultations have recently taken place on potential changes to services and we are currently analysing the responses received. No changes have yet been made. Any changes would be subject to regular review and this process would ensure that the impact of other planned policies, such as those in relation to legal aid, were properly considered at the appropriate time. However, we would not expect changes to face to face services to have an effect on caseloads and expect any increase in litigants in person as result of planned legal aid changes to be offset by increases in mediation and reductions in cases coming to court. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) pursuant to the answer of 13 March 2012, Official Report, column 217W, on legal aid: fees and charges, in respect of how many cases the Legal Services Commission makes a profit on the basis of the rate of [102287] interest on the statutory charge; (2) pursuant to the answer of 13 March 2012, Official Report, column 217W, on legal aid: fees and charges, for what reason the rate of interest on [102288] statutory charges is fixed at eight per cent. Mr Djanogly: The statutory charge is part of a larger and integrated system and costs cannot be isolated at case level. The rate of 8% simple interest is designed to encourage those who can raise private funds to repay their statutory charge, either through extending their mortgage, or lending from a reputable bank, to do so. Money recovered helps to keep legal aid on a sustainable footing, which reduces demand on the taxpayer. Location Steve McCabe: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether he plans to relocate any staff in his [101395] Department to new offices in Birmingham. Mr Kenneth Clarke: Within the last year the Ministry of Justice has re-located around 320 office staff within the Public Guardian posts from London to new offices in the Governments estate in Birmingham. There are no current plans for any significant future relocation of staff to new administrative offices in Birmingham. Prisoners Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the average prison population was in each [102149] year since 1990.

Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what steps his Department is taking to ensure that litigants in person will continue to be able to access justice following the reduction in face-to-face advice [101819] and assistance from the Courts Service; (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of reducing access to face-to-face advice and assistance from the Courts Service on litigants in person; and whether this assessment took into account any increase in the number of litigants in person following the implementation of proposed reductions in legal aid;
[101820]

1077W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1078W

Mr Blunt: The prison population annual average for England and Wales 1990 to 2010 (latest available) are provided in the following table. These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Prison population annual average, 1990 to 2010, England and Wales Number 1990 44,975 1991 44,809 1992 44,719 1993 44,552 1994 48,621 1995 50,962 1996 55,281 1997 61,114 1998 65,298 1999 64,771 2000 64,602 2001 66,301 2002 70,778 2003 73,038 2004 74,657 2005 75,979 2006 78,127 2007 80,216 2008 82,572 2009 83,559 2010 84,725 Notes: 1. The prison population average is the average of the 12-month end prison populations. 2. Due to technical problems relating to the supply of data for statistical purposes, month end data was not available for the period from July 2009 to February 2010, so data for the last Friday of the month has been used instead (except for December 2009, where 18 December was used).

Table 1: Deaths in privately operated prisons1 by apparent cause2 Year SelfNatural opened inflicted3 causes Un-classified4 Rye Hill 2001 3 16 0 Wolds 1992 7 4 0 1 The table includes deaths in prisons classified as privately run at the end of 2010. They exclude Blakenhurst and Buckley Hall which were privately operated for a period but are now run by the public sector. They also exclude HMP Birmingham which did not become a privately run prison until October 2011. 2 The National Offender Management Service uses a classification system based on the apparent cause of death. The actual cause of death is not confirmed until the conclusion of the coroners inquest which is held into all deaths in prison custody. The classification of death may change following an inquest or as new information emerges. 3 The Self-inflicted category includes a wider range of deaths than suicides. When comparing these figures with other published data it is important to determine what definitions are used. 4 Unclassified was a new category first used in official figures in 2010. Numbers reported in this category are expected to reduce over time.

Telephone Tapping: Business Mr Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will take steps to provide greater protection for small businesses which are encouraged to enter into binding legal contracts by the use of [101257] recorded telephone messages. Mr Djanogly: We have no plans to change the requirements of the law of England and Wales regarding the formation of contracts. One of these requirements is that the parties must intend to create legal relations. Any small business considering entering a contract, whether encouraged to do so by recorded telephone message or not, should ensure that it understands the consequences of doing so, taking legal advice where necessary. Legal remedies are available for people who have been induced to enter a contract by misrepresentation or fraud. Small businesses that consider they have been tricked into entering a contract should consult the trading standards department of their local authority and if necessary take legal advice as to their rights and the ways in which they can be enforced.

Prisons: Private Sector Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) suicides, (b) deaths by natural causes and (c) unclassified deaths of prisoners there have been in each of the privately-run prisons since [102151] they opened. Mr Blunt: The following table shows the total number of deaths by category for privately operated prisons up to the end of 2010 the latest year for which figures are available.
Table 1: Deaths in privately operated prisons1 by apparent cause2 Year SelfNatural opened inflicted3 causes Un-classified4 Total1 Altcourse Ashfield Bronzefield Doncaster Dovegate Forest Bank Lowdham Grange Parc Peterborough 1997 1999 2004 1994 2001 2000 1998 1997 2005 75 16 0 0 23 6 4 1 14 1 107 17 0 2 15 14 4 6 20 9 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Developing Countries: Tuberculosis Nic Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of progress towards international tuberculosis control targets as set out in the Global Plan to Stop TB [101398] 2011-2015; and if he will make a statement. Mr Andrew Mitchell: Across the World Health Organisations six regions, the world is on track to achieve the Millennium Development Goal target of halting and reversing the incidence of tuberculosis (TB) by 2015. In relation to the targets outlined in the Global Plan to Stop TB 2011-15, the tuberculosis mortality rates have also fallen by just over a third since 1990 and are on track to meet the target of halving 1990 mortality rates by 2015. However, the target of halving the 1990 prevalence rates by 2015 is unlikely to be achieved globally, although it has been reached in the Americas.

1079W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1080W

Although considerable progress has been made, significant challenges remain, including drug resistant TB and TB-HIV co-infection. Iraq Michael Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what estimate his Department has made of the number of internally displaced people in Iraq in each year since 2003;
[101801]

Charles Hendry [holding answer 26 March 2012]: Government expenditure on research and development into carbon abatement technologies for the 2010-11 financial year was as follows:
2010-11( million) CCS budget for R&D Total R&D CCS budget for Demonstration Total Demo RDD Total 40.075 53.425 13.35

(2) what assistance his Department is providing to reduce the number of internally displaced people in [101802] Iraq; (3) whether his Department is taking steps to encourage Iraqi refugees who fled from their country to return. [101803] Mr Duncan: The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) reports that there are around 1.3 million Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) living in Iraq. Most are unable to return to their areas of origin because of the difficult security situation, the destruction of their homes, or a lack of access to services. Between 2003 and 2011 the Department for International Development (DFID) provided over 200 million of humanitarian assistance to IDPs, other vulnerable groups in Iraq, and Iraqi refugees outside Iraq, through the United Nations (UN) agencies and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The UK will continue to provide support to populations affected by displacement in Iraq until 2014, as part of a project implemented in several countries by the Norwegian Refugee Council. Multilateral agencies such as the UN also continue to provide assistance in this area. In particular, the UNHCR is working with the Government of Iraq to end displacement, through a comprehensive plan which is due to become fully operational in 2012. The UK is also providing wider support to help create a more stable and prosperous Iraq, to which all Iraqis can return. Sri Lanka Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans he has to visit [102135] Sri Lanka. Mr Duncan: None at present. Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many officials of his Department are currently stationed in Sri Lanka.
[102136]

Between 2011-12 and 2014-15, the Government and their partners expect to invest 125 million in CCS R&D. Combined Heat and Power: Biofuels Alun Cairns: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will define the 60 per cent. greenhouse gas emissions savings standard compared with fossil fuel which he proposes for use of biomass in [102049] CHP generators. Gregory Barker: The Renewables Obligation Order 2009, as amended by the Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2011, sets out the 60% greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions savings standard for the use of solid biomass in power or CHP generators. This states the standard as 79.2 grams carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 eq) for one mega joule of electricity generated using solid biomass. Subject to certain exceptions for microgenerators or the use of waste, CHP generators receiving support under the renewables obligation for electricity generated using solid biomass must report against this standard. Energy: Carbon Emissions Barry Gardiner: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what assessment he has made of his Departments accuracy in forecasting forward carbon emission factors for grid electricity for the purposes of Standard Assessment Procedure calculations in the last 10 years; and if he will make a [100871] statement. Charles Hendry: The carbon emission factors for grid electricity that underlie those used in SAP, are derived from the DECC energy and emissions model. The carbon intensity of the grid is one of a number of outputs from the model and has not been separately assessed directly for accuracy against past data. However, the factors that determine the grid intensity in the model are updated regularly, taking account of the latest actual data and the projection methodology is regularly reviewed to improve projection accuracy. This process includes calibration to actual past data for some inputs eg on thermal efficiencies of electricity generating plant and updates to other projections that feed into the model eg DECC fossil fuel price projections. DECC also undertakes analysis of the sensitivity of projections to key assumptions. A key driver or uncertainty in grid intensity projections is fossil fuel price projections.

Mr Duncan: None.

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE Clean Coal Technology Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how much the Government spent on research and development into clean coal technology in (a) 2010-11 and (b) 2011-12; and what projection he has made of spend in each of the next [101857] three years.

1081W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1082W

For DECCs latest projections, published in October 2012, the impact of uncertainty in fossil fuel price projections on carbon emission factors for grid electricity is approximately +/-10% (+/- 0.03 kgCO2e/KWh) for a 10 year ahead forecast. Energy: Disconnections Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what estimate he has made of the number of (a) domestic customers and (b) non-domestic customers disconnected by their energy supplier in (i) 2011, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2009, (iv) 2008, (v) [100524] 2007, (vi) 2006 and (vii) 2005. Charles Hendry: Ofgem monitors and publishes information about the disconnection of domestic gas and electricity supplies (in its social obligations annual reports). Ofgem does not publish data about the disconnection of non-domestic customers. The following tables show the number of domestic disconnections due to debt for electricity and gas supplies by each of the big six suppliers from 2005-10. Data for 2011 is not yet available.
Disconnection of electricity supplies Supplier British Gas E.ON Edf Energy Npower SSE Scottish Power Total 2005 2 186 289 10 138 92 717 2006 1 233 313 380 97 234 1258 2007 0 476 494 861 178 648 2657 2008 3 337 1138 295 175 885 2833 2009 17 1 1588 163 156 418 2343 2010 2 1 1341 253 82 230 1909

mostly energy suppliers, who will be responsible for funding the equipment as well as its installation, operation and maintenance. Any cost to energy suppliers will be recovered through bills, although we expect that cost savings to suppliers, such as not having to send an operative to read the meter, will also be passed on to SME consumers. After receiving a smart meter, companies will be able to use the information provided to reduce their energy consumption. DECCs August 2011 impact assessment estimates that once all cost and savings are taken into account, the average SME will see a bill saving (not a cost) of 143 by 2020, rising to over 200 per year by 2030. Energy: Prices Andrew Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what steps he is taking to protect consumers from rising global energy prices.
[101641]

Disconnection of gas supplies Supplier British Gas E.ON Edf Energy Npower SSE Scottish Power Total 2005 3 830 451 296 666 259 2505 2006 2 644 526 1637 593 454 3856 2007 0 928 878 1343 728 848 4725 2008 8 445 975 360 335 799 2922 2009 37 0 474 61 98 1013 1683 2010 0 0 234 81 66 407 788

Existing supply licence obligations and an industry code of practice provide protection for consumers in debt, for example suppliers must not disconnect a domestic premises during October to March if they know or have reason to believe that the customer is of pensionable age and lives alone, or only lives with other pensioners or children under the age of 18. Energy: Meters Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what recent estimate his Department has made of the cost to companies of [100264] smart meter roll-out. Charles Hendry: The cost from rolling out smart meters to businesses will be borne by the energy industry,

Charles Hendry: As a relatively small player in increasingly globalised energy markets the UK is largely a price taker. However, the UK Government are working in the EU and internationally to ensure that the UK has access to the energy imports it needs through encouraging sufficient investment in global energy production and promoting reliable supplies to the UK. The Coalition Government are committed to helping UK consumers to control their energy bills and heat their homes affordably by ensuring effective energy markets and promoting energy efficiency. This winter we have been working with energy suppliers to deliver the warm home discount scheme; providing heating and insulation measures through Warm Front, the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target and the Community Energy Saving Programme; and developing our proposals for Green Deal and the Energy Company Obligation. Additional support for energy bills is also provided through winter fuel payments and cold weather payments. Budget further built on this work by announcing: 200 million further investment in the Green Deal to support energy efficiency; 3 billion for the Green Investment Bank and 200 million for low carbon technology to help the UK decarbonise further; and, a package of oil and gas tax measures which will secure billions of pounds of additional investment in the UK continental shelf. Environment Protection Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what assessment he has made of the effects of his Departments policy that post-2020 targets for decarbonisation should be neutral with respect to different low carbon technologies on (a) the level of employment in the renewables sector, (b) the level of private investment in renewable energy, (c) the potential UK share of the export market in renewable energy technologies and (d) the potential for the UK to become a global leader in (i) offshore wind and (ii) marine energy; what discussions he has had on this issue with representatives of the renewable energy [101489] sector; and if he will make a statement.

1083W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1084W

Gregory Barker: The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), has regular discussions with representatives of the renewable energy sector, including on our objectives for 2050. All meetings between DECC Ministers and external organisations are published on a quarterly basis on the DECC website and are available for download at the following link:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/accesstoinform/ registers/registers.aspx

Gregory Barker: The Green Deal and ECO consultation closed earlier this year, and the Government are now considering the responses. As part of this process we are also taking Professor Hillss findings into consideration. Announcements on the final design of the ECO will be made shortly. Dr Whitehead: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what plans he has to publish a response to the report of the Consents barriers and retaliatory evictions working group.
[102283]

The UK is already the recognised global leader in both offshore wind and marine energy. In respect of offshore wind, the UK has the most installed capacity of any country in the world, the biggest pipeline of projects up to 2020 and also has a very high potential for deployment to 2030, as set out in the UK Renewable Energy Roadmap. In respect of marine energy, wave and tidal stream technologies are still at an early stage of development, and larger scale deployment is anticipated in the period beyond 2020. Further details are set out in the UK Renewable Energy Roadmap which can be found at:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/meeting-energydemand/renewable-energy/2167-uk-renewable-energyroadmap.pdf

Gregory Barker: The Minister for Housing and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), and I are currently considering the response. The Government will respond on consent issues, including those raised by the working group, as part of their overall response to the consultation on the Green Deal. Manpower Stephen Barclay: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many people were employed in interim posts by (a) his Department and (b) a Non-Ministerial Department or arms length body controlled by his Department, through (i) Penna Consulting, (ii) Reed Personnel Services and (iii) Capita Resourcing Ltd (trading as Veredus) at the latest date for which figures are available; and how many such people (A) had been in post for over a year [101581] and (B) worked full-time. Gregory Barker [holding answer 23 March 2012]: To answer the question as tabled would incur disproportionate cost. The Department of Energy and Climate Change has engaged staff on a temporary basis through two of the listed organisations between 1 April 2010 and 31 December 2011. The expenditure incurred with these companies is shown in the following table. It would incur disproportionate cost to establish how many individuals were employed through each agency and whether the person was in post for more than one year or engaged on a full time basis. To do so would involve retrieving all invoices and supporting evidence for payments to these organisations and making inquiries with the local business area that had procured the services of each individual as to the basis and duration of their employment.
000 April 2010 to March 2011 Reed Personnel Capita Resourcing T/A Veredus Executive Resourcing 176 21 April 2011 to December 2011 39 9

However, the Government envisage multiple low carbon technologies: renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and storage (CCS) all competing freely against each other in the years to come, driving down capital costs as the market forces innovation and greater efficiency. Any technology-specific target risks distorting the market and making investment in other low carbon technologies more difficult. It could also force the UK down a more expensive route to 2050 than necessary. The investment associated with our reforms to the electricity market (which involve stimulating over 100 billion of new investment in the electricity sector alone) have the potential to generate around 250,000 jobs in low carbon electricity to 2030. Environment Protection: Taxation Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change when he last met the EU Commission to discuss state aid rules in relation to support for energy intensive industries under the [101293] Carbon Price Floor. Gregory Barker: Work on the measures to compensate electro-intensive industries for the indirect cost of the carbon price floor is led by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). No Ministers from DECC or BIS have met with the EU Commission to discuss this matter, but Government will engage with the Commission on this issue at the appropriate juncture. Green Deal Scheme Dr Whitehead: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what plans he has to take account of recommendations from the Hills Fuel Poverty review on the energy company obligation (ECO) in his response to consultations on Green Deal [102282] and ECO.

The Committee on Climate Change and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority report no spend with the listed organisations between April 2010 and December 2011. The Civil Nuclear Police Authority spent 3,000 on interim posts with Capita Resourcing Ltd in 2010-11. The information requested with respect to this expenditure cannot be collated within the overall cost limit.

1085W

Written Answers Power Stations: Carbon Emissions

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1086W

Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change whether it is his policy to [102350] decarbonise the power sector by 2030. Charles Hendry: The Carbon Plan, published in December 2011, set out the Governments view that deep cuts in emissions from the power sector will be required during the 2020s to keep the UK on a cost-effective path to its 2050 goal of an 80% reduction in emissions. The actions outlined in the plan, including the Governments reforms of the electricity market and work to address technology-specific barriers to deployment, will drive the huge increase in investment in low-carbon generation that will enable these cuts to be realised. The analysis within the plan considered a range of 2030 electricity generation decarbonisation scenarios consistent with meeting carbon budgets and an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050. The Government are not setting an explicit decarbonisation goal for electricity generation in 2030 at this point, given the uncertainties involved in setting a target this far out, which include levels of electricity demand and cost-effectiveness of different technologies. DECCs Carbon Plan report can be found at the following weblink:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/tackling/carbon_plan/ carbon plan.aspx

In September 2012 we will consult on how we can support renewable heating for households in the longer term. We will set out a firmer timetable for delivering this support and we anticipate that this will be from summer 2013. Renewables Obligation Alun Cairns: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what consideration he has given to including public acceptability in the sustainability criteria for renewables obligation certificates. [101682] Gregory Barker: Sustainability criteria were introduced under the renewables obligation to ensure generators use biomass feedstocks that deliver significant greenhouse gas savings compared to fossil fuel and to restrict the sourcing of biomass from land with high carbon stock or high biodiversity value. Public acceptability is addressed through public consultation on planning applications and so can cover a wider remit than sustainability issues. Alun Cairns: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what representations he has received on including public acceptability in the sustainability criteria for the Renewable Obligations Certificates in the same way as the criterion for PFI [102048] credits. Charles Hendry: None. Wind Power

Renewable Energy Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many staff in his Department are working on (a) community scale renewable energy, (b) electricity market reform and (c) new nuclear power. [102092] Charles Hendry: The number of staff in the Department that work in the three areas mentioned in the question are as follows: Community-scale renewables forms a key part of two of the Departments large programmes. There are 71.5 staff based in the Office for Renewable Energy Deployment, and an additional team working on the renewable heat incentive. Within these wider programmes, a core team of four people focuses on community scale renewable energy, with additional assistance from specialists on science and engineering, economics and social research. There are currently 72 people working on electricity market reform and 23 on new nuclear power. Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Dr Whitehead: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will include bioliquids in his scheme of assistance for domestic heating installations under the Renewable Heat [102289] Incentive. Gregory Barker: Further to the Departmental Note laid in Parliament yesterday on support for renewable heat technologies in the domestic and non-domestic sector, we are considering whether to support bioliquids as part of our policy development for the support of renewable heat in households (the non-domestic scheme was launched in November 2011). Mark Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will make an assessment of the British Medical Journal editorial of 8 March 2012 on health effects of the distance of wind turbines to houses and its lessons for his policies.
[101366]

Charles Hendry: A number of independent peer reviewed research studies commissioned by DECC and its predecessor Departments have looked at the impacts of noise from wind farms and concluded that there is no evidence of direct health effects arising from infrasound or low frequency noise generated by wind turbines. The Government review new evidence carefully to assess whether these conclusions remain valid. In our assessment the British Medical Journal editorial article of 8 March 2012 on wind turbine noise does not change the conclusion that appropriately sited wind turbines do not have a direct effect on public health. On 23 June 2011, DECC published an independent report1 on matters arising from the consideration of noise impacts when determining wind farm applications in England. This found that current guidance (ETSU -R97) is fit for purpose and recommended that further good practice guidance is developed to confirm, and where necessary, clarify the way it is implemented in practice in the planning process to ensure consistency. The Institute of Acoustics is producing this additional guidance.
1

Analysis of How Noise Impacts are Considered in the Determination of Wind Farm Planning Applications by Hayes McKenzie PartnershipJune 2011 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/wind/ onshore/comms_planning/noise/noise.aspx

1087W

Written Answers Wind Power: Seas and Oceans

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1088W

Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what steps he has taken to realise the Offshore Wind Developers Forum target for UK-based suppliers to provide at least 50 per cent. of [101283] the supply chain for future wind farms. Charles Hendry: Recent wind farms, such as Robin Rigg in the Solway Firth with a reported UK content of 32%, have shown a real improvement in the level of UK content compared to earlier developments. However, I still want to see a step change in the overall level of UK content. This is why I am pleased that the Offshore Wind Developers Forum (OWDF) has adopted its vision for the UK to be the centre of offshore wind technology and deployment, with a competitive supply chain in the UK, providing over 50% of the content of offshore wind farm projects. Future work of the OWDF will assess how the industry in the UK can make the most of this opportunity and compete effectively. Work is being currently undertaken for the OWDF, looking at the experience of supply chain development in the UK oil and gas sector and a methodology for measuring the level of UK content in future offshore wind farm projects is also being developed in order to benchmark progress. Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what proportion of UK offshore wind development contracts have been awarded to firms based in the UK in each of the last [101284] three years. Charles Hendry: The Department does not hold this information. However, E.ON recently published a study available at:
http://eon-uk.com/downloads/ E.ON_Robin_Rigg_UK_content_report_October_2011.pdf

Mr Hague: Under the terms of the lease for 1 Carlton Gardens the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is obliged to:
as often as necessary, well and substantially to repair, renew, uphold, clean and keep in repair the demised premises.

The maintenance of the property is undertaken in accordance with the quadrennial inspections of listed buildings, statutory inspections for listed properties carried out every four years. The last quadrennial inspection was carried out in late 2009 and the higher maintenance costs in 2010-11 in large part reflect the recommendations of that inspection being put into practice. We always seek value for money in carrying out such work while also ensuring the preservation of what is a Grade 1 listed building. The maintenance costs for the last two full financial years have been as follows:
Description Facilities management fixed price costs Routine maintenance Pest control Cleaning Projects (including structural and asbestos testing) Minor works (including lift and security works) Furniture Furniture repairs Total facilities management supplier costs Security maintenance FCO services Crown Estate (external redecorators) Other suppliers maintenance costs Total Maintenance Costs 2009-10 15,456 7,121 1,279 391 0 11,245.95 0 6,986 42,479 0 0 0 0 57,936 2010-11 15,642 111,302 705 1,076 57,475 58,995 2,154 0 247,348 18,729 1,380 0 20,109 283,100

The study showed 32% of the content of the Robin Rigg wind farm, in the Solway Firth, was awarded to UK companies. Recent wind farms such as this one have shown a real improvement in the level of UK content compared to earlier developments. However I still want to see a step change in the overall level of UK content. This is why I am pleased that the Offshore Wind Developers Forum, through its vision, recognises the importance of maximising the UK benefit of developing offshore wind. Since April 2011 there have been investment announcements in the UKs offshore wind supply chain totalling over 1.6 billion, with the potential to create 5,700 new jobs; details are published on the DECC website.

Chris Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been spent on redecorating the Carlton Gardens property; and how much of that was paid by him.
[93486]

Mr Hague: The maintenance of the property has been undertaken as a result of the quadrennial inspections of listed buildings, most recently in 2009, and in accordance with lease obligations. We are required under the terms of the lease for 1 Carlton Gardens to:
as often as necessary, well and substantially to repair, renew, uphold, clean and keep in repair the demised premises.

Since May 2010 costs of redecoration have been as follows:

(i) 6,273 for the residential accommodation, of which I paid 2,218; (ii) 112,520 for the non-residential areas, of which I paid 1,289.

Intellectual Property FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE 1 Carlton Gardens Chris Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost was of maintaining his Departments Carlton Gardens property under each budget heading in each of the last two years. [93485] Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has a role in intellectual property policy development. [101247] Mr Lidington: The overall policy lead for intellectual property is held by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills via the Intellectual Property Office. Many

1089W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1090W

Government Departments have an interest in intellectual property, and the policy making process, including collective ministerial consideration of proposals, reflects those interests. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has an interest in strengthening the international intellectual property framework and works closely with the Intellectual Property Office in representing UK interests at the World Intellectual Property Organisation and other relevant international fora. The FCO also has an interest in strengthening national intellectual property frameworks in key countries and in helping UK business address the intellectual property challenges they face overseas and similarly works closely with the Intellectual Property Office in this work. Iraq Michael Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of [101642] Iraq on womens rights in Iraq. Alistair Burt: Iraq has committed itself to improving the rights of women in its 2012 National Action Plan and we continue to offer our support to the Government of Iraq to achieve this goal. In 2011, the UK funded training to judges and judicial staff in gender concepts, and how to deal with cases involving gender-based violence. In the Kurdistan region, UK experts have been working with womens shelters to improve facilities and the care they give residents, and with the Kurdistan Regional Government to develop and implement strategies for protecting womens rights. We will continue this work in 2012, as well as raising our concerns on the situation for women in Iraq with the Government of Iraq where appropriate. Michael Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will appoint a human rights envoy to Iraq to submit reports to the [101643] Government and Parliament. Alistair Burt: The promotion and defence of human rights around the world remains a key Foreign and Commonwealth Office priority. The appointment of the previous human rights envoy was a specific appointment under the previous Government. There are no current plans to reinstate the position but Ministers raise human rights issues whenever necessary. We continue to support the Iraqi Government in improving human rights in Iraq, not least by providing training and expertise on a range of human rights issues including to the Iraqi Council of Representatives Human Rights Committee. We will continue to update Parliament on our work to improve the human rights situation in Iraq, including how we can continue to help the Government of Iraq. Michael Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the government of Iraq regarding the use of (a) torture and (b) evidence obtained through torture in court cases in Iraq.
[101644]

particularly in relation to Iraqs application of the death penalty. In 2011 the UK contributed to a UN-led project aiming towards strengthening the credibility of human rights reports, particularly around allegations of torture and systematic abuse. The UK has also helped to establish police forensics laboratories in Baghdad, Basra and Erbil. This project has helped to encourage the reform of the Iraqi criminal justice system so that it develops an ethical, principled and comprehensive approach to criminal evidence, and moves away from over-reliance on confessional evidence. Michael Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the government of Iraq on the transparency and fairness of judicial processes in Iraq. [101645] Alistair Burt: We continue to have serious concerns about the administration of justice and the rule of law in Iraq, including the issue of lengthy pre-trial detention. We have repeatedly called for the Iraqi Ministry of Justice to assume full control and authority over all detention facilities in Iraq, and for all those in detention to have access to legal counsel and the right to a fair trial. In 2011 we provided training on human rights for the police and judiciary in Iraq, including in the Kurdistan Region, and contributed to a UN-led project to train human rights advocates in Kirkuk. We will continue to assist the Government of Iraq in improving the transparency and effectiveness of its judicial system. Michael Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from the government of Iraq on the number of (a) executions carried out and (b) offences for which the death penalty may be imposed in Iraq.
[101646]

Alistair Burt: We continue to raise our opposition to the death penalty with the Iraqi Government at the highest levels. The recent increase in the number of executions in Iraq is deeply worrying. Reports indicate that so far in 2012, 65 executions have been carried out in Iraq. This brings the total number of executions in Iraq since November to 94. This is a worrying trend, and our ambassador in Baghdad raised our concern with the Vice President of Iraq on 30 January and with the Chief Justice on 8 February. We continue to discuss with EU partners and the Government of Iraq ways we can support Iraqs commitment to reducing the number of crimes that carry the death penalty, as laid out in their National Action Plan on Human Rights. Libya Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps the Government has taken to protect the safety of UK [101745] citizens visiting Libya. Alistair Burt: While the wellbeing of British nationals overseas is of paramount importance to us, the British embassy in Tripoli is not ultimately responsible for the safety and security of British nationals in Libya. This is the responsibility of the Libyan authorities and the individuals concerned.

Alistair Burt: We remain concerned over allegations of torture and mistreatment in Iraqi prisons. We regularly raise these concerns with the Government of Iraq,

1091W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers TREASURY Child Benefit

1092W

We keep our travel advice under constant review and would urge all British nationals travelling overseas to check the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website regularly for the most up-to-date information. Our travel advice offers British travellers guidance and advice to help them make their own informed decisions about travelling to a particular country. We currently advise against all travel to parts of Libya and against all but essential travel to other parts of the country. At present, the UK embassy in Tripoli and office in Benghazi are only able to provide very limited consular assistance. Mauritania Sheryll Murray: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had on the Fisheries Partnership [102109] Agreement with Mauritania. Alistair Burt: The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), has not held any direct discussions on the Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Mauritania. Sheryll Murray: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the provision of processing and landing facilities will be included in a new Fisheries Partnership Agreement [102110] with Mauritania. Alistair Burt: The exact terms of the EU-Mauritania Fisheries Partnership Agreement are subject to further discussion. Syria Caroline Dinenage: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking as part of the UK presidency of the UN Security Council to seek consensus for a resolution on humanitarian access and protection of [101825] civilians in Syria. Alistair Burt: Further to the answer given by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), on 19 March 2012, Official Report, column 486W, the UN Security Council on 21 March during the UK presidency issued a presidential statement which calls upon the Syrian Government to; ensure timely provision of humanitarian assistance to all areas and; commit to stop the fighting and achieve urgently an effective United Nations supervised cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties to protect civilians. The statement received the full and unanimous support of the Security Council for the work of Kofi Annan as joint UN-Arab League Envoy on Syria. The UN Security Council will consider what further steps are necessary in the light of reports from Mr Annan updating the Council on the progress of his mission. We do not consider a presidential statement to be a substitute for a Security Council Resolution and will continue to work with our international partners to push for further tough action on Syria.

Mr Chope: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many higher-rate taxpayers have more than 10 children in receipt of child benefit; [100833] (2) if he will set out his calculation of the minimum number of children qualifying for child benefit that a higher-rate taxpayer would have to have before the total of child benefit received was greater than that persons payments of income tax; and if he will make a [100849] statement; (3) pursuant to the Prime Ministers oral answer of 7 March 2012, Official Report, column 841, on child tax credit, if he will set out his calculation of the minimum number of children qualifying for child benefit that a higher-rate taxpayer would have to have before that persons own payments of income tax were exceeded by the child benefit received; and if he will [100850] make a statement. Mr Gauke [holding answer 19 March 2012]: In 2012-13, a higher rate taxpayer would have to have a minimum of 10 children to receive more in child benefit than they pay in income tax. The total number of child benefit claimants with upwards of 10 children is 365. The number of these that are in a family that contains a higher-rate taxpayer is not available. Mr Chope: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families with children have an earner with a gross taxable income in excess of (a) 50,000, (b) [100851] 60,000 and (c) 70,000. Mr Gauke [holding answer 19 March 2012]: We estimate in the United Kingdom in 2009-10 there were:
1.1 million benefit units with dependent children with at least one adult with non-zero earned income and a gross income from ail sources greater than 50,000. 0.7 million benefit units with dependent children with at least one adult with non-zero earned income and a gross income from all sources greater than 60,000. 0.5 million benefit units with dependent children with at least one adult with non-zero earned income and a gross income from all sources greater than 70,000. Source: Family Resources Survey 2009-10 Notes: 1. The Family Resources Survey (FRS) is a nationally representative sample of approximately 25,000 UK private households. 2. Data for 2009-10, the latest year available, was collected between April 2009 and March 2010. 3. The figures from the FRS are based on a sample of households which have been adjusted for non-response using multi-purpose grossing factors which align the estimates to Government Office Region populations by age and sex. Estimates are subject to sampling error and remaining non-response error. 4. A benefit unit is defined as a single adult or a married or cohabiting couple and any dependent children. An adult is defined as those individuals aged 16 or over, unless defined as a dependent child. An individual may be defined as a child if aged 16-19 years old and they are not married nor in a civil partnership nor living with a partner; and living with parents; and in full-time non-advanced education or in unwaged government training.

1093W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1094W

5. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 100,000. 6. Earned income includes income from wages and salaries and income from self-employment. A full list of income sources used to calculate gross income is within then FRS publication glossary found at: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/frs/2009_10/glossary.pdf

Mr Chope: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he plans to bring forward proposals to remove the privilege of confidentiality in relation to tax returns from recipients of child benefit with a partner earning [102281] in excess of 50,000 per annum. Mr Gauke: There are no plans to bring forward proposals to remove confidentiality in relation to tax returns from recipients of child benefit with a partner earning in excess of 50,000 per annum. CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme Paul Flynn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria will be used to judge whether significant administrative savings are deliverable following the consultation on the Carbon Reduction Commitment energy efficiency scheme; when the consultation will [102200] begin; and for what time period it will run. Gregory Barker: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Governments consultation on ambitious simplification of the CRC was launched on 27 March, and will run for 12 weeks. The consultation contains a number of proposals on how to reduce the administrative cost of the CRC scheme. The administrative savings we believe these proposals will deliver is set out in the impact assessment that accompanies the consultation document. The costs and savings data is based on a survey of participants costs that KPMG conducted on our behalf last year, and the results of which we have also published alongside the consultation document. We are keen to receive views from stakeholders on both the proposals and our costs and savings estimates in the impact assessment. We expect responses to include comments on deliverability, which is normally the case with Government consultations. Departmental Recruitment Mr Thomas: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department has spent on (a) recruitment services and (b) executive search agencies in each month since May 2010; and if he will make a [93555] statement. Miss Chloe Smith: The Government introduced an external recruitment freeze in May 2010 across central Government Departments. In HM Treasury, ministerial approval is required to recruit either temporary or permanent staff where the skills are not available internally. Third party recruitment services spend, since May 2010, is shown in the following table. The information includes costs for advertising, candidate sourcing and assessment services. The figures are cash rather than accruals based and exclude VAT.
(excl. VAT) May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 27,117 20,144 35,936 925 4,249 11,015 8,572

Meg Munn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the costs of administering the new arrangements for child benefit.
[102081]

Mr Gauke: The estimated administrative cost of administering the new arrangements for child benefit can be found in the Tax Information and Impact Note (TUN) which was published on HMRCs website:
www.hmrc.gov.uk

Mr Chope: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the number of single-parent households that will lose child benefit (a) altogether and (b) partially as a result of his Budget [102161] proposals; (2) what his estimate is of the number of households with an income in excess of (a) 60,000 and (b) 80,000 per annum which will retain child benefit in [102270] 2013-14. Mr Gauke: As a result of the Budget 2012 announcement, 90% of households with children will keep some or all of their child benefit. HMRC estimates that in 2013-14 there will be 30,000 single parents who will lose all of their child benefit and 790,000 couples. A further 20,000 single parents, and 330,000 couples will lose a proportion of their child benefit. In 2013-14 there will be approximately 670,000 households with family income above 60,000 per year that will retain at least some of their child benefit. For those with a family income over 80,000 per year, this figure is 170,000 households. Mr Chope: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the administrative cost of recovering through the tax system child benefit paid to families with a person earning over 50,000 a year in [102269] (a) 2012-13 and (b) 2013-14. Mr Gauke: The estimated administrative cost of recovering through the tax system child benefit paid to families with a person earning over 50,000 a year can be found in the Tax Information and Impact Note (TUN) which was published on HMRCs website:
www.hmrc.gov.uk

Mr Chope: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers who do not currently have to submit a tax return will be required to do so as a result of the Governments proposals in relation to child [102271] benefit. Mr Gauke: The estimated number of additional taxpayers who will be required to submit a tax return can be found in the Tax Information and Impact Note (TUN) which was published on HMRCs website:
www.hmrc.gov.uk

1095W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers Excise Duties: Alcoholic Drinks

1096W

(excl. VAT) January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 23,021 1,550 3,441 7,000 11,850 5,758 25,714 2,040 9,600 6,680 10,358 39,322 31,686 3,439

Andrew Griffiths: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many road hauliers have had their licences withdrawn as a result of successful HM Revenue and Customs action to tackle alcohol duty [101959] fraud in each of the last five years. Miss Chloe Smith: The licensing of road hauliers (including the consideration of revocation of licences) is the responsibility of the independent Traffic Commissioners. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) have been able to refer cases to the Traffic Commissioners for consideration of revocation of a license since March 2011. No such referrals have yet been made although HMRC anticipate doing so in the coming year. This measure is one of several actions HMRC and the Border Force are able to use against operators who take part in alcohol fraud, including levying wrongdoing penalties, seizing alcohol and vehicles, and pursuing criminal prosecutions. Income Tax: Tax Rates and Bands Tracey Crouch: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people resident in (a) Chatham and Aylesford constituency and (b) Medway who will no longer pay income tax consequent on the proposed increase in the personal allowance (i) from April 2012 and (ii) to [101632] 10,000 by April 2015. Mr Gauke: The 2011 Budget announced a 630 cash increase in the personal allowance for under 65s to 8,105 in 2012-13 (240 above indexation), with an equivalent reduction in the basic rate limit to leave the higher rate threshold unchanged. As a result of these measures the Government estimated that in 2012-13 260,000 of the lowest income taxpayers will be removed from tax altogether. Information at Government office region is provided in the following table:
Government office region North-west and Merseyside Yorkshire and the Humber East midlands West midlands East of England London South-east South-west Wales Scotland Northern Ireland Address abroad/unknown All Number taken out of income tax (thousand) 28 26 18 25 25 30 32 24 10 21 9 3 260

Additionally, since May 2010, HM Treasury has also used an executive search agency, for which total spend to February 2012 is 40,318 (excluding VAT). A monthly breakdown of departmental expenditure over 25,000 (excluding VAT) can be found at:
www.data.gov.uk

Details of all contracts with a value of over 10,000 (excluding VAT) awarded since 1 January 2011 are published online at:
www.contractsfinder.businesslink.gov.uk

Employment Agencies Jon Trickett: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department spent on recruitment agencies in each month since September 2011. [87993] Miss Chloe Smith: The Government introduced an external recruitment freeze in May 2010 across central Government Departments. In HM Treasury, ministerial approval is required to recruit either temporary or permanent staff where the skills are not available internally. HM Treasury spend with recruitment agencies, since September 2011, is shown in the following table. The figures include the recruitment of both temporary and permanent staff and the costs of advertising, candidate sourcing and assessment services. The figures also include the costs of temporary and interim staff that are recruited and paid via recruitment agencies. The information has been taken from HM Treasurys financial system and is third party spend. The figures are cash rather than accruals based and exclude VAT.
Total (excluding VAT) September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 55,058 56,695 65,063 122,758 104,629 138,928

A monthly breakdown of departmental expenditure over 25,000 can be found at:

www.data.gov.uk

Details of all contracts with a value of over 10,000 that have been awarded since 1 January 2011 are published online at
www.contractsfinder.businesslink.gov.uk

These estimates are based on the 2007-08 Survey of Personal Incomes, projected to 2012-13 using economic assumptions consistent with the Office for Budget Responsibilitys March 2011 economic and fiscal outlook. The 2012 Budget announced a 1,100 cash increase in the personal allowance for under 65s to 9,205 in 2013-14 (850 above indexation).

1097W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers Stamp Duty Land Tax

1098W

As a result of this measure the Government estimate that in 2013-14 844,000 of the lowest income taxpayers will be removed from tax altogether. Information at Government office region is provided in the following table:
Government office region North-east North-west and Merseyside Yorkshire and the Humber East midlands West midlands East of England London South-east South-west Wales Scotland Northern Ireland Address abroad/unknown All Number taken out of income tax (thousand) 34 95 74 66 74 75 97 104 73 42 73 25 13 844

John Healey: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the (a) value and (b) extent of forestalling in advance of the coming into effect of his planned changes to stamp duty land tax. [102162] Miss Chloe Smith: The value and extent of forestalling are estimated to be negligible. Taxation: Multinational Companies Alex Cunningham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was foregone by HM Revenue and Customs due to multinational company tax write-offs in the latest period for which figures are [101217] available. Mr Gauke: The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Tobacco: Smuggling Ian Paisley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to paragraph 4.16 of his Departments publication, Tackling Tobacco Smugglingbuilding on our success, how many (a) charges and (b) prosecutions have been brought that have resulted in (i) seizure of goods, (ii) seizure of vehicles or vessels and possible non-restoration, (iii) seizure of cash under the proceeds of crime legislation, (iv) criminal prosecution with a custodial sentence of up to seven years, (v) confiscation of assets as part of the proceeds of crime legislation, (vi) assessment for the loss of duty, (vii) financial wrongdoing penalties of up to 100 per cent. of the duty due, (viii) civil action including winding up orders and bankruptcy, (ix) fines of up to 5000 for selling illicit tobacco not bearing the UK duty paid fiscal markings, (x) prohibition on the sale of tobacco products for up to six months and (xi) travel restrictions on repeat tobacco smugglers in the last five [101707] years. Miss Chloe Smith: It is not possible to provide a detailed breakdown of actions taken in respect of individual prosecutions for tobacco related offences in the way requested. To the extent that we are able to provide details of prosecutions and sanctions, this is detailed as follows. The way in which prosecutions and convictions are recorded has changed. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) now count a prosecution as the point at which the individual is charged and a conviction as post trial. However, information is available from 2008-09 onwards. The total number of prosecutions made by HMRC, and the number of convictions, for financial year 2008-09 onwards is as follows:
Number of prosecutions 2010-11 2009-10 2008-09 218 262 261 Number of convictions 133 233 226

These estimates are based on the 2009-10 Survey of Personal Incomes, projected to 2013-14 using economic assumptions consistent with the Office for Budget Responsibilitys March 2012 economic and fiscal outlook. Reliable estimates are not currently available at parliamentary constituency level, due to greater uncertainties in projections for small geographical areas and small sample sizes. The Government are committed to supporting lower and middle income earners by raising the personal allowance to 10,000, and removing the lowest income individuals out of income tax. Decisions on future changes in the personal allowance will be taken as part of the annual Budget process in the context of the wider public finances. Minimum Wage Chris Bryant: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many members of staff at HM Revenue and Customs work on the enforcement of the [101941] national minimum wage. Mr Gauke: There are currently 152 staff in post working on the enforcement of the national minimum wage. PAYE Stephen Timms: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons his Department adopted the interim solution to provide real time information [102221] for PAYE; and if he will make a statement. Mr Gauke: HMRCs original plans for the implementation of real time information (RTI) assumed that employers would use the BACs channel to send payment and tax data to HMRC. However, following consultation on RTI in 2011, and in response to concerns raised by employers, software providers and the banking industry, HMRC decided to adopt the interim solution. Particular concerns raised related to the time needed to implement a BACs filing channel and a new payment standard. By adopting the interim solution HMRC will ensure that RTI is ready in time to support the implementation of universal credit from October 2013.

1099W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1100W
Households 38.8 97.7 76.1 68.7 79.2 84.8 72.6 114.6 78.8 22.5 73.3 43.5 2.3

In the last five years, the combined total of tobacco seized by HMRC and UKBA is detailed as follows.
Cigarettes seized (billion) 2010-11 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07 1.75 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 Hand-rolling tobacco seized (tonnes) 390 400 258 194 228

Region North-east North-west Yorkshire and the Humber East midlands West midlands East London South-east South-west Northern Ireland Scotland Wales Foreign/unknown

The following table gives details of the number and value of confiscation orders granted in relation to tobacco prosecutions, where available.
Number or orders 2010-11 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07 46 61 n/a n/a n/a Total value ( million) 4.7 9.0 2.4 6.78 3.18

HEALTH NHS: Scotland Public Health Responsibility Deal 18. Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he plans to evaluate the effectiveness of the [101889] public health responsibility deal. Mr Lansley: One year into the Responsibility Deal, we are already seeing successes, including the elimination of artificial trans-fats, further reductions in salt in manufactured foods and over 8,000 high street outlets showing calorie information. Transparent monitoring and evaluation of the Deal are vital, and both the Department and our partners are committed to this. We will make up to 1 million available to fund an independent evaluation. Private Health Care Sector 19. Graeme Morrice: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the involvement of the private health care sector in the [101890] NHS. Mr Simon Burns: The private sector has always provided services to the national health service. The Department does not collect information regarding which providers are providing what NHS services. This will continue to be a matter for commissioners. We agree with the previous Government that the best providers should provide NHS services and that clinical commissioners and patients should decide who delivers them. GP Waiting Times

Figures for the seizure of cash under the Proceeds of Crime Act cannot be disaggregated to show only those relating to tobacco. The total figures available are as follows:
April 2010 to March 2011: 109 cases worth 2,342,303.00 April 2011 to February 2012: 156 cases worth 4,632,791

The issuing of assessments and wrongdoing penalties are not linked to prosecutions so it is not possible to say how many prosecutions led to assessments or penalties being issued. The other information requested is not centrally available and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost. VAT Derek Twigg: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has conducted an impact assessment of the potential effects of a reduction in the rate of VAT to five per cent. for home repair, [102114] maintenance and improvement work. Mr Gauke: I refer the hon. Member to the answers given on 17 October 2011, Official Report, column 713W, and on 21 October 2011, Official Report, column 1201W, to the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). Welfare Tax Credits Debbie Abrahams: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of households in each region which will no longer be entitled to tax credits following the introduction of [101762] changes to those credits from April 2012. Mr Gauke [holding answer 26 March 2012]: Estimates of the number of households in each Government office region that will no longer be entitled to tax credits following the introduction of changes to tax credits from April 2012 (in 2012-13, thousand) are as follows:

20. Shabana Mahmood: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the average waiting time for patients to see their GP in the latest [101891] period for which figures are available. Mr Simon Burns: 68% of patients say they are seen within 15 minutes of their appointment time. 84% of patients say that they are able to get an appointment to see a general practitioner in their practice when they wanted or sooner where an appointment was secured.

1101W

Written Answers Health Allocation Formula

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers Care Quality Commission

1102W

21. David Mowat: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the health [101893] allocation formula. Mr Simon Burns: The independent Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation constantly reviews the formula and it is regularly updated with the most up-to-date data, such as population projections. The Committee is supporting the detailed development of allocations for clinical commissioning groups and local authorities for their future public health responsibilities. NHS: Scotland John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions and on what dates he has met the Secretary of State for Scotland to discuss the potential effects of the Health and Social Care Bill [101876] on the NHS in Scotland. Mr Simon Burns: Department of Health and Scotland Office Ministers have not met to discuss the Health and Social Care Bill. Provisions which apply to Scotland have been discussed at official level between the Department of Health, the Scotland Office and the Scottish Government. Aspergers Syndrome Mr Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects a universal and full service for the treatment of Aspergers syndrome to be available following diagnosis without a second condition.
[102053]

Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the effectiveness of the Care Quality Commission. [101862] Mr Simon Burns: The Department has recently undertaken a Performance and Capability Review of the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The report of the review, which was published on 23 February 2012, recognised the progress that CQC has made in the past three years, and sets out recommendations to challenge CQC and support its continuing improvement by providing a clearer strategic direction, strengthening the CQC Board and developing and delivering the regulatory model. A copy of the report Performance and Capability review: Care Quality Commission has already been placed in the Library and the report can be found on the Departments website at:
www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/02/cqc-performance-review

In addition, the Department continues to monitor CQCs financial and operational performance and risks at a general and strategic level through regular formal accountability meetings. Care Quality Commission: Consultants Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts with external consultants were held by the Care Quality Commission in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10 and (c) 2010-11; how many have been held in 2011-12 to date; for what services the contracts [101867] were made; and what the cost was of each. Mr Simon Burns: The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the independent regulator of health and adult social care providers in England and has a key responsibility in the overall assurance of essential levels of safety and quality of health and adult social care services. The CQC has provided the following information. The following tables show the total CQC spend on consultants.
2008-09 financial year Company PWC PWC PWC PWC PA Consulting PA Consulting Description Programme and Project Management Support to CQC Registration Programme and Project Management Support to CQC Registration Programme and Project Management Support to CQC Registration Fees CQC Options Appraisal Consultancy workproject management support Consultancy workproject management support 2009-10 financial year Consultancy costs2009-10 Supplier Badenoch and Clark Beamans Management Consultants CapGemini Description Procurement Services CQC Job Evaluation Consultancy Services 000 148 27 000 59 74 80 58 88 121

Paul Burstow: We have seen significant progress in the development of a consistent pathway for the diagnosis and treatment of autismincluding Aspergers syndromesince the publication of Fulfilling and Rewarding Lives, the adult autism strategy, and its attendant statutory guidance. A consistent pathway for diagnosis is being created through the development and implementation of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, clinical guidance for the diagnosis and management of autism, social care eligibility criteria, signposting newly diagnosed patients to advice and information, and lead professionals appointed in most local areas to develop diagnostic services. Further work will be done over the coming year to evaluate the progress made in putting in place diagnostic pathways and to identify good practice in developing local and flexible arrangements. Access to publicly funded care services is based on meeting the criteria set out in guidance known as Prioritising Need. This sets out four bands that reflect the risk to peoples independence or other consequences if their need for services is not met. The four bands are low, moderate, substantial and critical. Each local authority decides, according to their own resources, which people they can support. If the needs of the individual do not meet the eligibility criteria set out by their local authority, they will not receive funded social care services. But people should be given information about what other support from charities or other community groups is available in their area.

Scenario Testing Events to test our approach to registration

184

1103W

Written Answers
2009-10 financial year Consultancy costs2009-10

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers
2009-10 financial year Consultancy costs2009-10

1104W

Supplier Computacenter UK Limited Creative Research Ltd CSC Computer Science Ltd Ernst and Young LLP Hays Specialist Recruitment Institute of Customer Services KJT Consultancy Limited McKinsey and Company Inc Michael Page MM Teleformance Ltd OPM OPM

Description January Registration release Principal Consultant Creative ResearchFocus Group Annual Health Check Project management time Development of Registration fees scheme across provider markets Contractors Council membership

000 19 30

Supplier PWC

Description Consultation work on the Strategic Outline Case and Outline Business Case for the registration program Fees in respect of CQC Options Appraisal Registration Programme Support Office Professional Services Sapient Consultancy Business Process Definition and User Acceptance Testing Management E-learning and workshop programme Build Project Management, Registration Programme User Acceptance Testing and Training. Training and Workshop Programme Rollout Part of Framework Agreement Ambulance and Dentists Resource for Carers and circles of support (Learning Disabilities) Specialist Designers and Admin Support Registration phases lb, c

000 37

PWC 11 473 14 SCC 23 SCC PWC Sapient SCC

57 904 3 84 245 62

Consultancy work re Annual Performance Assessment for Wirral Value for Money assessment of regulation Michael Page Contract Staff Teleperformance Data Validation Project 1st Payment Consultancy fee for Healthcare Associated Infection evaluation report Consultancy workanalysing responses to CQCs Consultation on Assessment of Quality Fieldwork/Research for impact of the economic downturn Impact of Economic Downturn study Clinical engagement on Quality and Risk Profile Consultancy workproject management support Consultants to support Registration Programme and Project Support Office Continued Support for Operational Readiness Contract extension for two consultants working on the Adult Social Care project 11.5 days Corporate performance development consultancy by PA Consulting Customer Service Strategy implementation Field Force Model implementation Field force Development Work Further development of Field Force Model Information and Communications Technology Strategy Operational Readiness Project Management support PA ConsultingDevt of Reg. Criteria Phase 1 Proof of Concept Support Registration Programme Planner Operational Readiness Registration Programme Planner Registration Programme Support from PA Consulting (CQC Registration Benefits) Additional Planning Support for Operational Readiness Project Management support for CQC Information and Communications Technology infrastructure Fees Associate Assessor Consultants to support the Registration Programme and Project Support Office

21

SCC Serco Shared Service Centre Social Care Institute for Excellence Specialist Computer Centres plc (SCC) The Kings Fund Tribal Consulting

182 20 9

129 9 108

26

60 31

Development of CQC Regulatory Model Registration Programme Management Consultant To provide consultancy work onInfection Prevention and Control at the Health and Social Care Inter Registration Programme Management Consultant 2010-11 financial year Consultancy costs2010-11

130 172 56

OPM OPM PA Consulting PA Consulting PA Consulting PA Consulting PA Consulting

45 14 97 29 582 76 20

Tribal Consulting Tribal Consulting

180

Supplier Amtec Consulting Consortium Beamans Management Consulting Ernst and Young Ernst and Young Ernst and Young Ernst and Young Ernst and Young PA Consulting PA Consulting PA Consulting PA Consulting PA Consulting i PA Consulting PA Consulting PA Consulting

Description Programme and Project Manager

000 135

CQC Job Evaluation Consultancy Services

106

PA Consulting PA Consulting PA Consulting PA Consulting PA Consulting PA Consulting PA Consulting PA Consulting PA Consulting PA Consulting PA Consulting PA Consulting PA Consulting Parity Solutions Ltd Perioperative Consulting Ltd PNA Consultancy Ltd PWC

38 25 442 44 120 312 83 50 34 16 16 48 40 98

Development of Registration fees scheme across provider markets Programme Management and Planning Support for the Project Support Office and Operations Readiness Data Management Support under the Framework Agreement Framework Agreement assignment to support Quality Assurance Process for the Registration Program Project Support Office Support/Operational Readiness Planning and Data Managing Support Support for Proof of Concept Content Development Support for Proof of Concept and Developing Scenarios Proof of Concept Content Development/ Framework Agreement Continued Planning Support for Operational Readiness Programme Management and Planning Support for Operational Readiness under the framework agreement Framework Agreement planning support for operational readiness Programme and project Management Support to the Registration Programme Support Office Consultancy Support

134 104

4 92

127

52 37 55 68 109

13 14 242

75 495 74

1105W

Written Answers
2010-11 financial year Consultancy costs2010-11

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1106W

Supplier PWC

Description Contract for Project Support Officers 2011-12 financial year (to end of February 2012) Consultancy costs2011-12

000 165

Information on whether senior officials have met with employees of Crosby-Textor since May 2010 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Doctors: Training Nic Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received on the application process for those applying for entry to the Foundation Programme in August 2012; [100103] (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that all graduates of medical schools are able to gain a place on the 2012 Foundation Programme; and if he will make a [100104] statement; (3) what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the UK Foundation Programme Office on the response to oversubscription of the 2012 Foundation Programme; and if he will make a [100105] statement; (4) what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the UK Foundation Programme Office on plans for responding to oversubscription of the Foundation Programme in each of the next three [100106] years; and if he will make a statement. Anne Milton: To date, all eligible applicants have successfully secured a place on the Foundation Programme. However, this is an issue that is continually monitored by the four United Kingdom Health Departments, in liaison with the UK Foundation Programme office. Similarly, it is also considered by the Medical Programme Board of Medical Education England which includes representation from all the relevant stakeholders. To this end, the Medical Programme Board has recently established a working group specifically to consider potential pressures on future Foundation Programme applications. For programmes starting in August 2012, 7,089 secured a place following the first recruitment round, leaving 81 applicants on a reserve list. We are confident these will all ultimately be placed as other applicants withdraw or fail their final examinations. (There was a larger reserve list in 2011 and all applicants were placed). The numbers for the next three years cannot be known at this stage. However, if there is oversubscription the existing processes for managing this through the reserve list will be invoked. Epilepsy: Health Services Teresa Pearce: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to address the misdiagnosis of epilepsy and non-epileptic seizure [102227] disorder. Paul Burstow: Epilepsy can be difficult to diagnose because there are many other conditions that can cause seizures. There are no specific tests for epilepsy, however in some cases tests can highlight an underlying medical condition which may be causing the seizures. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guideline on epilepsy recommends a review by an epilepsy specialist within two weeks of presentation.

Supplier PA Consulting

Description Provision of Information Management and Information Management Technology services to support frontline operations

000 51

Cholesterol Ms Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in England have high cholesterol; [102190] and if he will make a statement. Anne Milton: Using data from the Health Survey for England (2008) and population statistics it is estimated that approximately 12 million men and 13.2 million women in England have raised cholesterol levels (levels greater than 5 millimoles per litre). Average cholesterol levels were 5.2 millimoles per litre for men and were 5.4 millimoles per litre for women. Contraceptives Ms Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated expenditure was on community contraceptive services for women (a) aged under 20 years and (b) aged 20 years and over in (i) England and (ii) each primary care trust area in (A) 2010, (B) 2011 and (C) the latest period for which figures are [101788] available in 2012. Anne Milton: Expenditure on community contraceptive services for women, and for individual age groups, is not collected centrally. The Department currently makes recurrent revenue allocations direct to primary care trusts (PCTs) on the basis of a national weighted capitation formula which is used to determine each PCTs target share of available resources. PCT recurrent revenue allocations are not broken down by policy or service area. Once allocated, it is for PCTs to commission the services they require to meet the healthcare needs of their local populations, taking account of both local and national priorities. Crosby-Textor Tessa Jowell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether (a) he, (b) Ministers and (c) senior officials in his Department have met employees of Crosby[102217] Textor since May 2010. Mr Simon Burns: Details of all ministerial meetings with external parties are published quarterly in arrears on the Departments website. Data from 1 January 2010 up to the end of September 2011 can be found at:
http://data.gov.uk/dataset/dept-of-health-ministers-meetings2010-onwards

Data for October to December 2011 will be published in the summer.

1107W

Written Answers General Practitioners

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1108W

General Practitioners: Management Consultants Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent estimate he has made of expenditure by primary care trusts on management consultants contracted to support shadow clinical commissioning groups in (a) 2010-11 and (b) 2011-12 to date.
[101731]

John Pugh: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answers of 19 March 2012, Official Report, column 556W, on clinical commissioning groups, if he will take steps to prevent the NHS Commissioning Board undertaking activities before it [101699] has been established. Mr Simon Burns: The NHS Commissioning Board will be established later this year, and only then will it be able to carry any of the functions set out in the Health and Social Care Bill. The NHS Commissioning Board Authority was established as a special health authority on 31 October 2011, to prepare for the establishment of the NHS Commissioning Board. Its functions are restricted to those set out in the relevant establishment legislation, including directions made by the Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley). These can be found at the following links:
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/2237/made www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/ PublicationsLegislation/DH_130917

Mr Simon Burns: Information relating to the management consultancy spend by primary care trusts on supporting emerging clinical commissioning groups is not held by the Department. Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given to emerging clinical commissioning groups on the acceptance of support from management consultancy firms on a pro bono or [101965] commercial basis. Mr Simon Burns: No guidance has been given by the Department. Primary care trusts (PCTs) will remain statutorily responsible and accountable for commissioning NHS services in 2012-13. Strategic health authority and PCT clusters are able to accept external expertise (from either the public, voluntary or private sectors) to help clinical commissioning groups develop the range of skills, knowledge and working arrangements needed to commission health services effectively in the future. Health Visitors: Crimes of Violence

The Department will hold the authority to account against the functions and objectives it has been given. John Pugh: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answers of 19 March 2012, Official Report, column 556W, on clinical commissioning groups, (1) whether the interpretation of the Competition Act 1998 referred to in the answers included the possibility that a clinical commissioning group might count as an association of undertakings; [101700] and if he will make a further statement; (2) if he will consult the European Commission about the application of European competition law to the decisions of clinical commissioning groups; and if [101701] he will make a further statement; (3) what discussions his Department has had with the NHS Commissioning Board Special Health Authority about the application of European competition law to the decisions of clinical commissioning groups; and if he will make a further [101702] statement. Mr Simon Burns: The Departments view is that competition law will not apply to clinical commissioning groups in their roles as commissioners of services because the case law is clear that where public bodies carry out an activity of an exclusively social nature, neither that activity, nor the bodies purchase of goods or services for the purpose of that activity, will generally be treated as an economic activity. A clinical commissioning group will be a statutory body, not an association of undertakings. I understand departmental officials have briefed individuals within the NHS Commissioning Board Authority regarding the Governments position. We have no plans to consult the European Commission.

Ms Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many physical assaults on health visitors were recorded in (a) 2010, (b) 2011 and (c) the latest period for which figures are available in 2012. [101790] Mr Simon Burns: The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The number of reported physical assaults against national health service staff in England is collated annually. Information is available for each NHS body but not broken down by professional occupation. Information on the number of reported physical assaults against NHS staff and criminal sanctions following assaults, broken down by NHS body, for the year 2009-10 and 2010-11 is in the Tables showing the number of reported physical assaults on NHS staff in 2009-10, broken down by NHS trust/PCT and Tables showing the number of reported physical assaults on NHS staff in 2010-11, broken down by NHS trust/PCT which have already been placed in the Library. The NHS staff survey provides information from staff in all trusts and social enterprises who have experienced violence. The following table shows the percentage of staff responding to the survey who reported that they had experienced physical violence from patients, relatives or members of the public.
Percentage National 2010 2011 7.1 6.7 All nursing staff 11.8 11.0 Health visitors 1.2 1.2

1109W

Written Answers Health: Management Consultants

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1110W

Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by his Departments arms length bodies on external consultants in (a) 2010-11 and (b) each of the last five years for which figures are [101871] available. Mr Simon Burns: External consultancy services expenditure for the Departments arms length bodies and executive agency for the last five closed financial years is shown in the following table:
Executive non-departmental public bodies, executive agencies and special health authorities1,2,3 000 2010-11 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07 8,828 41,732 11,324 8,183 8,437

directive on traditional herbal medicines which can best ensure its benefits for consumers and for companies compliant with the legislation. The classification of products as medicines is made on a case-by-case basis by the MHRA under the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations Etc) Regulations 1994 as amended. The MHRA document Guidance Note 8 A guide to what is a medicinal product is currently being revised to clarify the MHRAs position on the European directive on traditional herbal medicines and this will be discussed with industry trade associations in April. Hospital Beds Ms Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many older people were subject to delayed discharge from hospital as a result of malnutrition in (a) 2010, (b) 2011 and (c) the latest period for which figures are available in 2012. [101827] Paul Burstow: The information requested is not collected centrally. Delayed discharges occur when a patient is medically fit to be transferred from hospital, but is still occupying an acute bed because of a lack of capacity in the wider system. If a patient is suffering from malnutrition and is not medically fit, they would not be ready for discharge from hospital and therefore could not be counted as delayed. Maternity Services: Greater London Margaret Hodge: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was paid in compensation in respect of maternity cases by Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust in each of the last five years; and [101688] how many claims are outstanding. Anne Milton: The following table shows the amount of damages paid in respect of obstetrics claims against Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust in the years 2006 to 2011.
Total damages paid1 obstetrics () 2010-11 3,814,530 2009-10 2,969,524 2008-09 4,161,385 2007-08 413,988 2006-07 509,276 1 Damages paid in a given year may be from claims settled in that year, payments made on unsettled claims, (e.g. an interim payment), or claims settled in earlier years that have ongoing annual payments. Source: National Health Service Litigation Authority website March 2012

Notes: 1. Figures for 2009-10 and 2010-11 for executive non-departmental public bodies, executive agencies and special health authorities are on a different basis to those for earlier years and are therefore not directly comparable. 2. Figures included for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority are for Professional and administrative fees. This category includes litigation and other legal costs as well as expenditure on consultancy services, which cannot be separately identified. 3.Figures included for the Care Quality Commission do not include external legal advice. It is not possible to identify how much of this expenditure falls within the definition of consultancy services.

Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the Minister for the Cabinet Office on expenditure on external consultants by (a) his Department, (b) its arms length [101966] bodies and (c) Connecting for Health. Mr Simon Burns: Department of Health Ministers have not met the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), in the last 12 months to specifically discuss management consultancy expenditure. The Department submits information on approved consultancy expenditure by the Department and its arms length bodies (ALBs) to the Cabinet Office every month using the Cabinet Office consultancy spend tracker. Departmental officials and Cabinet Office officials hold regular discussions concerning consultancy expenditure. As part of the Cabinet Offices efficiency controls, there is an ongoing freeze on all Department and ALB management consultancy spend unless it is deemed an operational necessity. All expenditure over 20,000 requires approval by the Departments director of finance. Herbal Medicine: EU Law Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he plans to take to ensure that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency implements the traditional herbal medicinal products directive in a manner that does not impose unnecessary burdens on the manufacturers of such [102277] products. Mr Simon Burns: The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is committed to effective, proportionate implementation of the European

The number of claims relating to obstetrics that have not been settled at Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust is 28. Monitor: Consultants Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts with external consultants were held by Monitor in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10 and (c) 2010-11; how many have been held in 2011-12 to date; for what services the contracts were made; and what the [101868] cost was of each.

1111W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers
Description of work

1112W
Cost () 2,880.00 1,800.00 58,800.00 180,000.00 360,000.00 186,560.00 36,000.00 207,600.00 170,000.00 240,000.00 36,000.00 34,800.00

Mr Simon Burns: The following table sets out information held in central records about contracts held by Monitor since 2008, together with a description and cost, including VAT.
Description of work 2008-09 2008-09 2008-09 2008-09 2008-09 2008-09 2008-09 2008-09 2008-09 2008-09 2008-09 2008-09 2008-09 2008-09 2008-09 2008-09 2009-10 Property Appraisal and Lease Negotiations Private Patient Income (PPI) Consultation Exercise Adviser to Monitor for Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust (FT) Coaching Culture Project Support Structure exercise South West Yorkshire Mental Health Trust Forensic Investigation Accounting support for 2009-10 FT IFRSbased FReM Accounting support for 2008-09 FT FReM Accounting support for 2007-08 FT consolidated accounts Accounting support of FTs consolidation returns Advice for Balance Sheet elements of FTCs to comply with iFReM 3Es (VFM) Study Developing quality reports Board Quality Patient experience Anti-competitive Conduct Project (Restrictive Agreements) Examining the relationship between cost and quality in acute care in hospitals in EnglandLiterature review Compliance Efficiency Review Legal Advice on CITC IT Support and Business Management Contract Comparators Project Quality Governance Pilot Review of Monitors IFRS quarterly monitoring template FTC Update Phase 2 Consolidation support 2009-10 NED Development Programme for FTs PPI Cap review Review of Basildon and Thurrock NHS FT FT Predictive Model Clinical governance consultancy Work on FT segmentation, pipeline, and operational effectiveness project Quality Governance Pilot Assessment Support for the transition to and development of the new economic regulator for health and adult social care Technical Assistance on Quality Governance Quality Reports assurance advice Clinical governance input into assessment Conduct a review of the NHS foundation trust sector to understand performance to date and start to track this against key metrics Advice on continuity of service Advice on licensing Organisational transformation of MonitorProgramme and Project Management support Strategic Programme Management Office establishment and build programme mobilisation Designing the top level structure of Monitor Clinical governance input into assessment Clinical governance input into assessment Cost () 47,250.00 229,843.87 9,011.50 118,381.25 131,215.00 5,750.00 7,050.00 3,525.00 9,987.50

2011-12 2011-12 2011-12 2011-12 2011-12 2011-12 2011-12 2011-12 2011-12 2011-12 2011-12 2011-12

Clinical governance input into assessment Clinical governance input into assessment Review of assessment Review of assessment Evaluation of the English NHS Reimbursement System Local adjustments research project (Subsidies project) Quality metrics review for Annual Plan Process Integrated healthcare research Costing and sampling Stakeholder Engagement and Licensing Implementation Support NHS Provider Risk Pool II Clarify legal implications of staffing Future Organisation with people from Monitor, CCP and PbR License Consultation Support Documentation Work Package Foundation Trust Oversight Framework

2011-12 2,300.00 2011-12 16,100.00 99,875.00 323,125.00 287,500.00 352,500.00 34,390.00 9,257.50

36,000.00 595,200.00

Monitor: McKinsey and Company Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what work was carried out by McKinsey under contracts held by Monitor in 2011-12; and what the [101771] duration is of those contracts. Mr Simon Burns: The following table sets out information on the work carried out by McKinsey and Company for Monitor in 2011-12 to the end of January 2012, including the duration of those contracts.
Description of work Annual Plan Review Stage 1high level Duration of contract 2 weeks 2 months 3 months 1 month

2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 2010-11 2010-11 2010-11

11,500.00 11,226.01 78,997.60 104,622.00 12,075.00 16,675.00 9,775.00 60,000.00 11,750.00 4,230.00 381,875.00 506,000.00 493,500.00 104,622.00 64,625.00

Annual Plan Review Stage 2in depth reviews Review of Monitors overall assessment Design the organisational structure of Monitor

Muscular Dystrophy: East Midlands John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress the NHS East Midlands Specialised Commissioning Group has made in developing neuromuscular services in the region; and if he will [101896] make a statement. Paul Burstow: The East Midlands Specialised Commissioning Group has established a Neuromuscular Network Group to advise on commissioning of neuromuscular services. From April this year, the Yorkshire and The Humber Specialised Commissioning Group will commission specialised neuromuscular services for the people who live in the hon. Members constituency of Bassetlaw. NHS Foundation Trusts Steve Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has powers to refuse the merger of NHS foundation trusts covering two adjacent counties.
[101907]

2010-11 2010-11 2010-11 2010-11

23,206.25 26,022.73 16,810.73 33,419.83

2011-12 2011-12 2011-12

61,733.00 115,200.00 259,938.00

2011-12

572,673.60

2011-12 2011-12 2011-12

420,000.00 4,800.00 1,800.00

1113W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1114W

Mr Simon Burns: Under the National Health Service Act 2006, the Secretary of State for Health does not have powers to stop two NHS foundation trusts merging. This position would remain unchanged following Royal Assent of the Health and Social Care Bill. The Bill will enable foundation trusts to make their own decisions about organisational change including mergers, subject to strengthened accountability arrangements that require governors to approve decisions. Foundation trusts will continue to be under a duty of public involvement on matters involving the planning of, and changes to, service provision. Before a merger between two foundation trusts could proceed, the trusts would also need to satisfy NHS commissioners and Monitor of the impact on the continuity of essential services to NHS patients. It could also be reviewed by the Office of Fair Trading whose role is to protect consumers and, in this case, patientsinterests. In all cases, the Care Quality Commission would continue to safeguard appropriate standards of quality and safety. NHS: Advocacy Richard Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the capacity of advocacy organisations to absorb the administrative costs associated with achieving the [101999] quality performance mark; (2) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the commissioning processes of local authorities for advocacy services for people with learning disabilities are Compact compliant (a) nationally and [102000] (b) in Birmingham; (3) what his policy is on requiring local authorities to include the administrative cost of third sector advocacy organisations achieving the quality performance mark in assessments of full cost recovery required for Compact compliance purposes when commissioning.
[102001]

commissioning processes for voluntary sector advocacy services are Compact compliant. The Department promotes the principles of full cost recovery and as such, takes the view that administrative costs associated with achieving the Quality Mark should be included in the assessment of full cost recovery. However, local Compact agreements are the responsibility of local authorities, together with other local partners, including local voluntary sector advocacy services. NHS: Management Consultants Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent by NHS bodies on external management consultants in 2011-12 to date. [101772] Mr Simon Burns: The quarter three of 2011-12, year to date expenditure on consultancy services in national health service trusts, primary care trusts and strategic health authorities totalled 179.3 million1.
1 The Department does not collect data from NHS foundation trusts. Where an NHS trust obtains foundation trust status part way through any year, the data provided are only for the part of the year the organisation operated as an NHS trust.

Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he plans to commission external consultants to carry out independent assessments of the boards of [101869] NHS trusts. Mr Simon Burns: A Board Governance Assurance Framework for aspirant foundation trusts has been developed to assist trust boards through a combination of self and independent assessment processes to ensure that they are appropriately skilled and prepared to achieve foundation trust status. The assurance framework is structured into two key stages. The first stage is the Board Governance Memoranduma mandatory process where boards selfassess their current capacity and capability, which is supported by appropriate evidence and then externally validated by an independent supplier. The second stage is the development modules where boards can opt to gain a deeper level of assurance into the specific areas of quality governance, organisational strategy and financial governance. Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by NHS bodies on external [101870] consultants in 2010-11. Mr Simon Burns: The national health service spent 291,047,000 in financial year 2010-11 on consultancy services.
Note: This includes primary care trusts, strategic health authorities and NHS trusts. The Department does not collect data from NHS foundation trusts. Where an NHS trust obtains foundation trust status part way through any year, the data provided is only for the part of the year the organisation operated as an NHS trust. Source: NHS audited summarisation schedules (which does not include information on NHS spend with individual consultancy firms).

Paul Burstow: The information requested is not collected centrally. The vast majority of advocacy and support is not a legal or statutory requirement, but commissioned on a discretionary basis by local authorities and primary care trusts. The Department supported and funded the Advocacy Quality Mark as a social care sector led initiative to promote quality in the advocacy sector. It is an initiative which encourages the advocacy sector to reflect on what quality means to them and their clients in a cost effective manner. The Department provided funding for organisations providing Independent Mental Capacity Advocate services for people who lack the capacity to make certain important decisions, to assist them in attaining the Quality Mark. Many other advocacy organisations have chosen to apply for the Quality Mark to demonstrate that their services are high quality. Advocacy organisations decide themselves whether they wish to apply for the Quality Mark; these are locally made decisions. The Department is committed to the principles of the Compact and pursues a compact compliant way of working in its business with civil society organisations. The Department strongly supports local authorities signing up to local compact agreements that will ensure

1115W

Written Answers NHS: Standards

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1116W

Nic Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 13 March 2012, Official Report, column 192W, on NHS: standards, how many people waited longer than 18 weeks for a consultation [101389] in secondary services in January 2012. Mr Simon Burns: 25,496 or 2.9% of patients who started non-admitted treatment in January 2012 had waited more than 18 weeks from referral. The median time waited for patients who started non-admitted treatment in January 2012 was 4.4 weeks, and at the end of January, the number of patients waiting longer than 18 weeks to start treatment was the lowest level since referral to treatment data were first published in 2007. NHS: Theft Ms Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many thefts from NHS premises were recorded in (a) 2010, (b) 2011 and (c) the latest period for which [101791] figures are available in 2012. Mr Simon Burns: The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Pancreatic Cancer: Health Services Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps his Department is taking to [101863] improve pancreatic cancer survival rates; (2) when he last made an assessment of the standards of care and treatment available to pancreatic [101864] cancer patients; (3) what recent assessment he has made of geographical variations in care for cancer patients;
[101865]

In August 2011, the Department and the National Cancer Action Team published the Radiotherapy Dataset First Annual Report to help tackle unwarranted variation in radiotherapy services and from April 2012 we are mandating the collection of chemotherapy data to achieve the same. In Improving Outcomes a Strategy for Cancer: First Annual Report, published on 13 December 2011, we have said that continuing to provide the NHS with benchmarked data on variations in services and outcomes as a lever for improvements is a priority for 2012. Improving Outcomes in Upper Gastro-intestinal Cancers, published in. 2001, sets out recommendations on the treatment, management and care of patients with upper, gastro-intestinal cancers, including pancreatic cancer. Our Cancer Outcomes Strategy makes it clear that the Improving Outcomes in Cancer guidance, now the responsibility of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), will continue to be a feature of all commissioned cancer services. Through National Cancer Peer Review, a national quality assurance programme, NHS cancer services are. part of a rolling programme of assessment against a nationally agreed set of quality measures based on the NICE Improving Outcomes in Cancer guidance. To assess cancer patients experience of care, during the first three months of 2010 the Department undertook a national survey of cancer care. The National Report of the 2010 Cancer Patient Experience Survey, published in December 2010, is the largest England-wide survey of cancer patients experience of care with over 67,000 respondents from 158 trusts. Patients with pancreatic cancer are included within the results for the 3,577 patients with upper gastro-intestinal (upper GI) cancers who participated in the survey. In the following table are the survey responses most relevant to the information requested. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number.
Percentage Question Completely understood explanation of what was wrong with them Given the right amount of information about condition and treatment Given a choice of different cancer treatments Definitely involved in decisions about choice of cancer treatment Given the name of a Cancer Nurse Specialist (CNS) Found it easy to contact CNS (of those given a CNS) CNS definitely listened carefully CNS gave understandable answers to questions all or most of the time Length of time spent with CNS was about right Upper GI 73 87 84 71 90 75 92 87 95 All cancers 74 88 83 72 84 75 91 91 95

(4) what steps his Department is taking to ensure that pancreatic cancer patients are (a) more involved in their care and (b) supported by clinical nurse [101866] specialists. Paul Burstow: We are committed to improving survival rates for all cancer patients, including those with pancreatic cancer. We know that late presentation and patients having a more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis are two of the main reasons for variation in cancer survival outcomes. This is why we have prioritised achieving earlier diagnosis in Improving Outcomes: A Strategy for Cancer, published on 12 January 2011. The Strategy, backed by more than 750 million over the spending review period, sets out an ambition to save an additional 5,000 lives every year by 2014-15 through earlier diagnosis of cancer and improved access to screening and treatment. We know that there are regional variations in the treatment, care and support provided to cancer patients in England. To support the national health service to tackle this, we are providing data to providers and commissioners that allow them to benchmark their services and outcomes against one another and to identify where improvements need to be made. Through the National Cancer Intelligence Network, we have already made available data collections on survival rates and surgical resection rates across a range of cancers, including pancreatic.

To incentivise quality improvements in patient treatment, care and experience, all participating trusts were sent a bespoke report showing their own results. Each report displayed the results for each question in the survey benchmarked against other trusts. These findings are helping the NHS to identify areas in cancer care that need improvement locally and develop services that are more responsive to patients needs. We are carrying out a survey for 2011 that will show where improvements have been made and where further action is needed.

1117W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers Tuberculosis

1118W

To support the NHS to develop the CNS workforce, the Cancer Outcomes Strategy sets out our intention to build the evidence base for the benefits and costs savings that CNSs can offer. This follows an independent report we published in December 2010 that showed that, in many scenarios, the costs of additional support roles are likely to be outweighed by the savings that can be achieved. A series of case studies have now been produced to align with the Departments Nursing Career Framework, and the cancer version of the framework will be used to attract new nurses into oncology and aid the career development of the existing CNS workforce. Prostate Cancer Jonathan Reynolds: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide an update on the status of the [101653] prostate cancer drug Abiraterone. Paul Burstow: Abiraterone (Zytiga) is licensed for the treatment of metastatic prostrate cancer and there are no national restrictions on its prescribing in the national health service. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is currently appraising abiraterone for two separate indications. NICE is an independent body and has not yet issued final guidance to the national health service on either indication. In the absence of final positive NICE technology appraisal guidance, primary care trusts (PCTs) are required to take funding decisions locally based on an assessment of the available evidence and to have processes in place to consider individual funding requests for drugs. Where a cancer drug is not routinely funded by a PCT, patients may be able to access it through the Cancer Drugs Fund. Royal Sussex County Hospital Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on proposed investment in and redevelopment of the Royal Sussex County Hospital; whether formal agreement of the funding required for this project will be secured by the end of this financial year; and if he [102116] will make a statement. Mr Simon Burns: Brighton and Hove city council granted full planning permission for the Royal Sussex County Hospital development project (known as the 3Ts) at the end of January 2012, a condition of approval for the schemes outline business case (OBC), which considers the overall value for money, affordability, strategic fit and commercial issues involved. Ministers understand that the OBC will now be considered by the Board of South of England Strategic Health Authority at the end of March 2012. Subject to approval the Department and Treasury will then need to consider the OBC and also give their decision, a process which will take at least two months. The trust then needs to complete a Full business case (FBC) which it is anticipating will be complete this autumn, and is hoping it can submit a final FBC to the Department and Treasury for consideration in early 2013. It is only at this point that the public capital funding required for the scheme can be confirmed.

Nic Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of progress in tackling tuberculosis in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [101397] Anne Milton: Provisional data for 2011 show a 7.1% increase in the number of cases in England (8,418), compared to the provisional figures for 2010 (7,862), although the incidence is lower than in 2009 (8,423). This increase in 2011 followed a 6.7% decrease last year for provisional 2010 data compared to provisional 2009 data. The Health Protection Agency advise that the provisional data for 2011 should be interpreted with caution as numbers are subject to change due to late notifications and de-notifications of cases. It is therefore too early to determine whether or not this is a return to the upward trend of cases seen in the past two decades, or if it is fluctuation of case numbers over time. Final data for 2011 will be published later this year with further analysis. However, these data underline the need for national health service organisations and their partners to sustain efforts to improve the prevention, early diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis. Information relating to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a matter for the devolved Administrations. Mr Virendra Sharma: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he gave to the need for (a) service co-location and (b) accountability when taking the decision that tuberculosis services should be commissioned at the local rather than the sub-national level under the provisions of the Health and Social [101807] Care Bill. Anne Milton: The Health and Social Care Bill provides for clinical commissioning groups to work collaboratively on commissioning, for example by entering into lead commissioning arrangements or pooled budgetary arrangements. The NHS Commissioning Board Authority is supporting emerging clinical commissioning groups in considering how they might commission certain services, such as for tuberculosis (TB), collaboratively and at scale. Recent public health guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence on identifying and managing tuberculosis in hard to reach groups recommends that commissioners could consider collaborative commissioning arrangements for TB prevention and control services, which may, for example, cover a major metropolitan district, taking into account factors such as local TB incidence and existing service configurations for organisations involved in TB prevention and control. The Health and Social Care Bill also sets out the Governments intention that the new NHS Commissioning Board should have responsibility for directly commissioning a number of services. Included within these services are specialised services for people with rare conditions. We are currently considering the scope of national commissioning to be carried out by the Board and the extent to which this will cover highly specialised TB services.

1119W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1120W

Mr Virendra Sharma: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how tuberculosis control is included in local [101831] health protection plans. Anne Milton: The Health Protection Agency (HPA) works with local national health service organisations to support planning for local tuberculosis (TB) prevention and control services. The HPA is supporting local NHS organisations in cohort reviews of TB cases and incidents as recommended in new public health guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, and is piloting a model of multidisciplinary review of local TB services that will be evaluated.

HOME DEPARTMENT Alcoholic Drinks: Excise Duties Andrew Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cars, vans and lorries have been intercepted at points of entry into the UK as part of the UK Border Agencys steps to tackle alcohol duty fraud in the last (a) 12 months and (b) two years.
[101962]

Damian Green [holding answer 26 March 2012]: Border Force does not hold central records on the number of vehicles intercepted at UK ports of entry specifically related to tackling alcohol duty fraud. Local management records are retained. However information can be extracted only at a disproportionate cost. Alcoholic Drinks: Misuse Ms Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations she has received from the drinks industry on the Governments [101932] alcohol strategy. James Brokenshire [holding answer 26 March 2012]: Home Office ministers and officials receive representations from a wide variety of partners, organisations and individuals in the public and private sectors as part of the process of policy development and delivery. We will consult on a number of elements in the alcohol strategy. Aviation: Security Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many iris scanners there are at [101737] airports in the UK. Damian Green: Border Force has seven operational IRIS gates installed at five locations (Heathrow Terminals 1, 3, 4 and 5 and Gatwick North). British Nationality: Families Mark Pritchard: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if she will review the rights of family members who do not have the nationality of an EU member state enjoying the same rights as an EU citizen whom they have accompanied to the United [100116] Kingdom; and if she will make a statement; (2) if she will implement a mandatory short stay visa requirement under Regulation No. 539/2001 for all future accompanying persons from 1 July 2012. [100117]

Damian Green: The rights of European Economic Area (EEA) nationals and their family members to live and work in other European countries, and to be accompanied by their third country national family members, are set out in legislation (Directive 2004/38/EC, known as the Free Movement Directive) by which all EU member states are bound. The UK has implemented the directive via the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 (the EEA Regulations). Non-EEA nationals who wish to accompany or join their EEA national family members in the UK may, in accordance with the EEA Regulations, apply for an EEA Family Permit before travelling to facilitate their journey to the UK. The EEA Regulations are regularly reviewed to ensure that free movement law, as interpreted by the UKs courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union, is implemented correctly. The United Kingdom is not bound by Regulation No. 539/2001 as we do not participate in the migration aspects of the Schengen acquis. Our visa requirements for third country nationals who are not family members of EEA nationals are therefore set out in separate United Kingdom Immigration Rules. The Government are committed to protecting free movement rights from fraud and abuse and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), has shared the UKs views on the matter with other member states at JHA Council on every occasion that she attended since June 2011. Crime Prevention: Motor Vehicles Mr Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to Article 5 of EU Council Decision 2004/919/EC, what the UK contact point is for tackling cross-border vehicle crime; and on how many occasions it has exchanged information with the contact points of other EU member states on methods and best practices of preventing vehicle crime in each [101728] year since 2005. James Brokenshire [holding answer 26 March 2012]: Between 2007 and April 2011, a representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service (AVCIS) attended twice-yearly meetings with European counterparts, and AVCIS participated in four joint operations. Drugs: Crime Mr Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to EU Council Decision 2003/847/JHA of 27 November 2003, whether the drugs 2C-I, 2C-T-2, 2C-T-7 and TMA-2 are subject to control measures and criminal penalties in the UK.
[101199]

James Brokenshire [holding answer 20 March 2012]: The EU Council Decision 2003/847/JHA defined the following substances as new synthetic drugs to be made subject to control measures and criminal sanctions by member states:
2C-I (2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodophenethylamine); 2C-T-2 (2,5-dimethoxy-4-ethylthiophenethylamine); 2C-T-7 (2,5-dimethoxy-4-(n)-propylthiophenethylamine); and TMA-2 (2,4,5-trimethoxyamphetamine).

1121W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers Entry Clearances: Foreign Workers

1122W

No action was required by the UK as these have been controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as Class A drugs since 1977. The possession, supply and production of these drugs are therefore prohibited and, unless under lawful authority, attract Class A criminal penalties. Drugs: Regulation Mr Russell Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when she plans to bring forward legislative proposals to lift the restriction on certain controlled drugs to enable full nurse prescribing to be implemented; and if she will make a statement.
[100991]

Yvette Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many out-of-country visas were issued to both main applicants and dependents for intra-company transfers between 2000 and 2011.
[97837]

James Brokenshire: [holding answer, 20 March 2012]: The Home Office is currently working on a Statutory Instrument to implement changes to controlled drugs legislation to enable nurse and pharmacist independent prescribers to prescribe all controlled drugs within their competence. The Statutory Instrument will be laid in Parliament this month, subject to consideration by Ministers. The expectation is that the changes will take effect in April 2012.

Mrs May: Tier 2 of the points based system (PBS) for intra-company transfers (ICT) has been reformed in recent years. For this reason, direct comparisons before and after the changes in both November 2008 and April 2011 would be misleading. The PBS Tier 2ICT category was introduced in November 2008. Prior to this, intra-company transfers were included in the work permit system. In April 2011, there was a further change to the PBS ICT route whereby it was separated into long- and short-term categories including both main applicants and dependants. Prior to April, dependants of the ICT category were issued visas under the PBS Tier 2Dependent category. The available information is provided in the following table:

Tier 2 intra-company transfers out of country visas to the United Kingdom issued, main applicants and dependants Main applicants Tier 2intracompany transfers Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 Q4 2008 Total 2008 Q1 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 2009 Q4 2009 Total 2009 Q1 2010 Q2 2010 Q3 2010 Q4 2010 Total 2010 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2011 Total 2011
1 2 1 1 1

Dependants Tier 2intracompany transfers, longterm

1 1 1 1 1

Tier 2intracompany transfers, shortterm

1 1 1 1 1

Total
1 1 1

Tier 2intracompany transfers

2 2 2 2 2

Tier 2intracompany transfers, shortterm

1 1 1 1 1

Tier 2intracompany transfers, longterm

1 1 1 1 1

Total
1 1 1 1 1

47 47

47 47 4,356 5,662 6,091 5,920 22,029 7,379 7,164 8,046 6,582 29,171 7,370 2,242 751 415 10,778

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

4,356 5,662 6,091 5,920 22,029 7,379 7,164 8,046 6,582 29,171 7,370 7,386 8,414 6,507 29,677

2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2

2,992 4,387 3,647 11,026

2,152 3,276 2,445 7,873

825 1,154 1,146 3,125

2,190 3,195 2,413 7,798

3,015 4,349 3,559 10,923

Not applicable Not available Notes: 1. PBS Tier 2 and the category intra-company transfers were introduced in November 2003. 2. PBS Tier 2 categories for short- and long-term intra-company transfers were introduced in April 2011. Prior to April 2011, dependants of those issued visas under the PBS Tier 2 ICT category were recorded differently. 3. Figures for entry clearance visas are Management Information and are provisional and are subject to change.

Those issued with visas in the short-term ICT category are granted leave for no longer than 12 months and are not included in ONS figures for net migration. Some entry clearance visas continued to be issued in pre-PBS categories for a period following the introduction

of PBS. These would include those for the purposes of work for employees of multinational companies who were being transferred to a UK branch of the organisation, but these are now at a very low levels.

1123W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1124W

The pre-PBS work permit system was a two-stage process. Not all those granted work permits took up jobs and some may have been refused entry clearance or leave to enter. The UK Border Agency does not hold visa data for ICTs prior to November 2008 in a readily available form. These figures could be obtained only by examining individual applications at disproportionate cost. Data relating to out of country visas issued under Tier 2 intra-company transfers are published in table be.04.q of the Home Office statistical release Immigration Statistics. A copy of the latest release, Immigration Statistics October to December 2011 is available from the Library of the House and from the Home Office Science, research and statistics web pages at:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-researchstatistics/research-statistics/immigration-asylum-research/ immigration-q4-2011/

from the Library of the House and from the Home Office science, research and statistics website at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-researchstatistics/research-statistics/immigration-asylum-research/ immigration-q4-2011

Freezing Orders: EU Action Mr Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many freezing orders the UK (a) sent to and (b) received from other EU member states under the procedure established by EU Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 in each year since 2003; and how many such freezing orders were executed. [101200] James Brokenshire [holding answer 20 March 2012]: Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA) establishes rules under which an EU member state recognises and executes in its territory a Freezing Order for property or evidence issued by the judicial authority of another EU member state in the framework of criminal proceedings. The UK Central Authority (UKCA) within the Home Office deals with incoming and outgoing Freezing Order requests in relation to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. To date, there have been no Freezing Order requests sent to member states, and four Freezing Order requests have been received from member states. Of these, one has been executed by the UK. Immigration Mr Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for EEA2 residence cards were made by non-EU nationals living in (a) Bexleyheath and Crayford, (b) the London borough of Bexley and (c) England in each of the last [101362] five years. Damian Green: Constituency level data are not held in a format compatible with National Statistics protocols. However, the UK Border Agency publishes statistics on a quarterly and annual basis that cover all EEA applications to the UK broken down by nationality. Published statistics regarding EEA applications can be found under table ee.02 at the following location:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-researchstatistics/research-statistics/immigration-asylum-research/ immigration-tabs-q4-2011/eea-q4-2011-tabs

Equality and Human Rights Commission Graeme Morrice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment her Department has made of the plans to reduce staffing levels at the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the potential effect of such plans on the fulfilment of the Commissions statutory remit on equality and [100388] human rights. Lynne Featherstone: It is for the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to determine what level and structure of its staffing, including grading and staff numbers, is appropriate to its functions and to the requirements of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, within its available resources and its overall staffing complement. Like all public bodies, the EHRC must ensure value for money in its use of public funds. Following the Governments spending review, we announced in October 2010 that we will be reducing the EHRCs budget by over half, from 55 million in 2010-11 to 26 million in 2014-15. In deciding on its budget allocation, we took account of concerns about the EHRCs performance to date. In March 2011, we set out plans to reform the EHRC in our consultation document Building a Fairer Britain: Reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. We will respond to the consultation shortly. Foreign Workers: Domestic Service Justin Tomlinson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statistics her office holds on the number of migrant domestic workers reporting [100176] unlawful working conditions. Damian Green [holding answer 15 March 2012]: This information is not held in a format compatible with National Statistics protocols. Published statistics are available on a quarterly and annual basis, which report on the number of overseas domestic workers granted settlement. In 2010, the number of grants was 1,0621.
Data taken from tables se.03 of the statistical release Immigration Statistics October-December 2011. This publication is available
1

Dr Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of people who had been granted limited leave to remain for an initial five-year period were then granted another period of leave to remain in the latest period for which figures are available; and what assessment she has made of the effect of limited leave to remain on the ability of [101591] individuals to apply for a job. Damian Green [holding answer 23 November 2011]: This information is not held in a format compatible with National Statistics protocols. However, published statistics are available on a quarterly and annual basis that report on applications for extensions. This publication is available from the Library of the House and from the Home Office science, research and statistics website at:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-researchstatistics/research-statistics/immigration-asylum-research/ immigration-q4-2011

1125W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers Intellectual Property

1126W

With reference to the applicants ability to apply for a job when granted limited leave to remain, individuals must abide by the conditions of their leave, and their ability to work will vary depending on the category of leave they have. In some circumstances individuals may need to make a further application if they wish to take up a job in the UK. Immigration Controls: Olympic Games 2012 Mark Pritchard: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will put in place additional border checks at all points of entry to the UK for the duration of the London 2012 Olympic Games. [100118] Damian Green: Border Force will continue to undertake the full range of standard checks at the border for all passengers arriving during the Olympic and Paralympic period. In addition, from 30 March, biometrics will be captured at the border from visa national games family members who use their accreditation card as a visa waiver where they have not previously provided fingerprints and facial images. Olympic and Paralympic Games family members such as athletes, coaches and officials will be required to obtain accreditation for the Olympic or Paralympic Games before participating in the games, and will undergo a series of biographical security checks (for example name and date of birth) undertaken by the Home Office prior to being granted accreditation and receiving the Olympic or Paralympic Identity and Accreditation Card. Immigration: Lewisham Dame Joan Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will estimate the number of foreign nationals in Lewisham, Deptford constituency pursuing applications of any kind with the UK Border Agency who do not have access to public funds; and how many such foreign nationals are [101683] children. Damian Green: Constituency level data are not held in a format compatible with National Statistics protocols. However the UK Border Agency publishes immigration statistics on a quarterly and annual basis. The latest published statistics on asylum and non asylum applications can be found here:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-researchstatistics/research-statistics/immigration-asylum-research/ immigration-q4-2011/

Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether her Department has a role in developing intellectual property policy. [100354] Damian Green: The Home Office does not take a specific policy role in developing policy on intellectual property (IP) matters, but responds to consultations and contributes to IP-related forums as they arise, depending on relevance. It is currently considering making a response to the consultation launched by the Intellectual Property Office on proposed changes to UK copyright legislation. The Department will make a decision on whether to respond or not before the deadline of 21 March. Lasers Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether she has plans to alter the regulation of the (a) importation to the UK and (b) [101165] sale of lasers. James Brokenshire: The Government have no current plans to alter these regulations. Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether she plans to classify lasers [101171] as an offensive weapon. James Brokenshire: The Government have no current plans to classify lasers as an offensive weapon. Lasers sold in the UK and the EU are covered by safety standards governing which lasers should be used by trained operators and are therefore not suitable for use by the general public. Only Class 1 and Class 2 lasers (under 1 mw in strength) are suitable for general consumer use. Any deliberate misuse of Class 1 or Class 2 lasers, including shining lasers at aircraft, is a matter for the police and prosecution authorities. Under the Air Navigation Order it is an offence to act in a manner likely to endanger the safety of an aircraft. Any person found guilty of such an offence could face a custodial sentence of up to five years. Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether (a) she and (b) officials in her Department have had recent discussions with their US counterparts on dangers arising from the aiming of [101172] lasers at aircraft. James Brokenshire: Neither the Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), nor officials in the Home Office have had recent discussions with their US counterparts on dangers arising from the aiming of lasers at aircraft. Lost Property Dr Whiteford: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what property has been lost or stolen from her Department in the last 12 months; and what the estimated cost was of replacement of such [100898] property. Damian Green: The Home Office reports figures for lost or stolen BlackBerrys, mobile phones and laptops on an annual basis. The most recently published figures

Immunity Certificates Robert Flello: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether public interest immunity applications were made in the inquest into the 7 July [101527] 2005 bombings. James Brokenshire [holding answer 22 March 2012]: In the 7 July inquests the Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), made three public interest immunity applications and West Yorkshire police made one.

1127W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1128W

related to the period 1 January to 31 December 2010 and are shown in the following table. Figures relating to the period 1 January to 31 December 2011 are due for release in April 2012. Lost and stolen laptops include both Remote Access Service (RAS) and non-RAS laptops. A premium is paid to our IT provider which covers all lost or stolen RAS equipment. There is no additional cost to the Home Office when RAS equipment is lost or stolen. An estimated replacement cost of 1,000 has been assumed for all non-RAS laptops. Lost and stolen BlackBerry devices and mobile phones are reported together. The cost of a lost or stolen BlackBerry device is 135. An estimated value of 50 has been assumed for other mobile phones. Arrangements for the management of physical assets other than ICT across the Home Office estate vary, and central data on thefts and losses is therefore collated annually at the end of the financial year. Further information for the last 12 months could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Device/incident Lost BlackBerrys and mobile phones Stolen BlackBerrys and mobile phones Lost laptops Stolen laptops Total number 26 10 20 5

Department has allocated to meet the cost of commitments relating to the London 2012 Olympic Games by each force listed in 2012-13; [97153] (2) how many officers from each police force area are expected to be deployed to the Metropolitan Police in support of policing of the London 2012 Olympics.
[97256]

Nick Herbert: Provisional funding allocations from the Home Office for the financial year 2012-13 for host police forces for the additional costs of Olympic safety and security are not yet confirmed. Mutual aid between police forces for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games is co-ordinated through the Association of Chief Police Officers Police National Information and Co-ordination Centre (ACPO PNICC). The number of officers to be requested is kept under constant review, and it is expected that all non-venue forces across the UK will be asked to supply resources during the London 2012 Games. Final figures for requests are not yet available, but PNICC will ensure that this is proportionate to their relative size and capacity. Donor forces will be reimbursed in accordance with the prevailing mutual aid arrangements, which will allow the chief constable, should he or she choose to do so, to back fill for officers abstracted, thereby mitigating any potential impact on local service delivery. Organised Crime Mr Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will publish a strategy for tackling violence initiated or facilitated by gangs; and if [100521] she will make a statement. James Brokenshire: The Governments strategy for tackling violence involving gangs is set out in the Ending Gang and Youth Violence Report which the Home Secretary published on 1 November 2011. A copy of this report can be found at
www.homeoffice.gov.uk

Metropolitan Police: Public Appointments Bob Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans she has to bring forward proposals to enable local authorities to be involved in the selection of borough commanders in the [101337] Metropolitan Police Service. Nick Herbert [holding answer 26 March 2012]: None. The selection and recruitment of borough commanders in the Metropolitan Police Service is a matter for the Commissioner. Money Laundering Mr Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to Article 4 of EU Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA of 26 June 2001, on money laundering and confiscation of proceeds of crime, how many requests for mutual assistance in asset identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation were (a) received and (b) issued by the UK authorities in each year since 2002; and how many [99988] of those requests have been granted. James Brokenshire [holding answer 14 March 2012]: This information is not held centrally. I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 12 March 2012, Official Report, column 18W. Olympic Games 2012 Mr Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to the answer of 22 February 2012, Official Report, column 814W, on Olympic Games 2012, what additional resources her

Organised Crime: EU Action Mr Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of liaison officers operating under EU Council Decision 2003/170/JHA of 27 February 2003; and how many such liaison officers the UK (a) sent to and (b) hosted from other EU member states in each [101202] year since 2003. James Brokenshire [holding answer 20 March 2012]: UK Law Enforcement Agencies collaborate closely with a number of EU member states in the fight against organised crime in various global locations. This collaboration is consistent with EU Council Decision 2003/170/JHA. For operational reasons, law enforcement agencies do not publish details of liaison officer numbers in specific locations. Police and Crime Commissioners Mr Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what date she expects to lay all outstanding secondary legislation in respect of police [101654] and crime commissioners.

1129W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1130W

Nick Herbert: In order to establish the Mayors office for policing and crime in January secondary legislation relating to Police and Crime Commissioners, including the statutory protocol, has already been laid and approved by Parliament. All remaining secondary legislation will be laid in good time for the elections of Police and Crime Commissioners. Mr Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when she expects to publish secondary legislation on elections for the posts of [101669] police and crime commissioner. Nick Herbert [holding answer 26 March 2012]: I am currently considering the response to our consultation from the Electoral Commission which closed last week, and will lay the secondary legislation before Parliament as soon as possible. Police: Private Sector Mr Donohoe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if she will make a statement on the out-sourcing of police services to the private sector;
[100612]

cost. The Government are clear, however, that policing will remain a public service, accountable to the people through elected Police and Crime Commissioners with chief constables retaining operational control and accountability. Mr Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will place in the Library a copy of her Departments (a) analysis of the merits of and (b) business case for the Business Partnering for Police Project. [101583] Nick Herbert [holding answer 23 March 2012]: The Government supports the police in considering the value of private sector partnering to achieve cost savings and better services for the public. It is for individual police authorities (from November, Police and Crime Commissioners) to consider the merits of specific proposals relating to their police force areas. The papers considered by the Surrey and West Midlands police authorities regarding the Business Partnering for the Police programme are publicly available from their respective websites. Mr Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether elected police and crime commissioners in the West Midlands and Surrey police force areas will have the ability to halt the proposals contained in the Business Partnering for Police Project.
[101586]

(2) whether front-line policing will be contracted out [100613] to the private sector; (3) whether her Department is consulted before police forces choose to outsource back office staff [100621] functions to reduce costs. Nick Herbert: No front-line police officers will be contracted out to the private sector. The Government are clear that the private sector can help the police service achieve cost savings and better services for the public. Every pound saved means more money for front-line services. Only police officers have the power of arrest and they will continue to patrol the streets, respond to 999 calls and lead investigations. There is no intention to allow private companies to carry out police activities which require warranted powers, except to the extent that this has already been achieved for detention and escort officers by legislation passed under the previous Government. While the Government support the police in considering the value of private sector partners, it is a matter for individual chief constables and their police and crime commissioners to make decisions around deployment and allocation of resources for their force. Mr Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps her Department is taking to ensure that operational control remains with chief police officers under the Business Partnering for [101582] Police Project; (2) whether she has made an assessment of the compatibility of the public service ethos of the police with the involvement of profit-making private sector companies in core public policing activity through the [101585] Business Partnering for Police Project. Nick Herbert [holding answer 23 March 2012]: The Business Partnering for the Police programme in the West Midlands and Surrey is a matter for the relevant police authorities and forces. The private sector can help to deliver some police services better and at lower

Nick Herbert [holding answer 23 March 2012]: The current timetable for the Business Partnering for the Police programme means that the newly elected police and crime commissioners for the two forces will take the final decision on any eventual contracts. Proceeds of Crime: EU Action Mr Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the UK has fully enacted the provisions of EU Council Framework Decision 2004/ 757/JHA; and what assessment her Department has made of its effectiveness in combating illicit drug [101723] trafficking. James Brokenshire [holding answer 26 March 2012]: The mandatory elements of EU Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA which lays down the minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking has been fully transposed into UK law. The UK must decide, no later than 31 May 2014, whether to accept full European Court of Justice jurisdiction over those EU police and criminal justice measures adopted before 1 December 2009 which have not been amended or replaced. This measure falls within the scope of that decision and will be reviewed accordingly. Security: Football Mr Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of EU Council Decision 2002/348/JHA of 25 April 2002 on improving security at international [100179] football matches.

1131W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers UK Border Force: Manpower

1132W

James Brokenshire [holding answer 15 March 2012]: The UK must decide, no later than 31 May 2014, whether to accept full European Court of Justice jurisdiction over those EU police and criminal justice measures adopted before 1 December 2009 which have not been amended or replaced. This measure falls within the scope of that decision and will be reviewed accordingly. Taxis Jon Trickett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much her Department spent on taxis for (a) Ministers and (b) civil servants [101411] between August 2011 and January 2012. Damian Green: The Home Office and its agencies spent 165,927.73 on taxis between August 2011 and January 2012. Of this 6 was spent on taxis for Ministers. Theft: Metals Mark Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of the number of metal thefts which have occurred in the last year (a) nationally and (b) in Milton Keynes. [101647] James Brokenshire: The information requested is not available centrally. From 1 April 2012, metal theft offences will be recorded separately providing the number of offences at national and police force area level. UK Border Agency: Manpower Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many frontline UK Border Agency staff there were working at the UK borders in (a) 2010, (b) 2009, (c) 2008, (d) 2007, (e) 2006, (f) 2005, (g) 2004, (h) 2003, (i) 2002 and (j) 2001.
[101049]

Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many frontline UK Border Force staff there are working at the UK borders.
[101048]

Damian Green: Border Force has 7,539 staff (FTE). Many of these staff perform a variety of duties in protecting our borders. War Crimes: EU Action Mr Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to EU Council Decision 2002/494/JHA of 13 June 2002, what the UK contact point is for the exchange of information concerning the investigation of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes; on how many occasions since 2002 that contact point has been requested to provide available information under Article 2(1) of the Decision; and what assessment her Department has made of the [100992] Decisions effectiveness. James Brokenshire [holding answer 20 March 2012]: For the purposes of Article 1 of the Council Decision 2002/494/JHA (setting up a European network of contact points in respect of persons responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes) the UK has notified the General Secretariat of the Council of three contact points; the Serious Organised Crime Agency, Metropolitan police, and Crown Prosecution Service Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division. Through this network UK contact points have attended a number of meetings and presentations in which information regarding genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes has been shared among contact points. There is no centrally held record for the number of times the contact points have had a request for information. The UK must decide, no later than 31 May 2014, whether to accept full European Court of Justice jurisdiction over those EU police and criminal justice measures adopted before 1 December 2009 which have not been amended or replaced. This measure falls within the scope of that decision and will be reviewed accordingly.

Damian Green: Before 2010, workforce statistics were not compiled in such a way as to be split between front-line and corporate services in accordance with the current definitions. Because of this, and changes in the structure of the UK Border Agency and its predecessors over time, it is not possible now to answer this question directly except at disproportionate costs as retrospective decisions would have to be made about the historical role of individual officers and teams. UK Border Force Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the staff that will be transferred to the UK Border Force from the UK [101050] Border Agency are frontline staff. Damian Green: Border Force has 7,539 staff (FTE). Many of these staff perform a variety of duties in protecting our borders. Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the UK Border Force will receive additional funding to improve its control of [101060] UK borders. Damian Green: The funding for the UK Border Force is set out in the published spending review plans.

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS Arms Trade Sir John Stanley: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what arms export licences have been revoked subsequent to the Governments response, Cm 8079, to the First Report of the Committee on Arms Export Controls, on Scrutiny of Arms Export Controls (2011), HC 686; and if he will provide this information in the same format [101393] as that used in Annex 1 of Cm 8079. Mr Prisk: Further to the Governments response to the First Report of the Committee on Arms Export Controls (CM8079), on Scrutiny of Arms Export Controls (2011) there has been no further revocations in north Africa and the middle east, since we responded to named day parliamentary question 71627 tabled by my hon. Friend on 10 October 2011, Official Report, column 258W.

1133W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers
Financial year ( million)

1134W

The one licence that was revoked and previously referred to in 71627 is:
End user country Syria Annual report summary Small arms ammunition Rating ML3 reason for revocation Due to the arms embargo imposed by the EU this licence was reassessed and found to contravene Criteria 1 Region South East South West Wales West Midlands Yorkshire and the Humber Total
1

2009/10 25.38 21.39 2.65 15.48 4.75 135.59

2010/11 45.06 14.54 3.49 12.34 8.13 173.08

2011/121 46.60 25.40 3.27 14.94 7.98 205.40

Total number of grants for 2009/10 to 2011/121 1,952 812 234 696 448 8,962

Values of items licensed for export have been provided for extant Standard Individual Export Licences. No values are given for extant Open Individual Export Licences because there no generally no limit to the quantities that may be exported under these licences and it is not possible for exporters to provide this information when they make a licence application. Basic Skills Mr Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what assessment he has made of the potential effect on English for speakers of other languages learners in further education colleges of the removal of basic skills qualifications in literacy [102280] and numeracy after academic year 2012-13. Mr Hayes: I can confirm that funding for English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) qualifications will continue for the academic year 2012/13, and this Department is currently considering the future shape and content for qualifications for ESOL learners for the academic year 2013-14. Business: Loans Alun Cairns: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how much the Technology Strategy Board spent in each region in each of the last three years; how many grants it awarded in each such year; and which companies received financial assistance from the board in each [101243] such year. Mr Willetts [holding answer 22 March 2012]: Regional information is only available for the Technology Strategy Boards spend on its collaborative R and D activityother programmes could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The collaborative R and D spend by region in each of the last three years, together with the total number of grants issued, is shown in the following table.
Financial year ( million) Total number of grants for 2009/10 to 2011/121 1,124 507 1,350 410 765 102 562

Up to 29 February 2012.

A list of the companies that received financial assistance in respect of the above expenditure has been placed in the Libraries of the House. Catering Jon Trickett: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how much his Department spent on complimentary refreshments for (a) staff and (b) visitors in the latest period for which [101454] figures are available. Norman Lamb: For the period 1 April 2011 to 21 March 2012, the departmental expenditure on refreshments with the Departments catering services contractor BaxterStorey is shown in the following table.
Within the Departments conference centre Within 1 Victoria street meeting rooms 131,772 87,958

The expenditure, which includes both food and drink, is for meetings where visitors and staff were present. We are unable to differentiate between expenditure for staff or visitors. The Departments policy is that hospitality should only be ordered for meetings where visitors will be present. Duke of York Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what the cost to the public purse was of expenses paid to HRH the Duke of York between 22 July 2011 and 30 December 2011.
[101542]

Region East Midlands East of England London North East North West Northern Ireland Scotland

2009/10 21.51 8.68 18.82 3.66 7.56 1.38 4.33

2010/11 21.57 6.53 34.71 4.96 11.06 2.14 8.55

2011/121 20.30 10.94 41.14 9.31 12.86 2.11 10.55

Norman Lamb: HRH The Duke of York has honoured a number of pre-existing overseas diary commitments since he announced on 21 July 2011 that he was relinquishing his role as UK Special Representative for Trade and Investment. The list of official overseas visits undertaken by HRH the Duke of York between 22 July 2011 and 30 December 2011 is shown in the following table. These visits were approved by the Royal Visits Committee, undertaken in agreement with FCO and/or UKTI and in support of HMG objectives. The list does not include official military visits undertaken in HRH The Duke of Yorks capacity as a senior member of the royal family.

1135W
Date 18-23 September 2011 26 September2 October 2011 23-28 October 2011 30 October1 November 2011 20-23 November 2011 24 November 2011
1

Written Answers
Country visited Saudi Arabia Singapore South China Malaysia Qatar United Arab Emirates Funded by1 UKTI UKTI UKTI UKTI UKTI FCO

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1136W

Mr Prisk: A list of the strategic export control licences that remain extant for Bahrain will be placed in the Libraries of the House. Exports: Egypt Sir John Stanley: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills which UK strategic export control licences to Egypt are currently extant; and what the nature and quantity of the licensed goods [101679] or services are in each licence. Mr Prisk: A list of the strategic export control licences that remain extant for Egypt will be placed in the Libraries of the House. Exports: Libya Sir John Stanley: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills which UK strategic export control licences to Libya are currently extant; and what the nature and quantity of the licensed goods or services are in each licence. [101680] Mr Prisk: The following strategic export control licences remain extant for Libya:
Application type SIEL SIEL SIEL Annual report summary neutron generators inertial equipment cryptographic software, equipment employing cryptography, software for the use of equipment employing cryptography cryptographic software, equipment employing cryptography, software for the use of equipment employing cryptography cryptographic software cryptographic software, equipment employing cryptography, software for the use of equipment employing cryptography cryptographic software corrosion resistant chemical manufacturing equipment devices for initiating explosives, linear cutting explosive charges components for munitions/ordnance detection/ disposal equipment, military equipment for initiating explosives, munitions/ordnance detection/disposal equipment bomb suits, components for bomb suits, military helmets components for military equipment for initiating explosives components for military equipment for initiating explosives, military equipment for initiating explosives Libyan bank notes and coins Libyan bank notes and coins all-wheel drive vehicles with ballistic protection all-wheel drive vehicles with ballistic protection all-wheel drive vehicles with ballistic protection Annual report summary cryptographic software, technology for the use of cryptographic software components for improvised explosive device disposal equipment, improvised explosive device disposal equipment cryptographic software, equipment employing cryptography, software for the use of equipment employing cryptography, technology for the use of equipment employing cryptography Goods value () 272,023 32,579 77,093,000

Excludes all air travel.

FCO and/or UKTI are paying certain expenses, including accommodation and in-country travel costs (but excluding all air travel) for official overseas visits undertaken by HRH The Duke of York. FCO and/or UKTI are also paying associated expenses for his supporting staff. The total cost to UKTI for these visits will be available on the UKTI website following the publication of UKTIs audited accounts for the year ending March 2012. The cost for the FCO visit is expected to be available when The Duke of York publishes his annual review in the summer. Air travel to and from countries and in-country is paid for by The Royal Travel Office. Further information can be obtained from the Grant-in-aid for Royal Travel by Air and Rail Annual Report that forms part of the Royal Public Finances annual report. Details can be found on the British Monarchy website:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/ AnnualFinancialReports/Annualfinancialreports.aspx

SIEL

77,093,000

EU Internal Trade
SIEL

43,354 2,032,500

Lorely Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills if he will estimate the number of (a) UK firms that trade with other EU member states and (b) people employed in those firms; [101662] and if he will make a statement. Norman Lamb: Figures produced by HM Revenue and Customs based on administrative data indicate that there are almost 200,000 traders in the UK which either import goods from or export goods to other EU member states. A figure covering goods and services trade is not available, but since services account for over a quarter of UK trade with the EU by value, the figure for goods and services traders may be significantly higher. There are no estimates of the number of people employed in those firms trading with other EU member states. Half of all UK trade is with the EU, totalling around 450 billion of goods and services in 2010. EU data for goods and services trade in 2011 are planned for release in July 2012. Exports: Bahrain Sir John Stanley: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills which UK strategic export control licences to Bahrain are currently extant; and what the nature and quantity of the licensed goods [101391] or services are under each licence.

SIEL

SIEL SIEL SIEL SIEL

210 3,122 102,725 137,152

SIEL SIEL SIEL

94,490 2,500 16,950

SIEL SIEL SITCL SITCL SITCL

1,088,560 31,000,000 163,500 145,000 233,170

Application type OIEL OIEL OIEL

1137W
Application type OIEL OIEL

Written Answers
Annual report summary

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1138W
Goods value () 16,320 4,200,000 58,232 2,568 7,381 15,058 10 320,000 544 20,854

Application type SIEL SIEL SIEL SIEL SIEL SIEL SIEL SIEL SIEL SIEL

Annual report summary Components for control equipment for man portable air defence systems Equipment employing cryptography Components for aircraft radars Military helmets Corrosion resistant chemical manufacturing equipment Components for military improvised explosive device disposal equipment Animal pathogens Equipment employing cryptography Equipment employing cryptography Components for military improvised explosive device decoying/detection/disposal/jamming equipment Goods treated for signature suppression for military use Equipment employing cryptography Military support vehicles Components for equipment employing cryptography Equipment employing cryptography Controlled atmosphere furnaces Equipment employing cryptography Civil NBC detection systems, components for civil NBC detection systems Equipment employing cryptography Equipment employing cryptography Equipment employing cryptography Components for military support aircraft Components for equipment for the operation of military aircraft in confined areas Goods treated for signature suppression for military use All-wheel drive vehicles with ballistic protection

heading sensors for hydrophone arrays, hydrophones, towed hydrophone arrays cryptographic software, equipment employing cryptography, technology for the use of cryptographic software, technology for the use of equipment employing cryptography all-wheel drive vehicles with ballistic protection

OITCL

Values of items licensed for export have been provided for extant Standard Individual Export Licences. No values are given for extant Open Individual Export Licences because there no generally no limit to the quantities that may be exported under these licences and it is not possible for exporters to provide this information when they make a licence application. Exports: Syria Sir John Stanley: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills which UK strategic export control licences to Syria are currently extant; and what the nature and quantity of the licensed goods [101390] or services are under each licence. Mr Prisk: The following strategic export control licences remain extant for Syria:
Application type SITCL SITCL SIEL SIEL SIEL SIEL SIEL Application type OITCL OIEL Annual report summary Promoting the supply of all-wheel drive vehicles with ballistic protection All-wheel drive vehicles with ballistic protection Components for general industrial production equipment Chemicals used for industrial/commercial processes Chemicals used for industrial/commercial processes Personal protective equipment Equipment employing cryptography Goods value () 201,064 201,064 137,737 10,000 10,200 13,454 199,209

SIEL SIEL SIEL SIEL SIEL SIEL SIEL SIEL SIEL SIEL SIEL SIEL SIEL SIEL SITCL Application Type OIEL OIEL OIEL

3,114,000 270 25,000 170 750,100 825,000 9,570 28,591 194 268 1,867 720,170 480,127 65,000 135,000

Annual report summary Cryptographic software Software for military communications equipment, technology for the use of software for military communications equipment Software for the use of military communications equipment, software to simulate the function of military communications equipment, technology for the use of software to simulate the function of military communications equipment Components for equipment employing cryptography, cryptographic software, equipment employing cryptography, software for the use of equipment employing cryptography, technology for the use of cryptographic software, technology for the use of equipment employing cryptography Cryptographic software, equipment employing cryptography, software for the use of equipment employing cryptography, technology for the use of equipment employing cryptography Heading sensors for hydrophone arrays, hydrophones, towed hydrophone arrays Components for military training aircraft, equipment for the use of military transport aircraft, general military aircraft components, military aircraft ground equipment, technology for the use of equipment for the use of military transport aircraft, technology for the use of military aircraft ground equipment, technology for the use of military transport aircraft Cutters/severing tools, detonating cord, devices for initiating explosives, explosives, linear cutting explosive charges, linear shaped cutting charges, non-military detonators, non-military firing sets, shaped charges, underwater telecommunications systems Inertial equipment Heading sensors for hydrophone arrays Components for military radars, military software, technology for military radars General naval vessel components, technology for general naval vessel components

Annual report summary All-wheel drive vehicles with ballistic protection Heading sensors for hydrophone arrays, hydrophones, towed hydrophone arrays OIEL OIEL

Values of items licensed for export have been provided for extant Standard Individual Export Licences. No values are given for extant Open Individual Export Licences because there no generally no limit to the quantities that may be exported under these licences and it is not possible for exporters to provide this information when they make a licence application. Exports: Tunisia

OIEL OIEL

OIEL

Sir John Stanley: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills which UK strategic export control licences to Tunisia are currently extant; and what the nature and quantity of the licensed goods [101681] or services are in each licence. Mr Prisk: The following strategic export control licences remain extant for Tunisia:

OIEL OIEL OIEL OIEL

1139W
Application Type OIEL OIEL OIEL OIEL

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1140W

Annual report summary Components for corrosion resistant chemical manufacturing equipment Fibrous/filamentary materials Inertial equipment, technology for inertial equipment Components for combat aircraft, components for combat helicopters, components for military aero-engines, components for military aircraft ground equipment, components for military aircrew breathing equipment, components for military helicopters, components for military support aircraft, components for military training aircraft, components for naval engines, equipment for the use of combat aircraft, equipment for the use of combat helicopters, equipment for the use of military aero-engines, equipment for the use of military aircraft ground equipment, equipment for the use of military aircrew breathing equipment, equipment for the use of military helicopters, equipment for the use of military support aircraft, equipment for the use of military training aircraft, equipment for the use of naval engines, general military aircraft components, technology for combat aircraft, technology for combat helicopters, technology for military aero-engines, technology for military aircraft ground equipment, technology for military aircrew breathing equipment, technology for military helicopters, technology for military support aircraft, technology for military training aircraft, technology for naval engines Components for submersible vehicles, composite structures, heading sensors for hydrophone arrays, high energy capacitors, imaging cameras, metal alloy tubes, submersible equipment, syntactic foam, underwater electronic imaging systems Command communications control and intelligence software, technology for command communications control and intelligence software Small arms ammunition Aircraft seals, components for inertial equipment, inertial equipment Neutron generators, non-military detonators, non-military firing sets All-wheel drive vehicles with ballistic protection

Application type OIEL

Annual report summary Cryptographic software, equipment employing cryptography, software for the use of equipment employing cryptography, technology for the use of cryptographic software, technology for the use of equipment employing cryptography Cryptographic software, equipment employing cryptography, software for the use of equipment employing cryptography, technology for the use of cryptographic software, technology for the use of equipment employing cryptography, technology for the use of software for the use of equipment employing cryptography Heading sensors for hydrophone arrays, hydrophones, towed hydrophone arrays Cryptographic software, equipment employing cryptography, software for the use of equipment employing cryptography, technology for the use of equipment employing cryptography Components for inertial equipment, inertial equipment Components for equipment employing cryptography, cryptographic software, equipment employing cryptography, software for the use of equipment employing cryptography, technology for the use of equipment employing cryptography

OIEL

OIEL OIEL

OIEL OIEL

OIEL

OIEL

OIEL OIEL OIEL OITCL

Values of items licensed for export have been provided for extant Standard Individual Export Licences. No values are given for extant Open Individual Export Licences because there no generally no limit to the quantities that may be exported under these licences and it is not possible for exporters to provide this information when they make a licence application. Foreign Companies Lorely Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (1) if he will estimate the number of jobs created by overseas companies which decided to locate their European headquarters in the UK in each of the last 15 years; and if he will make [101660] a statement; (2) what information his Department holds on the number of overseas companies which located their European headquarters in the UK in each of the last [101661] 15 years; and if he will make a statement. Mr Prisk: The relevant data are collected by UK Trade and Investment. The following tables provide figures for the number of new European Headquarters (EHQs) located in the UK and the number of new jobs created as a result of these location decisions, for financial year 2010/11 inclusive. It is an established convention that Minsters of one Administration cannot see the documents of a previous Administration. I am therefore unable to provide the information requested.
UKTI Number of new jobs associated with new EHQs in the UK Number of new jobs from new EHQs in the UK recorded by UKTI 2010/11 Source: UKTI Database UKTI recorded new EHQs in the UK Number of new EHQs recorded by UKTI 2010/11 Source: UKTI Database 134 1,361

Values of items licensed for export have been provided for extant Standard Individual Export Licences. No values are given for extant Open Individual Export Licences because there are generally no limit to the quantities that may be exported under these licences and it is not possible for exporters to provide this information when they make a licence application. Exports: Yemen Sir John Stanley: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills which UK strategic export control licences to Yemen are currently extant; and what the nature and quantity of the licensed goods [101392] or services are under each licence. Mr Prisk: The following strategic export control licences remain extant for Yemen:
Application type SITCL SIEL (Permanent) SIEL (Permanent) SIEL (Permanent) SIEL (Permanent) Annual report summary All-wheel drive vehicles with ballistic protection Body armour Military aero-engines Body armour Components for military cameras, equipment for the use of military cameras, technology for the use of military cameras, test equipment for military cameras Goods value () 70,000 43,288 819,930 1,444 85,858

1141W

Written Answers Higher Education: Private Sector

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1142W

Trade Marks and Design Rights Research Expert Advisory Group Name Organisation Intellectual Property Office Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Brandright Intellectual Property Office Oxford University Intellectual Property Office Barrister and Visiting Senior Fellow, Queen Mary Design Council Intellectual Property Office Intellectual Property Office Jenkins British Brands Group Imperial College London Intellectual Property Office Reddie & Grose Copyright Research Expert Advisory Group Name Hasan Bakhshi Adrian Brazier Ian Christie Tony Clayton David Humphries Martin Kretschmer Benjamin Mitra-Kahn Nick Munn Will Page John Robinson Organisation National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) Department for Culture, Media and Sport Birkbeck College London Intellectual Property Office Intellectual Property Office Bournemouth University Intellectual Property Office Intellectual Property Office PRS for Music Design and Artists Copyright Society Exeter University Consumer Focus British Library Patents Research Expert Advisory Group Name Adam Brocklehurst Dr Roger Burt Tony Clayton Liz Coleman James Gray Daniel Hermele Daniel Hodges Tom Hoehn Professor Alan Hughes David Humphries Jackie Maguire Laura Starrs Ulrike Till Organisation Siemens plc Formerly IBM Intellectual Property Office Intellectual Property Office Withers and Rogers Qualcomm Europe Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Imperial College, London Cambridge University Intellectual Property Office Coder IP Management Ltd Intellectual Property Office Field Fisher Waterhouse

Shabana Mahmood: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills whether his Department or the agencies reporting to his Department, collect data on non-completion rates in private higher education institutions of students who [101938] are eligible to receive student loan funding. Mr Willetts: The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), and the agencies reporting to the Department, do not hold the data requested on noncompletion rates in private higher education institutions of students who are eligible to receive student loan funding. The BIS Technical Consultation of August 2012 stated that we intend to ensure that all higher education providers whose students access student support funding are required to provide sufficient and proportionate information to students and the public. Intellectual Property Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills whether his Department has a role in intellectual property policy [101215] development. Norman Lamb: The overall lead for development of intellectual policy rests with this Department, through the Intellectual Property Office, which is an agency of the Department. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my noble Friend Baroness Wilcox, leads on intellectual property issues. Intellectual Property Office

Tony Clayton Brigid Feeny Dawn Franklin Rose Geeson Christine Greenhalgh David Humphries Phillip Johnson Ailbhe McNabola Janette McNeill Benjamin Mitra-Kahn David Musker John Noble Bruce Tether Bill Trott Jan Vleck

Charlotte Waelde

Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills who the members are of the four expert advisory groups advising the Intellectual Property Office; and what the [102207] remuneration is of each such member. Norman Lamb: The Intellectual Property Office (\PO) has established four informal expert advisory groups to peer review all aspects of its research programme. The members of expert advisory groups receive no remuneration but are able to claim travel and subsistence to attend meetings.
Trade and Development Research Expert Advisory Group Name Ha-Joon Chang Tony Clayton Charles Clift Johanna Gibson David Humphries Jill Johnstone Jonathan Lingham Vanessa Marsland Duncan Matthews Benjamin Mitra-Kahn Anthony Morris John Piper Gwilym Roberts Bill Russell Organisation Cambridge University Intellectual Property Office Consultant Intellectual Property Institute Intellectual Property Office Consumer Focus Department for International Development Clifford Chance Queen Mary College London Intellectual Property Office Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Department for International Development Kilburn & Strode Intellectual Property Office

Saskia Walzel Ben White

Mature Students Mr Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how many (a) men and (b) women aged over 24 years were studying for qualifications at Level 3 and Level 4 or above in England in the latest period for which figures are available; and in which curriculum areas they were [101951] studying;

1143W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1144W

(2) how many (a) men and (b) women aged over 24 years were enrolled for study at Level 3 or above at each incorporated college of further education in England in the latest period for which figures are [101952] available. Mr Hayes [holding answer 26 March 2012]: Table 1 shows the number of enrolments by adults (aged 24+) on level 3 and level 4 or above further education courses in England, by gender and sector subject area in 2010/11, the latest year for which final data are available. I have made data available in the Libraries of the House which show the number of enrolments by adults (aged 24+) on level 3 and level 4 or above further education courses in England, by gender and each general further education college in 2010/11, the latest year for which final data are available. These totals do not match those in Table 1 as only aims at general further education colleges are included. Information by sector subject area is only available for enrolments. One person can be enrolled on more than one course.
Table 1: Adult (aged 24+) enrolments on level 3 and level 4 or above further education courses by gender and sector subject area, 2010/11 Level Level 4 or 5 Sector subject area Gender Level 3 higher Agriculture, Horticulture and Animal Care Female 2,200 70

Table 1: Adult (aged 24+) enrolments on level 3 and level 4 or above further education courses by gender and sector subject area, 2010/11 Level Sector subject area Health, Public Services and Care Gender Female Male Total Level 3 72,570 15,120 87,680 Level 4 or 5 higher 5,280 1,330 6,610

History, Philosophy and Theology

Female Male Total

6,150 2,220 8,370

Information and Communication Technology

Female

2,610

20

Male Total

3,650 6,260

70 90

Languages, Literature and Culture

Female

3,220

10

Male Total

1,520 4,740

10

Leisure, Travel and Tourism Male Total 2,040 4,230 6,030 3,520 9,550 28,540 80 150 230 90 320 6,740

Female Male Total

1,580 2,690 4,270

30 100 140

Arts, Media and Publishing

Female Male Total

Preparation for Life and Work

Female Male Total

830 770 1,600

90 10 100

Business, Administration and Law

Female

Male Total

15,740 44,280

2,850 9,590

Retail and Commercial Enterprise

Female

9,170

70

Male Total

7,670 16,840

20 80

Construction, Planning and the Built Environment

Female

510

60

Science and Mathematics

Female Male

2,400 1,750 4,150

10 10 10

Male Total Education and Training Female Male Total Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies Female

13,960 14,460 25,630 9,570 35,200 1,710

810 870 7,230 4,500 11,730 Unknown 40 Social Sciences

Total

Female Male Total

1,090 400 1,490

10 10

Female Male Total

63,060 31,610 94,680

730 260 990

Male Total

19,670 21,380

340 380 Total Female Male 227,300 131,880 20,610 10,470

1145W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1146W

Table 1: Adult (aged 24+) enrolments on level 3 and level 4 or above further education courses by gender and sector subject area, 2010/11 Level Level 4 or 5 Sector subject area Gender Level 3 higher Total 359,200 31,100

Table 1: Adult (aged 24+) participation on Level 3 and above further education courses by gender and age band, 2010/11 Gender Age Level 3 and above 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-65 66+ Unknown 24+ total 116,220 101,120 37,070 4,220 3,440 50 376,900

Notes: 1. All figures are rounded to the nearest 10 except the total which is rounded to the nearest 100. Totals may not sum due to rounding. 2. Information in this table is based on all Government-funded learners, including apprenticeships, workplace learning, community learning and education and training provision taken at general further education colleges (including tertiary), sixth form colleges, special colleges (agricultural and horticultural colleges and art and design colleges), specialist colleges and external institutions. 3. These data include education and training, apprenticeships, work place learning and community learning provision. 4. Age is based on age at the start of the academic year. Source: Individualised Learner Record

Information on the number of learners participating in further education is published in a quarterly Statistical First Release (SFR). The latest SFR was published on 31 January 2012:
http://www.thedataservice.org.uk/statistics/ statisticalfirstrelease/sfr_current

Notes: 1. All figures are rounded to the nearest ten except the total which is rounded to the nearest hundred. 2. Information in this table is based on all government-funded learners. 3. These data include Education and Training, Apprenticeships, Work Place Learning and Community Learning provision. 4. Age is based on age at the start of the academic year. Source: Individualised Learner Record

Information on the number of learners participating in further education is published in a quarterly Statistical First Release (SFR). The latest SFR was published on 31 January 2012:
http://www.thedataservice.org.uk/statistics/ statisticalfirstrelease/sfr_current

Mr Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how many (a) men and (b) women in England who are following courses leading to qualifications at Level 3 or above are aged (i) 24 to 30, (ii) 31 to 40, (iii) 41 to 50, (iv) 51 to 60, (v) 61 [102279] to 65 and (vi) 66 and above. Mr Hayes: Table 1 shows the number of adult (aged 24+) learners participating on further education courses, Level 3 and above, in England by gender and age band in 2010/11, the latest year for which final data are available.
Table 1: Adult (aged 24+) participation on Level 3 and above further education courses by gender and age band, 2010/11 Gender Age Level 3 and above Female 24-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-65 66+ Unknown 24+ Female total Male 24-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-65 66+ Unknown 24+ Male total Gender total 24-30 68,770 75,350 67,940 23,290 2,190 2,270 40 239,840

Property Development Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps he is taking to encourage banks to work in partnership with small to medium-sized property developers and construction [102115] firms to develop new projects. Mr Prisk: There are a number of Government schemes delivered through the banks which have been designed to facilitate and encourage banks to lend to small and medium-sized businesses of all sectors. These schemes will help businesses to access the finance that they need to develop new projects. The recently launched National Loan Guarantee Scheme is just one example of the Governments continuing intervention and support in this area. The Enterprise Finance Guarantee has also been extended to further incentivise bank lending to firms lacking sufficient track record or collateral to secure bank finance. Additionally, in his 2012 Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), made announcements which will benefit property developers and construction firms looking to develop new homes. The Government are investing 150 million more in the Get Britain Building fund (increasing its total value to 570 million). The fund will support the delivery of up to 16,000 new homes, by supporting construction firms in need of development finance. The Government have also said that they will consult on the potential role a social housing Real Estate Investment Trust could play to support investment in the social housing sector. Research Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what plans he has to reinstate the research and development scorecard.
[102208]

46,020 40,870 33,180 13,780 2,030 1,160 20 137,060

114,800

1147W

Written Answers

27 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

1148W

Mr Willetts: The Department is currently considering a proposal to re-instate the Scoreboard as a series of raw data sets. A decision will be made shortly. Technology Strategy Board: Expenditure Alun Cairns: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how much the Technology Strategy Board spent in each region in [94110] each of the last three years. Mr Willetts [holding answer 7 February 2012]: Regional information is only available for the Technology Strategy Boards spend on its collaborative R and D activityother areas could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The collaborative R and D spend by region in each of the last three years is shown in the following table.
million Financial year Region East Midlands East of England London North East North West Northern Ireland Scotland South East South West Wales West Midlands Yorkshire and the Humber Total
1

have been reviewed and to which countries; and which of these licences have subsequently been revoked.
[101394]

Mr Prisk: An export licence would only be required for the provision of military training where the provision of that training involved the transfer of controlled military technology. All relevant export licences were reviewed in the wake of the events in the Middle East and North Africa last year. Of the strategic export licences revoked since February 2011, the following Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) for Libya included an element of training of this type.
Application type Annual report summary OIEL Ground vehicle military communications equipment, equipment for the use of ground vehicle military communications equipment, software for the use of ground vehicle military communications equipment, military communications equipment, technology for the use of military communications equipment, command communications control and intelligence equipment, equipment for the use of command communications control and intelligence equipment, military electronic equipment, equipment for the use of military communications equipment, fire control equipment, equipment for the use of fire control equipment, artillery computers, equipment for the use of artillery computers, military infrared/thermal imaging equipment, laser rangefinders, equipment for the use of laser rangefinders, bombing computers, gun laying equipment, command communications control and intelligence software, command and control vehicles, software for the simulation of military operation scenarios, software for the use of military communications equipment, test equipment for military communications equipment, military navigation equipment, equipment for the use of military electronic equipment, components for military electronic equipment, technology for the use of artillery computers, technology for the use of bombing computers, technology for the use of fire control equipment, technology for the use of military electronic equipment, technology for the use of ground vehicle military communications equipment, software for the modelling of military operation scenarios, equipment employing cryptography, software for the use of equipment employing cryptography

2009/10 21.51 8.68 18.82 3.66 7.56 1.38 4.33 25.38 21.39 2.65 15.48 4.75 135.59

2010/11 21.57 6.53 34.71 4.96 11.06 2.14 8.55 45.06 14.54 3.49 12.34 8.13 173.08

2011/121 20.30 10.94 41.14 9.31 12.86 2.11 10.55 46.60 25.40 3.27 14.94 7.98 205.40

Up to 29 February 2012.

Training Sir John Stanley: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the Prime Ministers contribution in debate of 21 March 2011 in response to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, Official Report, column 707, what training licences

Values of items licensed for export have been provided for extant Standard Individual Export Licences. No values are given for extant Open Individual Export Licences because there no generally no limit to the quantities that may be exported under these licences and it is not possible for exporters to provide this information when they make a licence application.

ORAL ANSWERS
Tuesday 27 March 2012
Col. No. Col. No.

HEALTH................................................................... 111 Telephone Service ............................................ Adult Congenital Cardiac Services ........................ Care at Home......................................................... Defective Breast Implants ...................................... End-of-life Care ..................................................... GPs (Performance Management) ........................... Health Care (Professional Standards) .................... NHS Reorganisation (Costs)..................................

1317 1326 1328 1325 1321 1317 1323 1331 1318

HEALTHcontinued Nurse to Patient Ratio ........................................... Private Finance Initiatives (North-East) ................ Raynauds Disease and Scleroderma ...................... Services for Older People ....................................... Topical Questions .................................................. Tuberculosis ........................................................... Vision Screening (Children) ................................... Walk-in Centres .....................................................

1327 1323 1328 1330 1331 1320 1329 1322

WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Tuesday 27 March 2012
Col. No. Col. No.

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS ............. 101WS Bursaries for Initial Teacher Training..................... 102WS Companies House (Public Targets 2012-13) ........... 101WS Financial Reporting Council.................................. 104WS Her Majestys Land Registry (Performance Targets).............................................................. 103WS Regional Development Agencies Operational Closure .............................................................. 105WS CABINET OFFICE................................................... 108WS Election and Referendum Guidance ...................... 108WS COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.. 108WS Post Public Disturbances (Payments to Local Authorities).............................................. 108WS Research Commissioned by the Previous Administration................................................... 113WS CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT .......................... 114WS The Tote................................................................. 114WS DEFENCE................................................................. 115WS Defence Police and Guarding Agency .................... 116WS EU Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) ................... 115WS Joint Forces Command .......................................... 116WS Nuclear Security Summit ....................................... 119WS EDUCATION............................................................ 119WS Carbon Capture and Storage ................................. 122WS Early Years Foundation Stage ................................ 119WS Quango Reform ..................................................... 121WS Teachers Powers to Discipline ............................... 121WS

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS............................................................... 122WS Parliamentary Written Question (Correction) ........ 122WS HEALTH................................................................... 125WS Public Health Workforce Consultation .................. 125WS HOME DEPARTMENT........................................... 126WS Migration Advisory Committee and the Technical Advisory Board.................................. 128WS Police Air Support (Collaboration Agreement) ...... 126WS Police Officers and Staff (Remuneration and Conditions of Service) ....................................... 126WS JUSTICE................................................................... 129WS Community Sentences and Probation Consultation ...................................................... 129WS Coroner Services .................................................... 131WS TRANSPORT ........................................................... 132WS ............................................................................... 134WS Driving Tests (Taking Testing to the Customer)..... 135WS EU Transport Council ........................................... 132WS High Speed Rail ..................................................... 134WS Motoring Agencies Business Plans and Performance Frameworks .................................. 132WS TREASURY .............................................................. 106WS Planned Tax Consultations (Publication) ............... 106WS Royal Mint Advisory Committee ........................... 107WS UK Convergence Programme ................................ 107WS WORK AND PENSIONS ......................................... 136WS Universal Credit (Passported Benefits)................... 136WS

WRITTEN ANSWERS
Tuesday 27 March 2012
Col. No. Col. No.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL .......................................... 1027W Work Experience.................................................... 1027W BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS ............. Arms Trade ............................................................ Basic Skills ............................................................. Business: Loans...................................................... Catering ................................................................. 1132W 1132W 1133W 1133W 1134W

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLScontinued Duke of York......................................................... 1134W EU Internal Trade.................................................. 1135W Exports: Bahrain.................................................... 1135W Exports: Egypt....................................................... 1136W Exports: Libya ....................................................... 1136W Exports: Syria ........................................................ 1137W Exports: Tunisia..................................................... 1137W

Col. No.

Col. No.

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLScontinued Exports: Yemen...................................................... 1139W Foreign Companies ................................................ 1140W Higher Education: Private Sector........................... 1141W Intellectual Property .............................................. 1141W Intellectual Property Office .................................... 1141W Mature Students .................................................... 1142W Property Development ........................................... 1146W Research ................................................................ 1146W Technology Strategy Board: Expenditure............... 1147W Training ................................................................. 1147W CABINET OFFICE................................................... Business Appointments Advisory Committee ........ Manpower.............................................................. Statistics................................................................. Transport: Costs .................................................... COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.. Affordable Housing: Birmingham.......................... Community Relations ............................................ Fire Extinguishers: Schools.................................... Fire Prevention: Free Schools ................................ Housing: Energy .................................................... Housing: Rural Areas ............................................ Shared Ownership Schemes ................................... Social Rented Housing........................................... Temporary Accommodation: Rural Areas ............. Troubled Families Initiative: Peterborough ............ Wind Power: Planning Permission ......................... CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT .......................... Arts: Crime Prevention .......................................... Betting: Dormant Accounts................................... Broadband ............................................................. Broadband: North East ......................................... Leisure: Industry.................................................... Manpower.............................................................. Olympic Games 2012 ............................................. Radio Frequencies ................................................. Remploy................................................................. Sports .................................................................... Sports: Schools ...................................................... DEFENCE................................................................. Afghanistan ........................................................... Air Force: Languages............................................. Air Travel ............................................................... Aircraft Carriers .................................................... Armed Forces ........................................................ Armed Forces: Police ............................................. Armed Forces: Scotland......................................... Defence .................................................................. Falkland Islands..................................................... Intellectual Property .............................................. Intelligence and Security Committee...................... Iraq Conflict: Depleted Uranium........................... Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft................................... Military Aircraft .................................................... Military Bases ........................................................ Ministry of Defence Police..................................... Nuclear Power Stations: Safety .............................. RAF Menwith Hill ................................................ Somalia: Piracy ...................................................... Syria....................................................................... Taxis ...................................................................... EDUCATION............................................................ Academies: Pensions .............................................. Catering ................................................................. Childrens Centres: Leeds ....................................... 1062W 1062W 1062W 1063W 1063W 1064W 1064W 1065W 1065W 1065W 1066W 1066W 1067W 1067W 1067W 1068W 1069W 1020W 1020W 1021W 1021W 1022W 1022W 1022W 1023W 1023W 1023W 1024W 1024W 1048W 1048W 1049W 1049W 1049W 1050W 1051W 1051W 1051W 1052W 1052W 1052W 1053W 1053W 1054W 1054W 1055W 1055W 1055W 1056W 1056W 1056W 1028W 1028W 1028W 1029W

EDUCATIONcontinued Citizenship: Education........................................... Day Care: North East ............................................ Departmental Drinks............................................. English Baccalaureate ............................................ English Language: National Curriculum Tests....... Free Schools........................................................... Free Schools: School Meals ................................... GCSEs: GCE A-Levels .......................................... Intellectual Property .............................................. Literacy: Teaching Methods................................... Pupils: Disadvantaged............................................ Remploy................................................................. Schools: Admissions .............................................. Schools: Birmingham............................................. Schools: Fire Extinguishers.................................... Schools: Inspections............................................... Schools: Sanitation ................................................ Teachers: Trade Unions ......................................... Teachers: Training.................................................. Teachers: Wales...................................................... Truancy: Leeds....................................................... Young People: Alcoholic Drinks ............................ ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ..................... Clean Coal Technology .......................................... Combined Heat and Power: Biofuels...................... Energy: Carbon Emissions..................................... Energy: Disconnections ......................................... Energy: Meters....................................................... Energy: Prices ........................................................ Environment Protection ......................................... Environment Protection: Taxation ......................... Green Deal Scheme................................................ Manpower.............................................................. Power Stations: Carbon Emissions......................... Renewable Energy.................................................. Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme ......................... Renewables Obligation........................................... Wind Power ........................................................... Wind Power: Seas and Oceans ............................... ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS............................................................... Dogs: Electronic Training Aids .............................. Food ...................................................................... Food: Exports ........................................................ Manpower.............................................................. Nature Conservation: EU Law............................... Rural Areas: Broadband ........................................ Schmallenberg Virus .............................................. Taxis ...................................................................... FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE..... 1 Carlton Gardens ................................................. Intellectual Property .............................................. Iraq ........................................................................ Libya...................................................................... Mauritania............................................................. Syria....................................................................... HEALTH................................................................... Aspergers Syndrome.............................................. Care Quality Commission...................................... Care Quality Commission: Consultants ................. Cholesterol............................................................. Contraceptives ....................................................... Crosby-Textor ........................................................ Doctors: Training................................................... Epilepsy: Health Services ....................................... General Practitioners .............................................

1029W 1029W 1030W 1030W 1030W 1032W 1032W 1032W 1035W 1035W 1035W 1036W 1036W 1036W 1036W 1037W 1037W 1037W 1037W 1038W 1039W 1039W 1079W 1079W 1080W 1080W 1081W 1081W 1082W 1082W 1083W 1083W 1084W 1085W 1085W 1085W 1086W 1086W 1087W

1024W 1024W 1025W 1025W 1026W 1026W 1026W 1027W 1027W 1087W 1087W 1088W 1089W 1090W 1091W 1091W 1100W 1101W 1102W 1102W 1105W 1105W 1105W 1106W 1106W 1107W

Col. No.

Col. No.

HEALTHcontinued General Practitioners: Management Consultants... GP Waiting Times.................................................. Health Allocation Formula .................................... Health: Management Consultants ......................... Health Visitors: Crimes of Violence ....................... Herbal Medicine: EU Law ..................................... Hospital Beds......................................................... Maternity Services: Greater London...................... Monitor: Consultants ............................................ Monitor: McKinsey and Company ........................ Muscular Dystrophy: East Midlands ..................... NHS: Advocacy ..................................................... NHS Foundation Trusts......................................... NHS: Management Consultants ............................ NHS: Scotland....................................................... NHS: Scotland....................................................... NHS: Standards..................................................... NHS: Theft ............................................................ Pancreatic Cancer: Health Services ........................ Private Health Care Sector..................................... Prostate Cancer...................................................... Public Health Responsibility Deal ......................... Royal Sussex County Hospital ............................... Tuberculosis ........................................................... HOME DEPARTMENT........................................... Alcoholic Drinks: Excise Duties............................. Alcoholic Drinks: Misuse....................................... Aviation: Security................................................... British Nationality: Families .................................. Crime Prevention: Motor Vehicles ......................... Drugs: Crime ......................................................... Drugs: Regulation.................................................. Entry Clearances: Foreign Workers........................ Equality and Human Rights Commission.............. Foreign Workers: Domestic Service........................ Freezing Orders: EU Action .................................. Immigration ........................................................... Immigration Controls: Olympic Games 2012......... Immigration: Lewisham ......................................... Immunity Certificates ............................................ Intellectual Property .............................................. Lasers .................................................................... Lost Property ......................................................... Metropolitan Police: Public Appointments ............ Money Laundering ................................................ Olympic Games 2012 ............................................. Organised Crime .................................................... Organised Crime: EU Action ................................. Police and Crime Commissioners........................... Police: Private Sector.............................................. Proceeds of Crime: EU Action .............................. Security: Football................................................... Taxis ...................................................................... Theft: Metals ......................................................... UK Border Agency: Manpower ............................. UK Border Force ................................................... UK Border Force: Manpower ................................ War Crimes: EU Action......................................... INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.................... Developing Countries: Tuberculosis....................... Iraq ........................................................................ Sri Lanka ............................................................... JUSTICE................................................................... Bill of Rights ......................................................... Chief Coroner........................................................ Corruption: EU Action.......................................... Courts: Translation Services...................................

1108W 1100W 1101W 1109W 1108W 1109W 1110W 1110W 1110W 1112W 1112W 1113W 1112W 1114W 1100W 1101W 1115W 1115W 1115W 1100W 1117W 1100W 1117W 1118W 1119W 1119W 1119W 1119W 1119W 1120W 1120W 1121W 1122W 1123W 1123W 1124W 1124W 1125W 1125W 1125W 1126W 1126W 1126W 1127W 1127W 1127W 1128W 1128W 1128W 1129W 1130W 1130W 1131W 1131W 1131W 1131W 1132W 1132W 1078W 1078W 1079W 1079W 1069W 1070W 1070W 1071W 1071W

JUSTICEcontinued Criminal Records: EU Action ................................ Departmental Expenditure .................................... Employment Tribunals Service............................... Family Courts: Expert Evidence ............................ Fines: EU Law ....................................................... Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction .......................... Legal Aid Scheme .................................................. Location................................................................. Prisoners ................................................................ Prisons: Private Sector ........................................... Remand in Custody: Expenditure .......................... Telephone Tapping: Business ................................. NORTHERN IRELAND .......................................... Departmental Responsibilities ............................... Police Service of Northern Ireland......................... Serious Organised Crime Agency...........................

1072W 1072W 1073W 1074W 1074W 1074W 1075W 1076W 1076W 1077W 1069W 1078W 1018W 1018W 1018W 1019W

PRIME MINISTER .................................................. 1024W Early Intervention Foundation............................... 1024W SCOTLAND.............................................................. 1019W Mass Media ........................................................... 1019W TRANSPORT ........................................................... Cycling: Safety ....................................................... Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency..................... High Speed 2 Railway Line .................................... Intellectual Property .............................................. Large Goods Vehicles: Fees and Charges ............... Olympic Games 2012 ............................................. Railways: Fares ...................................................... Rescue Services ...................................................... Traffic Penalty Tribunal ......................................... TREASURY .............................................................. Child Benefit.......................................................... CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme ............................. Departmental Recruitment .................................... Employment Agencies............................................ Excise Duties: Alcoholic Drinks............................. Income Tax: Tax Rates and Bands ......................... Minimum Wage ..................................................... PAYE ..................................................................... Stamp Duty Land Tax ........................................... Taxation: Multinational Companies ...................... Tobacco: Smuggling............................................... VAT ....................................................................... Welfare Tax Credits................................................ WALES...................................................................... Devolution ............................................................. Health and Social Care Bill.................................... Public Sector: Pay .................................................. Remploy................................................................. WOMEN AND EQUALITIES ................................. Business: Females .................................................. Females: Fiscal Policy ............................................ Work Experience.................................................... WORK AND PENSIONS ......................................... Action for Employment ......................................... Apprentices: Pay .................................................... Departmental Consultants..................................... Disability ............................................................... Disability Living Allowance ................................... Fuel Poverty........................................................... Housing Benefit ..................................................... 1056W 1056W 1058W 1059W 1059W 1059W 1060W 1060W 1060W 1061W 1092W 1092W 1094W 1094W 1095W 1096W 1096W 1097W 1097W 1098W 1098W 1098W 1099W 1099W 1019W 1019W 1019W 1020W 1020W 1017W 1017W 1017W 1018W 1040W 1040W 1040W 1041W 1041W 1041W 1042W 1042W

Col. No.

Col. No.

WORK AND PENSIONScontinued Intellectual Property .............................................. New Enterprise Allowance..................................... Occupational Pensions ........................................... Pay ......................................................................... Personal Income .................................................... Personal Independence Payment ............................

1043W 1043W 1043W 1044W 1044W 1045W

WORK AND PENSIONScontinued Remploy................................................................. Remploy: Wales ..................................................... Social Security Benefits: Fraud .............................. Unemployed People: Travel.................................... Universal Credit..................................................... Work Capability Assessment..................................

1046W 1046W 1047W 1047W 1047W 1048W

Members who wish to have the Daily Report of the Debates forwarded to them should give notice at the Vote Office. The Bound Volumes will also be sent to Members who similarly express their desire to have them. No proofs of the Daily Reports can be supplied, nor can corrections be made in the Weekly Edition. Corrections which Members suggest for the Bound Volume should be clearly marked in the Daily Report, but not telephoned, and the copy containing the Corrections must be received at the Editors Room, House of Commons, not later than Tuesday 3 April 2012
STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT GREATLY FACILITATES THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE VOLUMES

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

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES DAILY PARTS Single copies: Commons, 5; Lords, 350. Annual subscriptions: Commons, 865; Lords, 525. WEEKLY HANSARD Single copies: Commons, 12; Lords, 6. Annual subscriptions: Commons, 440. Lords, 225. Index: Annual subscriptions: Commons, 125; Lords, 65. LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session. Single copies: Commons, 105; Lords, 40. Standing orders will be accepted. THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is published separately at 900 and can be supplied to standing order. All prices are inclusive of postage

Volume 542 No. 287

Tuesday 27 March 2012

CONTENTS
Tuesday 27 March 2012
Oral Answers to Questions [Col. 1317] [see index inside back page] Secretary of State for Health National Planning Policy Framework [Col. 1337] Statement(Greg Clark) Small Business Administration [Col. 1360] Motion for leave to bring in Bill(Roger Williams)agreed to Bill presented, and read the First time Backbench Business [Un-allotted day] Assisted Suicide [Col. 1363] Motion(Richard Ottaway) Amendment(Dame Joan Ruddock)negatived Amendment(Fiona Bruce)agreed to Motion, as amended, agreed to Royal Assent to Acts passed [Col. 1372] Petitions [Col. 1440] Foreign Secret Intelligence and State Secrets Privilege [Col. 1442] Debate on motion for Adjournment Westminster Hall Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales [Col. 311WH] 16-to-18 Mathematics Education [Col. 334WH] Israel and the Peace Process [Col. 343WH] EU Directive on Animal Experimentation [Col. 366WH] British Expatriates (Punjab) [Col. 374WH] Debates on motion for Adjournment Written Ministerial Statements [Col. 101WS] Written Answers to Questions [Col. 1017W] [see index inside back page]