Vol. 742No. 89

Tuesday8 January 2013

P A R L I A M E N T A R Y D E B A T E S

(HANSARD)

HOUSE OF LORDSOFFICIAL REPORT

O R D E R O F BU S I N E S S

Death of a Member: Lord Rees-MoggAnnouncement

Leader of the HouseQuestions

Airports: CapacityHousing: New HomesLegal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1)Order 2012Economy: Effect of US “Fiscal Cliff” Solution

Ibrahim Magag: DisappearancePrivate Notice Question

NHS: South London Healthcare TrustPrivate Notice Question

Public Service Pensions BillOrder of Consideration Motion

Growth and Infrastructure BillSecond Reading

Armed Forces: Future SizeQuestion for Short Debate

Grand CommitteePublic Bodies (Abolition of British Shipbuilders) Order 2013Public Bodies (Abolition of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal)Order 2013Charging Orders (Orders for Sale: Financial Thresholds) Regulations 2012

Considered in Grand CommitteeSri Lanka

Question for Short Debate

Written StatementsWritten AnswersFor column numbers see back page

£4·00

Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports shouldgive notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office.

The bound volumes also will be sent to those Peers who similarlynotify their wish to receive them.

No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for thebound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report oftheir speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of theDaily Report, which, with the column numbers concernedshown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor ofDebates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of theDaily Report.

This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet atwww.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/index/130108.html

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES

DAILY PARTSSingle copies:

Commons, £5; Lords £4Annual subscriptions:

Commons, £865; Lords £525

LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only.Details available on request.

BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during thesession.Single copies:

Commons, £105; Lords, £60 (£100 for a two-volume edition).Standing orders will be accepted.

THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is publishedseparately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing order.

All prices are inclusive of postage.

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2013,this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence,

which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/.

HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENTPRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF STATE

THE CABINETPRIME MINISTER, FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY AND MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE—The Rt. Hon. David Cameron, MPDEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL—The Rt. Hon. Nick Clegg, MPFIRST SECRETARY OF STATE AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS—The Rt. Hon. William

Hague, MPCHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER—The Rt. Hon. George Osborne, MPCHIEF SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY—The Rt. Hon. Danny Alexander, MPSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT—The Rt. Hon. Theresa May, MPSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE—The Rt. Hon. Philip Hammond, MPSECRETARY OF STATE FOR BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE—The Rt. Hon. Vince

Cable, MPSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS—The Rt. Hon. Iain Duncan Smith, MPLORD CHANCELLOR AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE—The Rt. Hon. Chris Grayling, MPSECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION—The Rt. Hon. Michael Gove, MPSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT—The Rt. Hon. Eric Pickles, MPSECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH—The Rt. Hon. Jeremy Hunt, MPSECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS—The Rt. Hon. Owen Paterson, MPSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT—The Rt. Hon. Justine Greening, MPSECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND—The Rt. Hon. Michael Moore, MPSECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE—The Rt. Hon. Edward Davey, MPSECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT—The Rt. Hon. Patrick McLoughlin, MPSECRETARY OF STATE FOR CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT AND MINISTER FOR WOMEN AND EQUALITIES—The Rt. Hon. Maria

Miller, MPSECRETARY OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND—The Rt. Hon. Theresa Villiers, MPSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WALES—The Rt. Hon. David Jones, MPLEADER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER—Lord Hill of Oareford, CBE

DEPARTMENTS OF STATE AND MINISTERS

Business, Innovation and Skills—SECRETARY OF STATE AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE—The Rt. Hon. Vince Cable, MPMINISTERS OF STATE—

The Rt. Hon. David Willetts, MPThe Rt. Hon. Michael Fallon, MPLord Green of Hurstpierpoint

PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE—Lord MarlandJo Swinson, MPMatthew Hancock, MP

Cabinet Office—MINISTER FOR THE CABINET OFFICE AND PAYMASTER-GENERAL—The Rt. Hon. Francis Maude, MPMINISTER FOR GOVERNMENT POLICY—The Rt. Hon. Oliver Letwin, MPMINISTER OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. David Laws, MPPARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES—

Nick Hurd, MPChloe Smith, MP

Communities and Local Government—SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. Eric Pickles, MPSENIOR MINISTER OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. Baroness WarsiMINISTER OF STATE—Mark Prisk, MPPARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE—

Nick Boles, MPThe Rt. Hon. Don Foster, MPBrandon Lewis, MPBaroness Hanham, CBE

Culture, Media and Sport—

SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. Maria Miller, MP

MINISTER OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. Hugh Robertson, MP

PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE—Ed Vaizey, MPHelen Grant, MPJo Swinson, MP

Defence—

SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. Philip Hammond, MP

MINISTEROF STATE (MINISTER FOR THE ARMED FORCES)—The Rt. Hon. Andrew Robathan, MP

MINISTEROF STATE—The Rt. Hon. Mark Francois, MP

PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE—Dr Andrew Murrison, MPPhilip Dunne, MPLord Astor of Hever, DL

Education—

SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. Michael Gove, MP

MINISTER OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. David Laws, MP

PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE—Matthew Hancock, MPEdward Timpson, MPElizabeth Truss, MP

Energy and Climate Change—

SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. Edward Davey, MP

MINISTERS OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. Gregory Barker, MPJohn Hayes, MP

PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE—Baroness Verma

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—

SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. Owen Paterson, MP

MINISTER OF STATE—David Heath, CBE, MP

PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE—Richard Benyon, MPLord De Mauley, TD

Foreign and Commonwealth Office—

SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. William Hague, MP

SENIOR MINISTER OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. Baroness Warsi

MINISTERS OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. David Lidington, MPThe Rt. Hon. Hugo Swire, MPLord Green of Hurstpierpoint

PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE—Mark Simmonds, MPAlistair Burt, MP

Health—

SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. Jeremy Hunt, MP

MINISTER OF STATE—Norman Lamb, MP

PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE—Anna Soubry, MPDaniel Poulter, MPEarl Howe

ii

Home Office—SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. Theresa May, MPMINISTER OF STATE (MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION)—Mark Harper, MPMINISTER OF STATE (MINISTER FOR POLICING AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE)—The Rt. Hon. Damian Green, MPMINISTER OF STATE—Jeremy Browne, MPPARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE—James Brokenshire, MPLord Taylor of Holbeach

International Development—SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. Justine Greening, MPMINISTER OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. Alan Duncan, MPPARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE—Lynne Featherstone, MP

Justice—LORD CHANCELLOR AND SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. Chris Grayling, MPMINISTERS OF STATE—

The Rt. Hon. Lord McNallyThe Rt. Hon. Damian Green, MP

PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE—Helen Grant, MPJeremy Wright, MP

Law Officers—ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The Rt. Hon. Dominic Grieve, QC, MPSOLICITOR-GENERAL—Oliver Heald, MPADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND—The Rt. Hon. Lord Wallace of Tankerness, QC

Leader of the House of Commons—LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND LORD PRIVY SEAL—The Rt. Hon. Andrew Lansley, CBE, MPPARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY—Rt. Hon. Tom Brake, MP

Leader of the House of Lords—LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER—Lord Hill of Oareford, CBEDEPUTY LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS—The Rt. Hon. Lord McNally

Northern Ireland—SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. Theresa Villiers, MPMINISTER OF STATE—Mike Penning, MP

Privy Council Office—DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL—The Rt. Hon. Nick Clegg, MP

Scotland Office—SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. Michael Moore, MPPARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. David Mundell, MP

Transport—SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. Patrick McLoughlin, MPMINISTER OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. Simon Burns, MPPARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE—

Norman Baker, MPStephen Hammond, MP

Treasury—PRIME MINISTER, FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY AND MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE—The Rt. Hon. David Cameron, MPCHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER—The Rt. Hon. George Osborne, MPCHIEF SECRETARY—The Rt. Hon. Danny Alexander, MPFINANCIAL SECRETARY—Rt. Hon. Greg Clark, MPEXCHEQUER SECRETARY—David Gauke, MPECONOMIC SECRETARY—Sajid Javid, MPCOMMERCIAL SECRETARY—Lord DeightonPARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY (CHIEF WHIP)—The Rt. Hon. Sir George Young, MP

iii

LORDS COMMISSIONERS (GOVERNMENT WHIPS)—Rt Hon Desmond Swayne, MPAnne Milton, MPStephen Crabb, MPDavid Evennett, MPRobert Goodwill, MPMark Lancaster, MP

ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT WHIPS—Greg Hands, MPKaren Bradley, MPJo Johnson, MPNicky Morgan, MPRobert Syms, MPMark Hunter, MPJenny Willott MP

Wales Office—SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. David Jones, MPPARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE—Stephen Crabb, MPPARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE—Baroness Randerson

Work and Pensions—SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt. Hon. Iain Duncan Smith, MPMINISTERS OF STATE—

Mark Hoban, MPSteve Webb, MP

PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE—Esther McVey, MPPARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE (MINISTER FOR WELFARE REFORM)—Lord Freud

Ministers without Portfolio—The Rt. Hon. Kenneth Clarke, QC, MPThe Rt. Hon. Grant Shapps, MP

Her Majesty’s Household—LORD CHAMBERLAIN—The Rt. Hon. Earl Peel, GCVOLORD STEWARD—The Earl of DalhousieMASTER OF THE HORSE—Lord Vestey, KCVOLORDS IN WAITING—

Viscount BrookeboroughLord Faringdon

TREASURER (DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP)—The Rt. Hon. John Randall, MPCOMPTROLLER (DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP)—The Rt. Hon. Alistair Carmichael, MPVICE-CHAMBERLAIN (DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP)—The Rt. Hon. Greg Knight, MP

Government Whips, House of Lords—CAPTAIN OF THE HONOURABLE CORPS OF GENTLEMEN-AT-ARMS (CHIEF WHIP)—The Rt. Hon. Baroness Anelay ofSt Johns, DBECAPTAIN OF THE QUEEN’S BODYGUARD OF THE YEOMEN OF THE GUARD (DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP)—Lord Newby, OBEBARONESSES IN WAITING—

Baroness Garden of FrognalBaroness NorthoverBaroness Stowell of Beeston

LORDS IN WAITING—Lord Ahmad of WimbledonEarl AttleeLord Gardiner of KimbleThe Rt. Hon. Lord Wallace of SaltaireViscount Younger of Leckie

iv

HOUSE OF LORDSPRINCIPAL OFFICE HOLDERS AND SENIOR STAFF

LORD SPEAKER—The Rt. Hon. Baroness D’Souza, CMGCHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES—The Lord Sewel, CBEPRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES—The Lord Boswell of AynhoCLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS—D. R. Beamish, LL.MCLERK ASSISTANT—E. C. OllardREADING CLERK AND CLERK OF THE OVERSEAS OFFICE—R. H. Walters, D.PhilGENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD AND SERJEANT-AT-ARMS—Lieutenant General David Leakey, CMG, CBECOMMISSIONER FOR STANDARDS—P. R. Kernaghan, CBE, QPMCOUNSEL TO THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES—A. Roberts; M. Thomas; P. MilledgeREGISTRAR OF LORDS’ INTERESTS—B. P. KeithCLERK OF COMMITTEES—Dr F. P. TudorLEGAL ADVISER TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE—M. R. HuntDIRECTOR OF INFORMATION SERVICES AND LIBRARIAN—Dr E. Hallam SmithDIRECTOR OF FACILITIES—C. V. WoodallFINANCE DIRECTOR—A. MakowerDIRECTOR OF PARLIAMENTARY ICT SERVICE—Mrs J. MillerDIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES—T. V. MohanCLERK OF LEGISLATION—S. P. BurtonPRINCIPAL CLERK OF SELECT COMMITTEES—J. Vaughan

8 January 2013

THE

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES(HANSARD)

IN THE SECOND SESSION OF THE FIFTY-FIFTH PARLIAMENT OF THEUNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND

COMMENCING ON THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MAY IN THEFIFTY-NINTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF

HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II

FIFTH SERIES VOLUME DCCXLII

SIXTH VOLUME OF SESSION 2012-13

House of LordsTuesday, 8 January 2013.

2.30 pm

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

Death of a Member: Lord Rees-MoggAnnouncement

2.36 pm

The Lord Speaker (Baroness D’Souza): My Lords, Iregret to inform the House of the death of the nobleLord, Lord Rees-Mogg, on 29 December. On behalfof the House, I extend our condolences to the nobleLord’s family and friends.

Leader of the House

2.37 pm

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, in leadingthe tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I amable to be the first to welcome formally as his successorthe noble Lord, Lord Hill of Oareford. The nobleLord, Lord Hill, is already very well regarded andliked by this House, and I both welcome his veryimaginative appointment and look forward to workingwith him closely in the future, but he has a very hardact to follow. The departure from the Front Bench ofthe noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is a moment ofgreat significance for this House. We shall all misshim, and especially so at great occasions, such asProrogation, through the clerk not having to read outhis full name, as that will mean that the Prorogationceremony will be a good deal shorter.

A former Member of this House, Lord Wilson ofRievaulx—Harold Wilson as was—once very acutelyobserved that, “A week is a long time in politics”.Having done 25 years on the Conservative Front Bench, Icalculate that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has done

1,300 weeks in politics, which is a very long timeindeed. In that time, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde,has covered the ground. He entered government in1988, appointed by the now noble Baroness, LadyThatcher, as a junior Whip in the old Department ofTrade and Industry. There, as I understand it, he met avery young researcher from the Conservative ResearchDepartment called David Cameron, a contact whichhas clearly stood him in very good stead.

Indeed, if my memory serves me correctly, when,after the inconclusive result of the 2010 general election,David Cameron entered a room full of journalists tomake his,“big, open and comprehensive offer”,

to the Liberal Democrats, slipping into the room besidehim—the only person to do so—was the noble Lord,Lord Strathclyde. So when the Prime Minister yesterdaysaid in response to the resignation of the noble Lord,Lord Strathclyde, that to him personally he had alwaysbeen a,“staunch friend and wise counsel”,

I suspect that was the heartfelt truth.I am less confident about just how comfortable the

noble Lord has been with the results of that big, openand comprehensive offer—that is, the coalition. Whenit was put to him on “Channel 4 News” last night thathe had been reported as saying he despaired that thecoalition had broken down in the House of Lords hedidn’t quite knock the story down completely when hereplied:

“I’m sure that at times … over the … last 18 months I mightwell have said that.”

Of course, one of the most difficult issues that hehas had to deal with since coming into governmentagain in the coalition has been House of Lords reform,and in particular the exciting and very well thought-through proposals from his now ex-Cabinet colleague,the Deputy Prime Minister. Tom Strathclyde is, ofcourse, a natural House of Lords reformer. He hasshown nothing but utter loyalty to the Government’snow-abandoned proposals for an all or mainly electedHouse of Lords. We on these Benches of coursecompletely believed him, and saw no signs at all of one

[BARONESS ROYALL OF BLAISDON]of the biggest political winks in parliamentary history.All I would report is the view of one Member of thisHouse from his own Benches who said, this morning,about the noble Lord and Lords reform: “There weretimes when Tom’s tongue was so far in his cheek that itwas almost coming out of his ear”. As another of thenoble Lord’s colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs,once so brilliantly put it: they might very well say that,but we on this side of the House could not possiblycomment.

The noble Lord has had a long and highly distinguishedpolitical career. Indeed, he was Leader of the Oppositionin your Lordships’ House for an astonishing 14 years,serving four leaders of his party in the Commons from1998 to 2010 among the total of six Tory leaders hehas served under. As Leader of the Opposition now, Iboth admire and am staggered by his tenacity, whichwas signalled very early on in his political career whenin 1983 he bravely stood in the Conservative interest asan MEP candidate in Merseyside East. As natural aScouser as he is a Lords reformer, sadly the nobleLord did not succeed on that occasion, although I amsure the European yearnings which that effort clearlyshowed will place him naturally in line with his mentor,the Prime Minister, when he makes his long-awaitedspeech on Europe.

Both as Leader of the Opposition and leader of hisown party in Government, the noble Lord, LordStrathclyde, has always been a highly capable politicaloperator, a straight dealer and a man of his word.Even so there have been difficult times, of course, butit really cannot have been part of the coalition’s planfor this House, with the coalition’s huge inbuilt politicalmajority, that we on these Benches and others woulddefeat the Government 59 times so far since May2010. If on occasion this has led the noble Lord to bepretty robust in his dealings with the House, his ownwit and charm, and sometimes pretty old-fashionedbluster, have more than got him through.

I would say that the noble Lord has always beenpersonally warm and friendly to me in our privatedealings, even when texting to inform me that thefollowing day’s business has been pulled. I thank himnow for his judgment, his trust, his confidences andhis counsel. Among the most difficult times we haveseen in recent years were the issues we faced overallowances and Peers’ conduct. As leaders throughoutthat difficult period, we both worked hard to makesure that there was not the slenderest of cigarettepapers between us in the service of the House. Heplayed a particularly important role at a decisive momentin getting the new allowances arrangements agreed.

It is true that some of the noble Lord’s strongestfans have not always been found among some of mycolleagues on these Benches, especially when he haspicked individuals up personally on points in theChamber. However, politics can be a rough old tradeand there can be no doubt that the noble Lord has servedhis beloved Conservative Party and, in his publicduties, the people of this country well and loyally. Inparticular, I know that noble Lords will want it saidthat he has served this House well and loyally. Thenoble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be greatly missedand from these Benches we thank him for all he has

done. We wish him well in his future life beyondFront-Bench politics and we look forward to hismaintaining strong and deep connections with yourLordships’ House from a different perspective to hisextraordinary contribution from the Front Bench duringa quarter of a century of dedicated service.

TheMinisterof State,Ministryof Justice(LordMcNally):My Lords, when Talleyrand died and Metternich receiveda telegram saying, “Talleyrand is dead”, he ponderedand thought, “Now what does he mean by this?”.There has been something of a similar reaction to theresignation of my noble friend. After his 14 years as aleader in this House and 25 years on the Front Bench,our great media have had to speculate on why he isgoing. There was even an outrageous suggestion insome of the papers that he could no longer tolerateworking with the Liberal Democrats. As my noblefriends will confirm, there have been no more harmoniousmeetings than when Tom Strathclyde has come to givethe Liberal Democrats one of his regular pep talks.Indeed, if he were so minded, I would be able topersuade two or three of my friends to make way forhim here on our Benches.

The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, mentioned thename. What is in a name? Certainly not much for theWilliam Hickey column of the Daily Express, whichsays that “Charlie Strathclyde” has departed as theleader. One would have thought that it would get thename right. I had to face—as the noble Baronesssaid—the annual humiliation at Prorogation when theclerk would read out Thomas Galloway Dunlop duRoy de Blicquy Strathclyde and Tom McNally. At onetime I thought of adding Plantagenet just to give it abit of class.

2.45 pmThe truth is that we have worked closely together

for the past eight years but only yesterday I discoveredin one of the cuttings that he is a master of the ancientChinese board-game, Go. I immediately wanted tofind what Go was. It is a game of tactics, the grandmasters of which are able to think up to 40 movesahead, even in complicated positions. Instantly, I realisedthat Tom had been playing Go with me for the pastthree years.

The Leader of the House has two tasks: one, as thenoble Baroness indicated, is to be the leader of hisparty and to get government business through as abusiness manager; the second is to be the guardian ofthe interests of individual Members and the House asa whole. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde,has fulfilled that second role with consummate skill.He steps down with thanks, respect and, I believe, theaffection of the whole House. All that I can say to thenoble Lord, Lord Hill, is: the best of luck.

Lord Laming: My Lords, on behalf of my colleaguesin the Cross-Bench group, I, too, wish to be associatedwith the warm and very well earned tributes that havebeen paid already to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.Although still relatively young—in my terms, veryyoung—he has given many years of his life to being anoutstanding public servant.

3 4[LORDS]Leader of the House Leader of the House

During the years when he was the Leader of thisHouse he always aimed to act in the best interests ofthe whole House and his many talents and energy weremuch admired. My colleagues and I very much hopethat the House will continue to have the benefit of hisvast experience and wisdom. The noble Lord verymuch respected the position of the Cross-Bench group,and, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord McNally,he very much valued the individual contributions ofits Members. He also supported the position of theConvenor and well understood that role in treadingcarefully—sometimes ever so carefully—between thedifferent party political interests in the House. On apersonal note I very much enjoyed the regular meetingsthat I had with him and I will always be grateful forthe generous support and encouragement that he readilygave. I wish him well.

Finally, I also take the opportunity to welcome tothis important role the noble Lord, Lord Hill ofOareford. The House rightly has a great regard forhim and personally, I have valued enormously mycontact with him, especially in safeguarding childrenand young people. On behalf of the Cross-Benchgroup I welcome him to his new responsibilities andlook forward to working with him.

The Lord Bishop of Derby: My Lords, I speak brieflyto associate those of us on these Benches with thegenerous, worthy and well earned words for the nobleLord, Lord Strathclyde. On these Benches, we aretransient. We come and go because, as noble Lordsknow, we observe a retirement age. By contrast, thenoble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is just like a part of thefurniture. He is an institution and has been herethroughout the time that virtually all of us on theseBenches have been here, so it will be a big change forus. My colleagues have been very keen to say howmuch we appreciate his support, wisdom and guidancefor the Lords Spiritual to enable our contribution tothe work of the House. Speaking personally, I marvelsometimes when he has to stand at that Box and dealwith some rather difficult things coming across theChamber. I always admire the fact that he is calm, hasa twinkle in his eye and generally responds with bucketsof common sense. That seems to be a very good way ofleading a House and creating the right kind of atmosphereand frame for us.

We also extend our welcome to the noble Lord,Lord Hill. To be honest, on these Benches we havemixed feelings. He has done a wonderful job as EducationMinister and has been a great friend to the Churchand the Lords Spiritual. In many ways we are very sadto see him leave that post. He has done outstandingwork, and I have always admired the way he can standat the Dispatch Box and, without really referring tohis notes, be able to answer the questions and be veryastute and quick-thinking on his feet. That is a remarkablegift and one that we look forward to him exercising inhis new role. We welcome the noble Lord, Lord Hill,and say thank you very much indeed to the noble Lord,Lord Strathclyde, for his help, support and guidance.

Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, Irise to pay tribute and give warm thanks to my noblefriend on behalf of the Association of ConservativePeers for all that he has achieved for this House and

our party during his long and distinguished career todate. Those of us who have served in government andon opposition Front Benches for a number of yearsare fully aware of the all-consuming and unremittingpressures and strains that that service brings—and,like other noble Lords, I think I have done my bit.However, we can only marvel at the unbroken recordof my noble friend over 25 years as a Minister in manydepartments, as Deputy Speaker, Deputy Chairmanof Committees—briefly—and as a member of shadowCabinets and Cabinets. Few in either House can rivalmy noble friend’s record and it is entirely understandablethat he should now wish to find time for another lifeand to pursue the many other interests that haveinevitably languished during those years.

The House has changed much since 1999, bothin its role and value. It is perhaps true to say that,in earlier years, its contribution was sometimesunderestimated among the higher reaches in the otherplace. That is no longer true today, and my noblefriend has played a notable part in bringing that aboutand in developing our House’s modern role in today’sworld. Many of us have discovered that behind thejovial exterior and merry manner lie a shrewd brain,an immense capacity for work and a devotion to thetasks in hand. I will give one example of the latter. Noone should underestimate the difficulty of repeating aStatement made by the Prime Minister in the otherplace following a European Council or other high-levelinternational meeting, at which he was not present andwhere decisions were inevitably sometimes made in themiddle of the night. After possibly only one or twohours’ briefing at the most, my noble friend wouldhave to cover a vast range of issues on which it wouldbe easy to drop a brick; yet he always carried out thatrole with aplomb. All that experience and understandingof the House and its modern role was brought to bear,in my view, with the skill and subtlety with which hehas handled the issue of Lords reform.

As Leader of the House, my noble friend hasshown devotion to this place above party politics. Asleader of the Conservative Party in the Lords, he hasalways worked closely with colleagues in the ACP indeveloping policies, and his door has always beenopen to us. We welcome our colleague, the noble Lord,Lord Hill, as a very worthy successor, and we thankthe noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, warmly and extendevery best wish for success and happiness in whateveravenues he now wishes to pursue.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hillof Oareford): My Lords—

Noble Lords: Hear, hear.

Lord Hill of Oareford: I wholeheartedly support thesentiments that have been expressed across the Houseabout my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. Some playhas already been made about his name. My noblefriend Lord McNally may feel short-changed with asurname like McNally. I say to him, “Try the surnameHill”. This afternoon’s tributes are a testament to thegreat dedication that my noble friend showed to thisHouse in his remarkable quarter-century of service onthe Front Bench.

5 6[8 JANUARY 2013]Leader of the House Leader of the House

[LORD HILL OF OAREFORD]My noble friend was a gifted and agile Leader of

the Opposition for almost 12 years, before rightly takinghis place as an outstanding Leader of this House,working over that time with five different Leaders ofthe party opposite. Indeed, he led the ConservativeBenches for longer than any Peer, save for twodistinguished Marquises of Salisbury and the Duke ofWellington. That is not bad company for a ConservativeLeader of the House to keep.

Both in opposition and office, during a long periodof time in which the House faced change unprecedentedin generations, his immense experience and knowledgeof—and, I may add, loyalty to—this House have beento the huge benefit of us all. That was given recognitionyesterday when the Prime Minister recommended theappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, tothe Order of the Companions of Honour, an appointmentwhich brings distinction and due recognition to thework he has done here and as a Minister over so manyyears.

As a relative newcomer to the House, I am certainlyin his debt for the guidance and support he has givenme since May 2010. It is rather disconcerting to standhere at the Dispatch Box today without the benefit ofhis occasional instruction, delivered in a forceful stagewhisper from the direction of my right elbow. Sincethe general election, my noble friend has steered theHouse with great skill through some unusual andtesting times, with the establishment of a coalitionGovernment for the first time since the Second WorldWar. It is not just the Government for whom he hasworked tirelessly, but the whole House, whose interestsI know he has always guarded at every opportunity.

It is therefore a tremendous privilege to follow mynoble friend in serving this House and these Benchesas Leader. I have enormous respect for the work ofthis House, for its role in our constitutional arrangementsand for our traditions and courtesies—which, like mypredecessors, I hope to be able to help uphold.

My noble friend Lord Strathclyde leaves a largehole on our Front Bench, as well as perhaps a littlemore space for the rest of us. To succeed him asLeader of this House is therefore an honour that Iview rather nervously, but I take great encouragementfrom the generous remarks that noble Lords have beenkind enough to make this afternoon.

Airports: CapacityQuestion

2.57 pm

Asked by Lord Spicer

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was theaverage percentage of total capacity used at London’scommercial airports over the past six months.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, between May and October 2012there were 525,000 commercial air transport movementsat the five largest commercial London airports: Heathrow,Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and London City. These airtransport movements used around 86% of the availablerunway capacity.

Lord Spicer: My Lords, why are we allowing theLondon airport system to run out of capacity?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, we are not. We have set upthe South East Airports Task Force to look at short-termmeasures to gain some capacity at Heathrow. In therather longer term, we have the aviation policy framework,which we are committed to publishing in March 2013.Finally, we have set up the Airports Commission,headed up by Sir Howard Davies.

Lord Clinton-Davis: Is it not likely that non-Britishairports will heartily welcome the Government’sunpardonable delay in selecting an international hubairport, whether at Heathrow or elsewhere? What doesthe Minister say about that?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, this problem was notunforeseeable. It has been coming for many years,including when noble Lords opposite were in government.We need to get a consensus and find a lasting solutionthat will survive a change in Governments.

Lord Bradshaw: I hope that the noble Earl willponder the following: a great deal of the heat in thedebate about air capacity is caused by the bidding warthat has broken out between various airports andairlines. Will the noble Earl ensure that the Daviescommission will, to the best of its ability, be governedby the fact that we should create extra capacity onlywhen a real need is demonstrated?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am confident that theAirports Commission, headed up by Sir Howard, willconsider all relevant matters.

Lord Soley: The Minister will know my opinion onthis but I put it to him very strongly that just abouteveryone in business has been saying that delaying thisinfrastructure project is crucially bad for the Britisheconomy. It is the delay that is causing the problem. Ifthe Government picked up the previous Government’spolicy and continued with it we would not be in thissituation now. That would not cost a single penny ofpublic money. Please, please move on this for the sakeof the British economy, investment and jobs.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, it is important for businessesto put their own submissions in to the AirportsCommission, as I think the noble Lord has alreadydone himself.

Lord Elton: My Lords, institutions can scarcely runat 100% capacity, any more than you can have 100% fullemployment. There has to be some slack in the system.How long does my noble friend think that the14% capacity that he says is now available will last?What steps are being taken to meet the moment whenit is full?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, DfT aviation demand forecastssuggest that with no new runway Gatwick Airportcould become full from around 2018 and Stansted

7 8[LORDS]Leader of the House Airports: Capacity

from around 2030. That is why we have set up theAirports Commission to advise us on viable optionsfor solving this problem.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, to comeback to the original Question, there is a 14% underusecapacity in the five major London and south-eastairports. What plans do the Government have to utilisethat capacity, given the failing to direct daily flights tosome of the major economies around the world andnew developing economies? What can be doneimmediately and what will the Government do?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, it is important to understandthat we are very well connected by Heathrow Airport.It is connected to the rest of the world better thanmost other places in Europe.

Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my noble friend’s Questionreferred specifically to commercial airports, but notfar from Heathrow lies Northolt—principally a RoyalAir Force airport but used for some other domesticand international semi-commercial flights. What problemsand constraints exist in the further use or developmentof Northolt to add value to what otherwise would bepart of the same hub of London airports?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I understand that there aresome difficulties with the runway orientation of Northoltairfield. I am sure that that is a factor that the AirportsCommission will take into consideration.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in his openingresponse the noble Earl referred to the fact that aconsensus was necessary to make progress over theconsiderable period of time needed to expand airportcapacity. Although he quoted 86% for the south-eastairports, we know that Heathrow is at over 99% utilisationand has no scope at all for development. The Oppositionhave offered to the Government for more than a yearnow the opportunity to establish a consensus by jointtalks. Could the noble Earl at least persuade his ministerialcolleagues that these should take place, and that theywould be aided by a somewhat earlier timetable for thecommission’s report? Why is it having to report afterthe general election when the urgency of the situationis apparent to everyone?

Earl Attlee: The noble Lord makes a strong point.The Airports Commission will report with its initialfindings by the end of the year. I would be delighted totalk to the noble Lord privately when we get thatinitial report. But it takes time to do the job properly.

Baroness Kramer: My Lords, I wonder if the Ministermight remind the House that capacity at Heathrow isfor 90 million passengers per year. Currently it hasonly 70 million passengers a year, because airlines areusing small aircraft in order to keep their slots aliveand are developing most of their flights within the UKand near continent, not for the long distance routes.Will he explain to the House that capacity is far more

complex and that there is a great deal of capacity withthe potential for much better utilisation already inLondon?

Earl Attlee: I agree with my noble friend that if youuse bigger aircraft you can get more passengers throughHeathrow for the same number of flights.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, whatproportion of the capacity at Heathrow do theGovernment estimate will be released if their plans tobuild High Speed 2—initially to Birmingham and thento Manchester and Leeds—are fulfilled? Is it not thecase that when high-speed railways are built on thecontinent, domestic aviation diminishes and as a resultthere is spare capacity at airports?

Earl Attlee: The noble Lord makes an importantpoint, but it will not solve our underlying problem thatwe will still eventually run out of capacity at theLondon airports.

Housing: New HomesQuestion

3.06 pm

Asked By Lord Sheldon

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plansthey have to build more homes in the south-east ofEngland.

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesandLocalGovernment(BaronessHanham):The Government do not set down Whitehall housingtargets for the south-east of England or any other partof the country. It is for elected local councils to determinewhere development should and should not go, andhow best to meet housing need through their localplans.

Lord Sheldon: I take notice of the points that thenoble Baroness has put forward, but Britain has beenbuilding fewer homes in London. In 2011, 18,000 newhomes were completed. More houses are needed andthey have to be built to meet the requirements.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, nobody will disagreethat we need more housing. I have said that manytimes in this Chamber. Everybody knows that we havean underhousing situation in this country for ourpopulation. Therefore, there is great pressure from mydepartment to ensure that housing targets are built up.However, it is for local authorities to decide where thathousing goes and how much they need in their localarea. A great number of houses are in the pipeline, dueto be built.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will theMinister confirm that she is willing to support theapproval of the financial scheme of guarantee to help

9 10[8 JANUARY 2013]Airports: Capacity Housing: New Homes

[BARONESS GARDNER OF PARKES]small builders who desperately need the work and whocould provide many homes for the people who are sobadly in need of them?

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the encouragementfor small businesses is there. Our position is already tohelp small businesses. Of course, some small businesses,although not necessarily building a big number ofhouses, are making a major contribution.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, does my noble friendagree that in carrying out housing programmes it isvery important to take into account two recentdevelopments? First, following the Olympics, housingprogrammes should not infringe on sports groundsand, indeed, should make greater provision for sportingfacilities. Secondly, steps should be taken to ensurethat housing does not take place in areas that are liableto flooding.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, again, local authoritiesand their local plans need to take account of boththose matters. It is certainly true that we hope to seethe preservation of playing fields, and that the legacyof the Olympics is to be encouraged—exactly thepoint that my noble friend has made. Of course, itdoes not make sense, as we have seen recently, to buildon flood plains if it is not necessary. However, that is amatter for local authorities’ judgment in terms of theamount of housing they need and where they need toput it.

Lord Kinnock: Is it not clear that the cap on housingbenefit means that very large numbers of people nowworking and living in central London will not, in thecourse of this year, be able to live near their place ofwork? Does that not make it a matter of emergencyfor the Government to undertake a building programmethat will mean that affordable housing is available tothe people who serve this great city in both the publicand private sectors in all capacities? Is it not a dreadfulreality that the combination of the cap on housingbenefit and the paucity of affordable housing in thepublic and private sectors will be monstrous in itseffects on lower-paid people in this city?

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, it is also monstrousthat we are left in the financial situation that we are.That is one reason why the welfare budget has had tobe looked at over the past few years. There is also littleevidence, except in one or two of the major boroughs,that people are having to move out of London to findhousing as a result of the housing benefit situation.We are pushing very hard for the building of affordablehousing in the light of whatever local authoritiesbelieve they need.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, does the Ministeragree that bringing homes that have been empty long-termback into use can make a useful contribution to housingsupply? What scope does she think that there is in thesouth-east for that, and what are the Governmentdoing to help communities that want to bring long-termempty homes back into use?

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the Government havea number of projects that have just come into being tosupport the bringing back into use of empty homes.Yes, they are a waste and it is essential that long-termempty homes—because some are not empty for long-termreasons—are brought back into use. The Governmenthave this year already committed £160 million. Thatwill bring 10,700 empty homes back into use. There is£100 million for affordable housing, including £70 millionof funding for 95 projects, which will bring more than5,600 properties back into use across the country. Mynoble friend commented on the south-east but, as Iexplained, that is across the country.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, a recent studyby BNP Paribas looked at the extent to which localauthorities were changing their housing targets fromthe regional spatial strategy levels. It found that localauthorities in the south-east and the south-west weremaking the biggest cuts. For the south-east, this amountedto around an 18% reduction. Does the Minister thinkthat that position is satisfactory?

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I go back to what Isaid to begin: it is now for local authorities to decideon their housing need against the overall housingposition. The noble Lord talks again about the south-east,but the south-east has many local authorities, whichare making decisions on housing as we speak.

Baroness Wall of New Barnet: My Lords, I am surethat the noble Baroness is aware of construction jobsthat are not being fulfilled in the present climate.Although the Government’s approach to unemploymentand apprenticeships is one that everyone endorses andsupports, is it not possible for that to be re-enacted ina vigorous and real way to ensure that people inapprenticeships in the construction industry have theopportunity to test their skills in building in the south-east,as housing is important for everyone?

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, apprenticeships areof course allied to companies in the housebuildingbusiness. We very much hope that any apprenticeshiptaken up in the construction industry will go on toensure that that person has a full-time job as long asthe companies are able to build, which they are.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishmentof Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of

Schedule 1) Order 2012Question

3.13 pm

Asked by Lord Bach

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plansthey have in respect of the Legal Aid, Sentencingand Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendmentof Schedule 1) Order 2012, which the House ofLords declined to approve on 3 December.

11 12[LORDS]Housing: New Homes Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment

TheMinisterof State,Ministryof Justice(LordMcNally):My Lords, as I made clear before the House voted on3 December, if the fatal Motion was carried, the LASPOAct would not provide legal aid in the cases specified inthe rejected statutory instrument. That remains thecase.

Lord Bach: Does the Minister understand that thatAnswer is entirely unsatisfactory and does no credit tothe Government? This House declined to accept theorder because it represented a breach of a governmentundertaking given to another place to get the legal aidBill through and because what it offered was toomean. Why are the Government taking absolutely nonotice of the will of this House of Parliament? Arethey not behaving more like a spoilt child than amature, responsible Government, protecting the legalrights of some of the poorest citizens under their care,including many with disabilities?

Lord McNally: I think that the noble Lord got allhis soundbites in there.

Noble Lords: Oh.

Lord McNally: Well, we have had heard it over twoyears and both Houses have come to decisions on theLASPO Bill. As regards fatal Motions, I can speakfrom experience. I was part of engineering a fatalMotion on the casino Bill. That fatal Motion wascarried by the House. The Government of the day didnothing further on the casino matter. If I may coin aphrase, as it says on the tin, fatal Motions mean whatthey say.

Lord Pannick: Given that the House rejected asinadequate the limited concession on legal aid in First-tierTribunals, is it not truly perverse for the Governmentto respond by withdrawing even that?

Lord McNally: The Government have not withdrawnthat concession. This House passed a fatal Motionmeaning that that concession was no longer part ofthe Bill. That was the decision of the House. If I mayso in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick,and of all those who voted for it, I made that veryclear to the House before the vote.

Lord Howarth of Newport: Instead of continuing tosulk, would it not be proper for the Government tobring forward another order, in which they honour thecommitment rightly given to Parliament by the previousLord Chancellor?

Lord McNally: I notice that the noble Lord, LordBach, again alleged that that commitment was made.It was not made by the previous Lord Chancellor. Thecommitment was to examine the case for the First-tierTribunals. As I have reported back to the House onnumerous occasions, the decision was that in thecircumstances it was far too expensive. It would benice to have fatal Motions as yet another round in thelegislation process, but I ask the House and the Official

Opposition to think carefully. If fatal Motions aregoing to be used in this way, they have great repercussions,not least on our relationship with the other place.

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: My Lords, canthe Minister confirm that legal aid remains availablefor advice on appeal from the First-tier Tribunal to theUpper Tribunal in welfare cases? Can he also confirmthat where there is a point of law on which an appellanthas a reasonable prospect of success, legal aid is andwill remain available for the preparation and presentationof an appeal to the Upper Tribunal?

Lord McNally: Yes, that is case. It is also worthmaking the point that some of the noises from theother side make it sound as though the Governmenthave been totally unfeeling and refusing to listen.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear.

Lord McNally: Well, it is worth reminding nobleLords that when the Legal Aid, Sentencing andPunishment of Offenders Bill was published the initialidea was that legal aid was not required in any welfarebenefit cases, other than for judicial review or for asmall number cases based on the Equality Act 2010.Throughout the course of the LASPO Bill theGovernment were urged to rethink their position onremoving legal aid for onward appeals to the UpperTribunal, which had to be on a point of law.

The Government listened to these concerns andoffered concessions during the passage of the Bill tobring into the scope of legal aid advice and assistancefor welfare benefit appeals on a point of law in theUpper Tribunal, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court,and representation for the welfare benefit appeals inthe Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. These wereconcessions in which my noble friends played aconsiderable part in achieving. The idea of an unlisteningand unfeeling Government is simply not true. If theHouse forces through fatal Motions, it must take theconsequences.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Does the noble Lordnot understand that the initial position put forward inthe LASPO Bill was totally untenable? That is why itwas amended. Does he not also accept that after theHouse has spoken on this fatal Motion, the Governmentare obliged to listen—and by “listen” I mean dosomething in response?

Lord McNally: The noble and learned Baronesssuggests that the Government, as if in some game ofpoker, have to produce another offer in response to afatal Motion. A fatal Motion is what it says—it isfatal. As I have pointed out, there was the example ofthe casino Bill in the previous Parliament. One of thereasons why successive Oppositions have thought longand hard about using fatal Motions is that they haveimplications about where and when the argumentsand discussions about a Bill come to an end and howthat relates to the relationship between the two Houses.Such Motions can be very toxic. I warned the House

13 14[8 JANUARY 2013]Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment

[LORD MCNALLY]and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, of that, but he pressedahead. A fatal Motion was passed and it has beenfatal.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, the Minister’s whole approachin answering questions today gives the House a greatdeal of explanation for why he sometimes finds itdifficult to get Motions, including fatal Motions, through.He clearly misunderstands the procedure, which is asfollows. Yes, an order can be defeated by a fatalMotion, but a Minister given to conciliatory thinking—something that apparently does not appeal to him—shouldthen go to the opponents of the order and suggest tothem various possibilities for ways in which an ordercould be put before the House and might then pass.Such negotiations may or may not be successful, butthe Minister at least owes it to the House to tell usprecisely what efforts he has made to ensure that anamended Motion can be put to the House that mightcommand its support.

Lord McNally: I am making no efforts to makesuch a proposal. The fatal Motion is fatal—that is theend. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, has gone around thistrack, but in a parliamentary process there must comea point when a Bill becomes an Act and a law ispassed. If the Opposition’s plan, and it would beinteresting to know this, is to use fatal Motions on aregular basis to try to keep alive issues that have beendecided by both Houses through proper Bill procedures,then we are going into new territory. I am sorry but theHouse heard my warning and ignored it, and the Bill isnow an Act.

Economy: Effect of US “Fiscal Cliff”SolutionQuestion

3.22 pm

Asked By Lord Barnett

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the effect of the “fiscal cliff”solution in the United States on the United Kingdomeconomy.

Lord Newby: My Lords, the Office for BudgetResponsibility based its December 2012 forecasts forthe UK economy on the assumption that fiscal policywould be tightened in the US by between 1% and2% of US GDP. This is what is now happening. TheCongressional Budget Office’s assessment of the AmericanTaxpayer Relief Act, the measure agreed by Congresslast week, is that it will produce a fiscal tightening of1.7% of US GDP.

Lord Barnett: Of course, my Lords, the cliff-edgesolution did not solve any fundamental problem, anymore than our fundamental problem in this countryhas been solved. That problem requires us to achievesustainable growth. The Government are taking a fewsteps in that direction with their infrastructure plansbut none of those will do anything now, and urgentaction is needed now. Does the noble Lord accept that

one way of doing that would be for the Government tofind some modest capital, comparatively speaking,because companies are simply not willing to borrow,whether under guarantee or not? The Governmentwill have to kick-start infrastructure if they want tosee growth start. Does he agree that that would be away forward?

Lord Newby: My Lords, the noble Lord will recallthat in the Pre-Budget Statement my right honourablefriend the Chancellor announced another £5.5 billionof additional capital spending on roads, scienceinfrastructure and schools, and that earlier in theautumn we passed an Act providing guarantees for£40 billion for infrastructure and another £10 billionfor housing. The Government are making considerableefforts to increase the amount of infrastructure activity.

Lord Peston: My Lords, as a life-long opponent ofthe death penalty, I might make an exception forwhoever—I hope it was not an economist—inventedthe expression “fiscal cliff”. Do the Government acceptthe analysis that if the US goes more deeply intorecession it will have devastating adverse effects on thewhole of the European economy and no policy envisagedby this Government would be any use whatever?

Lord Newby: I think the noble Lord slightly overstatesit. The fiscal cliff—elegant or inelegant—has beenavoided and the expectations and the forecast for theUS are that it will see relatively modest, but substantive,growth in 2013. As the noble Lord will know, the latestemployment figures in the US suggest that there hasbeen a significant addition to the number of peopleemployed. Therefore, the chances of the kind of meltdownin the US economy that he is worried about lookextraordinarily remote.

Baroness Kramer: My Lords, the US faces an evenworse fiscal cliff in seven weeks. As the British Governmentare unlikely to have much impact on Republicansinfused by the Tea Party, I suggest that it would be abetter strategy for this Government to put their effortsinto getting formal negotiations on EU/US trade inorder to take away the technical barriers that the USis using at the moment to limit UK exports inpharmaceuticals, medical services and advancedelectronics. That might be a more positive way forward.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I completely agree with thenoble Baroness. That is why the Prime Minister has setpromoting a US/EU trade agreement as one of his toppriorities for the G8, as well as moving forward onother trade agreements, such as that with Canada,which are already a long way down the pipeline.

Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the noble Lord consideranswering the Question asked by my noble friendLord Barnett? He asked what the assessment was ofthe impact of the fiscal cliff solution on the UKeconomy. As the noble Lord said, this had led to a1.7% increase in the fiscal burden on GDP, and thedebt ceiling debates in seven weeks’ time referred to by

15 16[LORDS]Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment Effect of US “Fiscal Cliff” Solution

the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, may add furtherburdens to the US economy. Is this good or bad forBritain?

Lord Newby: Whether it is good or bad for Britain,it is what is happening in the US. What I said in myoriginal Answer was that the estimates, which werepublished by the ONS at the time of the AutumnStatement, were based on an assessment of what waslikely to happen, which is exactly what has happened.The Bill passed last week is having an impact of1.7% on US GDP. The ONS assumed that the Billpassed last week would have an impact of about 1.7%on US GDP. We factored that into our calculationsand the growth forecast produced for this year will beunchanged because what has actually happened iswhat we thought was going to happen.

Arrangement of BusinessAnnouncement

3.28 pm

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, before mynoble friends Lord Taylor of Holbeach and LordHowe repeat the Answers to the Urgent Questionsasked earlier in the House of Commons, perhaps Imay remind the House that we recently agreed a newtrial procedure and this is the first occasion on whichwe are able to take advantage of it and see how itbegins to run.

My noble friend Lord Taylor will first repeat theAnswer to the Urgent Question in full. At that pointthe Clerks will start the clock running for 10 minutes.During those 10 minutes, questions and answers willfollow. We have anticipated that the first question islikely to come from the opposition Front Bench. Itwas decided that the usual channels, if they wished,could dispense with that but that has not happenedtoday so I would expect the opposition Front Bench tocome first. The rules that follow for questions andanswers are the same as those for a Private NoticeQuestion of this House.

Ibrahim Magag: DisappearancePrivate Notice Question

3.29 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, HomeOffice (Lord Taylor of Holbeach): My Lords, I willnow repeat the Answer to an Urgent Question askedin the other place earlier today. The Answer, given bymy right honourable friend the Home Secretary, is asfollows:

“On 26 December 2012, Ibrahim Magag, a Somali-born British national who is subject to a terrorismprevention and investigation measure, failed to reportfor his overnight residence requirement. As I told theHouse yesterday, the police believe that he has absconded,and his whereabouts are currently unknown.

On 31 December, at the request of the police, Iasked the High Court to revoke the anonymity orderthat was in force in relation to Magag. The police

subsequently issued a public appeal for informationthat might lead to his location and apprehension. TheGovernment took steps to inform Parliament of thisincident as soon as it was lawful and operationallypossible to do so. The Under-Secretary of State for theHome Department spoke to the chairmen of the HomeAffairs Select Committee and the Intelligence andSecurity Committee on 31 December. This was followedby letters to both committee chairmen, to the shadowHome Secretary and to you, Mr Speaker. Copies ofthose letters were placed in the Library of the Houseon the same day.

The statements that the police issued on 31 Decemberand on 2 January confirm that, at this time, Magag isnot considered to represent a direct threat to theBritish public. The TPIM notice in this case wasintended primarily to prevent fundraising and overseastravel. The Government do not believe that Magag’sdisappearance is linked to any current terrorism planningin the UK. Nevertheless, we are of course taking thismatter very seriously.

The police are doing everything in their power toapprehend Magag as quickly as possible. Although Icannot give operational details, I can confirm that thepolice, the Security Service and other agencies aredevoting significant resources to the search for Magag.Members of the public with any information relatingto the search should contact the confidential policeanti-terrorist hotline.

Before the shadow Home Secretary stands up again,I would like to remind the House that this is not thefirst abscond of a terror suspect. In six years of controlorders, there were seven absconds. Of those sevencases, six were never apprehended. Magag’s abscond isserious, and the authorities are doing everything theycan to locate him. I will update the House when thereare further developments as soon as it is possible to doso”.

3.32 pm

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, I thank theMinister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question.He will understand that it is of enormous concern thatIbrahim Magag, who is subject to a TPIM—a terrorismprevention and investigation measure—has been ableto abscond, particularly when the judge who reviewedhis previous control order said that,“it is too dangerous to permit him to be in London, even for ashort period”.

The Minister referred to how many people hadabsconded under previous control orders, but the keyissue was relocating those subject to an order. Myunderstanding was that none absconded after theyhad been relocated. However, the Government tookthe decision to remove the power to relocate suspectswhen introducing TPIMs. Given that they allowedhim to move back to London from the West Country,to where he had been relocated by the previousGovernment’s control order, can the Minister confirmwhether that made it easier for him to abscond? Washe subject to any surveillance at the time?

Finally, is it true that he absconded by hailing ablack cab?

17 18[8 JANUARY 2013]Effect of US “Fiscal Cliff” Solution Ibrahim Magag: Disappearance

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I can confirm the latterpoint. The last time he was seen, he was reported asgetting into a taxi.

The noble Baroness misconstrues the nature of theTPIM system, which succeeds the control order systembut is designed to provide proportionate supervisionfor people where evidence does not exist to secure aconviction. The only true way of dealing with terroristsis to find the evidence to convict them and to put theminto prison; that is the only secure place that we canput them. That is a process of law for which we requireevidence. TPIM is a mechanism whereby we can atleast prevent the movement and control the locationof individuals in the way that we have done.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, Parliament rightly putTPIMs at the heart of our intelligence, but in the caseof Ibrahim Magag they obviously did not work. Is theMinister satisfied that the system, particularly themachinery and equipment available, is adequate forthe operation? If not, what further improvements arenecessary?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: We can, of course, alwaysreview the circumstances of this particular incident inthe light of experience, but we know that the resourcesavailable to deal with people such as Magag areconsiderable, and that they have been designed toprevent things like this from happening. As I said, it isvery difficult to prevent people from absconding. Weknow that it happened under the old regime; this is thefirst—unfortunate—case under a TPIM.

Lord Reid of Cardowan: Does the Minister notunderstand that he misses the point? We all understandand accept that control orders and TPIMs areextraordinary measures. We understand that the idealis to have a trial in a court of law with sufficientevidence. That is agreed. Nevertheless, the point isthat, although control orders were inadequate—theMinister pointed to some absconding under them—thepower to relocate was the biggest weapon in thatinadequate arsenal. After the use of that no one, to myknowledge, absconded. However, the point is that theGovernment removed that one effective vehicle in thecontrol orders when they brought in TPIMs. Will henow bear that in mind and at least assure the Housethat he will review the operations of TPIMs to seewhether what I am saying is correct?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I cannot accept what thenoble Lord says, but I accept that he speaks fromconsiderable experience in this area. Governmentswould be very foolish not to learn from experience.However, there is no evidence to suggest that the factthat Magag was here in London particularly assistedhis absconding on this occasion. I accept, as the nobleLord said, that incidents like this should be reviewed,and they will be.

Lord Laming: Will the Minister say what lessonshave been learnt from this experience, and what stepshave been taken to ensure that further lessons will beacted upon?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I hope that I have justgiven the noble Lord an indication of the way wethink about these matters. It is too soon to say whetherlessons can be learnt. The most important thing is toascertain the whereabouts of this person and to apprehendhim.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: Will the Minister acceptthat the fact that Mr Magag did not abscond whilesubject to a judicially approved relocation order, andthat he absconded when that was removed, is in itselfclear evidence of the poor decision to remove relocationorders? Will he also acknowledge that nobody abscondedwhile subject to a relocation order, and that there wereno absconds at all during the last four and a half yearsof control orders?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Again, the noble Lordspeaks with a great deal of experience on this issue. Inote the point that he makes, but I have given myanswer and I hope that noble Lords will accept it.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, when I took overas Minister for Security we pushed hard to allowpeople to be moved out of the places where they werecausing so much trouble, and from that moment not asingle person absconded. Quite clearly, therefore, thefact that these people are not moved has an impact. Isit not true that TPIMs also take up more effort fromthe agencies and Security Service as well? Althoughnone of us liked control orders, they were a way ofensuring the safety and security of our nation, particularlywith those movement orders. I am afraid that theTPIMs, having removed those movement orders, putpeople at risk.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I believe that I have giventhe noble Lord the answer, which I have given before.Of course, we will learn from this experience, but thereare no current plans to reintroduce controls overmovement.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: Will the Minister informthe House how many individuals are currently subjectto TPIM orders, and how many of those individualshave been made subject to such orders on the grounds,if I have followed the noble Lord correctly, that theyhave been raising finance for foreign terrorists?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I can inform the Housethat 10 people are subject to TPIMs. I cannot give thegrounds for any of those orders having been made.

Lord Dubs: The Minister said that this was aninstance where there was not enough evidence to takethe person to court. Perhaps I may say to the Minister,if we were to use intercept evidence, would we not beable to bring all these people to court? Is it not time forthe Government to move forward on working out asystem whereby intercept evidence could be used inthese cases?

19 20[LORDS]Ibrahim Magag: Disappearance Ibrahim Magag: Disappearance

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The noble Lord movesthe argument on considerably. We will have an opportunityto discuss all sorts of elements. Intercept is notcommunications data, but such data have been discussedin pre-legislative scrutiny by both Houses. Therefore,these matters are under consideration.

Lord Harris of Haringey: When introducing thelegislation that brought about TPIMs, the noble Lord’spredecessor assured the House that not only wouldextra surveillance resources be made available to thepolice and the Security Service but also that extratechnological measures would be taken to ensure thatindividuals did not abscond. Perhaps the noble Lordwill tell us whether the technological measures werethe cause of failure in this instance and, if so, whetherthe technology that has been purchased has givenvalue for money.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am not in a position togive an answer to that. I am sure that the noble Lordwill understand why.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I havelistened with great care because I have great respect forthe Minister, but I do not hear a single argument infavour of getting rid of relocation. Will the Ministertell me what that argument is?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: When it was introducedto the House, the legislation did not provide for relocationas being a proportionate measure to be taken in suchcases. It was debated by Parliament and the provisionwas made. Therefore, that provision currently does notexist in TPIMs.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: Does my noblefriend agree that the Joint Committee on HumanRights, of which several Members of the oppositionBenches were members, examined control ordersextensively in 2009. It recommended wholeheartedlythat relocation to distant places away from family andsupport systems was no different from house arrestand was deeply disproportionate. The Joint Committeeon Human Rights said that, in terms.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I have given the view ofthe Government that it is important to establishproportionality in all these cases, which is why TPIMsare constructed as they are.

NHS: South London Healthcare TrustPrivate Notice Question

3.42 pm

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): My Lords, I shall now repeat asa statement the Answer given by my right honourablefriend the Secretary of State for Health in anotherplace earlier today to an Urgent Question on thereport of the trust special administrator to SouthLondon Healthcare NHS Trust. The statement is asfollows:

“I have today published the final report of the trustspecial administrator to South London HealthcareNHS Trust and laid it before Parliament. I receivedthe report yesterday and must now consider it carefully.I am under a statutory duty to take a decision by1 February on how best to secure a sustainable futurefor services provided by the trust.

The trust administrator began his appointment on16 July. He published his draft report on 29 October,and undertook a consultation on his draftrecommendations between 2 November and 13 December.More than 27,000 full consultation documents and104,000 summary documents were distributed duringthe trust special administrator’s consultation, sent to2,000 locations across south-east London, includinghospital sites, GP surgeries, libraries and town halls. Adedicated website was established to support theconsultation, the TSA team arranged or attendedmore than 100 events or meetings and the consultationgenerated more than 8,200 responses.

I understand the concerns of honourable Membersand, indeed, the people living in the areas affected bythese proposals, especially the people of Lewisham.They have a right to expect the highest-quality NHScare, and I have a duty to ensure that they receive it.However, they will understand that it would not beappropriate for me to give a view now on the report’srecommendations, only one day after receiving thereport. To do so would be pre-emptive, and wouldprejudice my duty to consider the recommendationswith care and reach a decision that is in the bestinterests of the people of south-east London.

However, I have made it clear that any solutionwould need to satisfy the four tests outlined by thePrime Minister and my right honourable predecessorwith respect to any major reconfigurations. The changesmust have support from GP commissioners; the public,patients and local authorities must have been genuinelyengaged in the process; the recommendations must beunderpinned by a clear clinical evidence base; and thechanges must give patients a choice of good-qualityproviders.

The challenges facing South London HealthcareNHS Trust are complex and long-standing, but to failto address them is to penalise other parts of the NHSfrom which resources must be taken to finance thebiggest deficit anywhere in the NHS. To date, it hasnot proved possible to ensure that South LondonHealthcare NHS Trust is able to secure a sustainablefuture for its services within its existing configurationand organisational form. In appointing a trust specialadministrator to the trust, the Government’s prioritywas to ensure that patients continue to receive high-quality,sustainable NHS services. I will consider the specialadministrator’s report with that objective in mind”.

My Lords, that concludes the statement.

3.45 pm

Baroness Wheeler: I thank the Minister for repeatingthe Answer to the Urgent Question. We commend thework of the trust special administrator and support anumber of the recommendations developed from previousreviews. However, it is difficult to understand how theGovernment consider this report to constitute the full

21 22[8 JANUARY 2013]Ibrahim Magag: Disappearance NHS: South London Healthcare Trust

[BARONESS WHEELER]strategic review of the sustainability of services acrosssouth-east London that is required. The TSA hasoverstepped its remit under the Health Act 2009 byincluding service changes to Lewisham hospital; andthe parallel work by King’s Health Partners onreconfiguration under three other south-east Londontrusts has yet to be completed.

Can the Minister explain why the rules on makingchanges to hospitals have been changed to allow back-doorreconfigurations in this way without proper scrutinyand consultation? What public consultation will therebe on the King’s Health Partners report? Can hereassure the people of Lewisham that they will havetheir full consultation rights to challenge the closureof their A&E services and the other major changesbeing proposed?

Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the nobleBaroness and I understand the concerns that she hasraised.

The first question she asked me was whether Iconsidered the trust special administrator to haveoverstepped his remit. The clear advice that we havereceived is that no part of the NHS can exist in avacuum. The independent trust special administratoris responsible for developing recommendations to dealwith the severe failings at South London HealthcareTrust based on local discussions and consultation. Ihope that the statement I read out gave the House aflavour of how extensive those consultations havebeen. His recommendations must secure high-qualitycare for local people in a financially sustainable way.

However, as I have mentioned, each NHS trust ispart of a complex, wider health system, and it is quiteclearly the view of the administrator in this case that itis not possible to find a solution without consideringthe possible impact on other hospitals in the areas.That conclusion is one that my right honourable friendwill have to consider very carefully, but Ministers havereceived clear advice that it is within the powers of theadministrator to make recommendations about necessarychanges to other local providers if they are a necessaryand consequential part of finding a long-term solutionto securing high-quality services for patients at thattrust. I emphasise that I do not in any way wish topre-empt the decision that my right honourable friendhas to take within 20 working days. However, he willhave to consider advice on the clinical, legal andfinancial aspects of the administrator’s recommendationsand I have no doubt that concerns raised by the nobleBaroness will be central to his consideration.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I declare an interest as theformer chairman of the provider agency in the LondonSHA area who grappled with some of these problemsin south-east London which, to the best of my knowledge,have been around for at least 20 years. I congratulatethe TSA on the work that he has done in trying toresolve this. Could the Minister explain a little moreabout the involvement of Guy’s and St Thomas’sHospital and King’s College Hospital? The TSA is tobe congratulated on involving them much more thanhas been the case in the past in finding solutions in this

area because the failure of those two powerful hospitalsto get involved in sorting out the mess in south-eastLondon has bedevilled earlier solutions.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the nobleLord, who I know well appreciates the scale of theproblem with which the administrator was grappling.This trust was losing more than £1 million a week.That is not a sustainable position in the current NHS,or even when times were rosier as regards the financialsettlement. It is important for me not to say anythingthat will pre-empt my right honourable friend’s conclusion,but I am aware, from the press release issued today bythe trust special administrator, that, as the noble Lordrightly says, the wider health economy has been takeninto consideration, including the role of Guy’s andKing’s College Hospital, in a number of areas, including,in particular, in emergency care and in obstetrician-ledmaternity care. I would commend to the noble Lord asummary of the recommendations, which is on thedepartment’s website today. I hope he will find thathelpful in giving him a sense of the breadth of theadministrator’s purview.

Baroness Donaghy: Is the Minister aware of theextreme anxiety among the population in Lewishamabout the possible future closure of the A&E departmentin Lewisham? The population of 250,000 is estimatedto rise to 300,000 in a very few years’ time as a result ofa huge increase in the birth rate. There are very deepsocial needs and there is no doubt whatever that thereis unanimity among the professionals and the populationabout the importance of maintaining that hospital. Isthe Minister also concerned that one report that wasproduced, which was supposedly a clinical report, infact turned out to be written by the communicationsdepartment? Is he satisfied that the process has been afair one and that there has not been a prejudgment inthe consultation exercise?

Earl Howe: My Lords, all questions of process mustbe for my right honourable friend to consider, includingthat one. I emphasise the Government’s approach toreconfiguration decisions. When the Governmentcame into office, we took a very clear decision aboutfour tests that needed to be applied to any sustainablereconfiguration within the NHS: the changes, whateverthey were, had to command support from GPcommissioners—that is to say, the clinical community;the public must be engaged in the process; therecommendations must be clinically sustainable andsound; and, as the statement mentioned, they mustleave patients with a clear choice of good-qualityproviders. Those safeguards were not there before, butthey are there now and my right honourable friend willbe looking at those tests when he considers not just thematter of Lewisham but the totality of the administrator’srecommendations.

Baroness Jolly: My Lords, today it is the SouthLondon Healthcare Trust, and there is anxiety abroadthat tomorrow it could well be another trust. Can theMinister tell the House how many trusts are in the“at risk” box today and what role is being played byMonitor and others in these cases?

23 24[LORDS]NHS: South London Healthcare Trust NHS: South London Healthcare Trust

Earl Howe: My Lords, it is important to stress tomy noble friend that a trust will be put into specialadministration only when all other options have beenexhausted. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Warner,is aware that that was the situation we faced in thisinstance. Where possible, NHS providers will be supportedto return to sustainability in both the clinical andfinancial sense. Our priority is to do what is best toensure that patients receive high-quality care and specialadministration is a last resort. However, as my noblefriend knows, a number of trusts are facing financialchallenges. The department is working with Monitorand the NHS Trust Development Authority to overseethe performance of those trusts. I would just say thatwhile some organisations are in difficulties, currentlythere are absolutely no firm plans to trigger the regimefor any other trusts at all.

Baroness Wall of New Barnet: My Lords, I am surethat the noble Earl recognises the experience I havehad as chairman of the Barnet and Chase FarmHospitals NHS Trust, which went through a similarexercise that took many years. First, however, I wantto associate myself with the comments made by mynoble friend Lord Warner, and I support the actionthat has been taken. I recognise what my noble friendsaid about the concerns of the local community, butthat will always be the case. However, what is mostimportant is to make the decision and secure thesupport of outlying hospitals. My own trust is workingtowards a partnership with the Royal Free Hospital,although we are not there yet. The move could havebeen considered much earlier, which would have preventeda lot of pain and heartache for many people. Myadvice and plea is to stick with what is being done.That did not happen for Barnet and Chase Farm. Asnoble Lords know, a number of holds were put onwhat we were doing that made things worse for thecommunity and for the staff. They almost ensured thatthe services we were providing were harder to deliver.

Earl Howe: As ever, I am grateful to the noble Baronessfor her perspective from the front line. I think it waswith that in mind that the previous Government drewup the legislation which my right honourable friendnow has to abide by, in that there is now a very tighttimescale of 20 working days for him to take a decision.That is not a long time but it is indicative of the needfor urgency in arriving at the right solution. The TSAhas done his work and we must now judge whether therecommendations are the right ones.

Public Service Pensions BillOrder of Consideration Motion

3.57 pm

Moved By Earl Attlee

That it be an instruction to the Committee of theWhole House to which the Public Service PensionsBill has been committed that they consider the Billin the following order:

Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clause 3,Schedule 3, Clauses 4 to 15, Schedule 4, Clause 16,Schedule 5, Clause 17, Schedule 6, Clause 18,Schedule 7, Clauses 19 to 24, Schedule 8, Clauses 25and 26, Schedule 9, Clauses 27 and 28, Schedule 10,Clauses 29 and 30, Schedule 11, Clauses 31 to 38.

Motion agreed.

Growth and Infrastructure BillSecond Reading

3.58 pm

Moved By Baroness Hanham

That the Bill be read a second time.

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesandLocalGovernment(BaronessHanham):My Lords, this Bill is primarily a deregulatory measurein support of the Government’s decisive actions to putthe country’s economy back on a stable footing and torestore growth. The challenges we face mean that wemust constantly keep in mind what more needs to bedone to encourage innovation and economic growth,to create more jobs and to tackle anything which actsas a barrier to this happening. That is why the Billfocuses on reforms that will boost Britain’s infrastructure,get rid of unnecessary bureaucracy and ensure thatour planning system operates effectively. It brings forwardprovisions that will remove constraints on economicdevelopment caused by the planning system, help tounlock land for housing growth to ensure that sufficienthousing can be built for future needs, speed up theessential delivery of superfast broadband—country-wide,but particularly in rural areas—remove barriers anddelay to major infrastructure projects, introduce measuresto support business directly by providing certainty onbusiness rates, and introduce a new employment status.

Turning to these themes in the Bill itself, perhaps Imay start by addressing Clauses 1 and 6 on planningand housing. Despite the improvement in housebuildingstarts across England, which were 29% higher in 2011compared to 2009, and the publication of a comprehensivehousing strategy, there is far more to do to providehomes to meet Britain’s demographic needs and tohelp generate local economic growth. Following theintroduction of the National Planning Policy Frameworkthere is now a more positive and inclusive planningsystem. The framework remains at the centre of ourplanning policy and the measures within the Bill areall aimed at simplifying and improving the locally ledplanning system so that it works effectively for localcommunities and businesses.

Most councils are already dealing with planningapplications efficiently; the approval rate is at a 10-yearhigh of 88%. However, a small number of local planningauthorities make unnecessarily slow decisions. Theyconsistently fail to meet the statutory time limits withinwhich councils should process major applications, asagreed by Parliament. Others see a relatively highproportion of their decisions to refuse applicationsoverturned at appeal. That is a particular issue withmajor schemes, given the relatively high cost of preparing

25 26[8 JANUARY 2013]NHS: South London Healthcare Trust Growth and Infrastructure Bill

[BARONESS HANHAM]them and their importance for growth. Clause 1 thereforeprovides an incentive for poorly performing councilsto improve and an alternative route for developers ifthey do not. However, as the Planning Minister hasmade clear in the other place, we fully intend thatthese provisions will be applicable only to a smallnumber of planning authorities and we would bedelighted if it were not necessary for any local authorityto be designated under this clause, with all local authoritiesmaking sound and timely decisions on applications.

Turning to Clause 6, the need for housing—particularly,affordable housing—remains high. The Governmentare committed to unlocking stalled sites where previouslynegotiated affordable housing obligations are unviablebecause they are currently economically unrealistic.Clause 6 presents an opportunity to stimulate housinggrowth and will be a vital component in the drive toget more affordable housing built. Stalled sites meanthat there is no local growth, community benefit, ornew or affordable housing. Across the country thereare 1,400 stalled sites, with the capacity for 75,000homes. Clause 6 will enable developers to challengethe local authority on the affordable housing elementsof its Section 106 requirements in a fast-track decision-making process. It presents a real opportunity toensure that consents are viable and realistic. Furthermore,it addresses the reluctance of some local authorities torenegotiate currently unrealistic affordable housingrequirements, agreed in different market conditions.We recognise, of course, that many local authoritieshave already opened such negotiations, but not allhave.

As well as the measures in Clauses 1 and 6, the Billmakes a number of other changes, through Clauses 2to 5 and Clauses 7 and 9, which will make the planningprocess simpler while retaining important safeguards.Clause 2 expands inspectors’ powers to award andrecover costs at planning appeals. Clause 3 corrects alegislative anomaly to enable the Secretary of State toaward costs between the parties when a compulsorypurchase inquiry is cancelled and when a party doesnot appear at an inquiry that is held. Clause 4 will helpto ensure that best use is made of existing buildingsand brownfield land by making changes to existingpowers to grant permitted development rights. Clause 5will ensure that information requests made by localauthorities are genuinely related to planning and thenature and scale of the development proposed. Clause 7will make it easier for local authorities to choose, ifthey wish, to dispose of surplus land held for planningpurposes, which will help to get more brownfield landback into productive use. Clause 9 will allow mineralplanning authorities in England greater discretion asto whether and when to undertake a periodic review ofthe mineral provisions.

I turn now to Clause 8, which I left out in addressingthe first nine clauses. Because of its critical importanceto the United Kingdom’s long-term economic future,the Government’s ambition is for this country to havethe best superfast broadband network in Europe by2015. Clause 8 is particularly important as it willpotentially help to give over 4 million more peopleaccess to fixed superfast broadband, particularly thosein rural and hard-to-reach areas of the country.

Let me be clear that it is not our intention to use theClause 8 power to remove prior approval requirementsfor mobile masts. We intend to use it for fixedinfrastructure: cabinets and poles only. The clausemakes no distinction between fixed and mobileinfrastructure because of EU regulatory requirementsfor the communications sector. Article 8(1) of theframework directive requires technology neutrality sofar as the primary implementing legislation is concerned.However, the requirement for neutrality does not applyto secondary legislation, and therefore the consultationwe will publish later this month on the changes that wewill bring forward through secondary legislation willmake clear that we propose to use Clause 8 for fixedinfrastructure—cabinets and poles—and not mobilemasts. In the 1980s, deregulation led to the moderncommunications industry we enjoy today, through theabolition of special TV licences for satellite dishes andthe introduction of permitted development rights forthose dishes. The Bill seeks to provide the same impetusto the rollout of 21st-century superfast broadbandtechnology.

Clauses 10 to 16 take forward a number ofrecommendations from the Penfold review to removeoverlapping development consent regimes, where multiplepermissions from different government agencies arerequired on top of planning permission. However, Ishall focus today on the proposed reforms to thesystem for registering town and village greens in England,which will harmonise with the democratically accountableplanning system. The changes will prevent greenapplications being used to stop or delay planneddevelopment. Another aim is to reduce the financialburden and red tape for local authorities and landowners.For the avoidance of doubt, the reforms will not affectexisting registered town and village greens, which willcontinue to be given strong protection. We have alsoset out a new local green space designation to givespecial protection to local green areas, includingrecreational land, which local people can affect throughlocal and neighbourhood plans. We have set out in theNational Planning Policy Framework how local peoplecan use the designation, together with importantsafeguards for existing open spaces.

Clause 13 introduces landowner statements.Landowners will be able to deposit with the commonsregistration authority statements which bring to anend any use of their land up to that point as being “asof right”, which is one of the criteria for registeringland as a town or village green. This mechanism willallow landowners to tolerate any recreational use oftheir land without fear that the land could be registeredas a town or village green.

Clause 14 covers interaction with the planning system.This is achieved through making changes to the CommonsAct 2006 which will prevent green applications beingmade where planning permission has been granted orwhere a planning application has been publicised andthe decision is still to be made. Equally importantly,the changes will prevent town and village greenapplications for land identified for potential developmentin local and neighbourhood plans, including draftplans.

27 28[LORDS]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Clause 15 amends existing fee-making powers forapplications to amend the registers of common landand town and village greens under Part 1 of theCommons Act 2006. The purpose is to provide greaterflexibility and targeting of fees, in particular to allowthem to be levied by different bodies where more thanone authority is involved in determining an application.

Clauses 17 to 24 include a number of measures tosupport the development of the infrastructure that isvital to economic growth. Clauses 17 to 20 have thepotential to unlock thousands of new jobs and millionsof pounds of new investment in energy projects, andClauses 21 to 24 will remove delays that can holdback major infrastructure projects. Ofgem’s proposed£160 million gas network innovation competition,specifically the funding mechanism, is currently beingdelayed because of regulatory ambiguity in the GasAct. Clause 17 puts beyond doubt Ofgem’s ability toput in place conditions allowing the gas networkinnovation competition to proceed.

Clauses 18 and 19 enable holders of Section 36Electricity Act 1989 consents for power-generatingstations to have them varied to take account of significanttechnology and design changes without the need tomake a new application under the Planning Act. Clause 20provides legislative clarity on the requirements fordevelopment consents relevant under the pre-PlanningAct regime.

Clause 21 makes clear our commitment to expandand improve the one-stop shop approach for non-planningconsents for national major infrastructure projects,while ensuring that interested and affected partiescontinue to be consulted on proposals. In line with thederegulatory theme of the Bill, Clause 21 and someparts of Clauses 22 and 23 remove the need for anumber of additional certificates and consents to beissued separately and allow for the relevant issues tobe covered during the development consent orderprocess, which will provide savings to business.

Clauses 22 and 23 update existing legislation on thespecial parliamentary procedure to ensure that nationallysignificant major infrastructure projects are broughtforward as quickly as possible. The Bill makes changesthat will reduce the number of circumstances in whichthe special parliamentary procedure is triggered. Itwill also address inconsistencies between different piecesof legislation to limit consideration under the specialparliamentary procedure to the compulsory acquisitionof special land. This responds to a joint report in 2012on special parliamentary procedure by the Chairmanof Ways and Means and the Chairman of Committees,which urged the Government,“to rectify these anomalies as a matter of priority”,

and to a commitment made by the Government toreform special parliamentary procedure for nationallysignificant infrastructure projects at the earliestopportunity.

It is vitally important to the health of the UnitedKingdom economy that the development of projectsof national significance that are needed should goahead with the minimum of delay. But the speed withwhich large-scale major applications are determined isfalling: the number of cases taking more than 52 weeksto decide has increased from 8% to 13%. Clause 24

therefore includes a measure to broaden the scope ofthe nationally significant infrastructure planning regimeso that developers of business and commercial schemescan choose whether to apply to the local council forplanning permission or to request to use the infrastructureregime.

Clauses 25 and 26 concern business rates. As well asmeasures to streamline planning and boost investmentin housing and infrastructure, the Bill includes measuresto support business directly. Clause 25 provides certaintyby postponing the revaluation of business rates from2015 to 2017. Tax stability is vital to businesses lookingto grow and to help improve the economy. Postponingrevaluation in England from 2015 will avoid sharpchanges and unexpected increases in business rate billsover the next five years.

As business rates are linked to inflation, there willbe no real-terms increase. This reform will providecertainty for business to plan and invest, supportinglocal economic growth. Independent initial estimatespublished in full by the Valuation Office Agency suggestthat 800,000 premises would have seen a real-termsincrease in their rates at a 2015 revaluation. As localgovernment finance is a devolved matter, Clause 26provides the Welsh Assembly Government with thepower to make a similar postponement if they sochoose.

Finally, Clause 27 sets out a new employment statusof employee shareholder, which will give both companiesand people more options. Simon Walker from theInstitute of Directors said:

“This scheme has the potential to reduce the employment lawburden on companies and make employees better off at the sametime”.

Stuart Rose, a former chief executive of Marks &Spencer, said:

“This is a win-win for entrepreneurs and employers in smalland medium-sized companies that need a flexible dedicated workforcefocused on growth”.

Of course, it is important that existing employees arenot coerced into this new employment status. That iswhy the clause adds a new unfair dismissal right and aright not to suffer a detriment if an existing employeeturns down the offer of an employee shareholdercontract.

The new status will have all the rights associatedwith employees, including discrimination rights, exceptfor certain unfair dismissal rights, rights to statutoryredundancy pay and certain statutory rights to requestflexible working and time to train. Employee shareholderswill be required to give 16 weeks’ notice of theirintention to return from maternity, adoption or additionalparental leave. Importantly, employee shareholderswill be given shares in the company of at least £2,000,with the gains made on the first £50,000 of sharesexempt from capital gains tax. This new employmentstatus is about increasing choice and flexibility in theemployment relationship.

This Bill brings together a range of measures thatwill simplify the planning system, boost investment inhousing and infrastructure, and help businesses andgrowth. I commend it to the House.

29 30[8 JANUARY 2013]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

4.15 pm

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I thank the Minister forexplaining the Bill. We look forward to working withher as we scrutinise it in detail. I am fortunate to besupported on the Front Bench by my noble friendsLord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Tunnicliffe.

The Bill does a few worthwhile things, includingremoving restrictions on the disposal of land for lessthan best consideration, some of the energy provisionsand allowing the stopping up or diverting of highwaysand public paths to run alongside the planning process.However, the meat of the Bill is less appetising. Its unifyingtheme is not growth but weakening local government.That contradicts not only the coalition’s own previouspolicy of localism but the excellent report on growthby the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. He condemnedwhat he called the “drift to centralism”as an impedimentto local economic regeneration and said that,“as Whitehall has taken more powers so its distrust of localdecision makers has increased. At the first sign of trouble, furtherpowers are wrested back to the centre. At the same time—and Iwould say as a result—the involvement of local business people inthe governance of their communities has dwindled, and theirenergy and innovation has been lost”.

Yet what does the Bill do but precisely what the nobleLord, Lord Heseltine, criticised? On the unsubstantiatedclaim that local authorities are not giving enoughplanning consents quickly enough, it wrests powerback to the centre, authorising Ministers to suspendlocal planning authorities entirely for the first timesince the modern planning system was establishedafter the Second World War. It does this in the veryfirst clause of the Bill, whose opening words are:

“A relevant application that would otherwise have to be madeto the local planning authority may (if the applicant so chooses)be made instead to the Secretary of State”.

That is the antithesis of localism and the report by thenoble Lord, Lord Heseltine.

The suspension of local democracy in the Bill isonly supposed to be in cases of failure, but it is nosurprise that the Government are finding it hard todefine failure. When attempting to give the House ofCommons a concrete example of a failing local planningauthority, the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, citedHackney. He then had to correct this to Haringey, andapologised unreservedly to Hackney. No doubt theconfusion was caused by Hackney and Haringey bothbeginning with the letters “Ha” and ending in “ey”. Ihear that Mansfield and Macclesfield, not to mentionHertfordshire and Herefordshire, are eyeing each otherwarily and sending maps to CLG with their locations,spelling and other vital statistics clearly distinguished.

The criteria for failure are not set out in the Bill butare at ministerial discretion and are being consultedupon separately. When she replies, perhaps the nobleBaroness could tell us how many local planning authoritieswould be liable for suspension under the latest draft ofthe criteria, as they keep changing, and which ones areliable for suspension.

I note that in respect of the speed of deciding majorplanning applications, which is one of the criteria forfailure, the three slowest local authorities in the countryare Kensington and Chelsea, Torbay and North Norfolk.I particularly look forward to the views of the nobleBaroness on the competence of Kensington and Chelsea.

On the national situation, in 2011-12, councils approved87% of applications, which as the noble Baronessherself said is a 10-year high, with 82% decided withineight weeks and 93% decided within 13 weeks. This isnot a plausible argument for failure and developerscan already appeal to the Planning Inspectorate ongrounds of non-determination in the required timeunder Section 78(2) of the Town and Country PlanningAct 1990.

To be fair, I suspect that in her heart of hearts, as adistinguished former local authority leader, the nobleBaroness does not actually want the power to suspendlocal planning authorities, but she has been told by theChancellor that an example has to be made, in AdmiralByng fashion, of some supposedly obstructive councils,so she has got to find a few to shoot at dawn “pourencourager les autres”.

Localism and local government have strong supportersin all parts of the House, and I hope we can workconstructively to get a better balance between localdemocracy and Whitehall control in this Bill. Thesame applies in respect of its other anti-local provisions.There is concern at the restrictions on the designationof village greens and town greens in Clauses 13 and 14.My right honourable friend Hilary Benn describes thisas a “positively Kafkaesque” proposal, in that underthe Bill the moment a planning application is published,citizens are banned from seeking to register a green.As he puts it:

“Since the first that most people will hear of an application iswhen it is published, this seems to be a pretty clever way ofstopping people exercising their rights, unless they happen to bemind readers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/12/12; col. 617.]

Also of concern are the wide powers to take planningapplications away from local communities in Clause 24,which significantly extends the lists set out in thePlanning Act 2008 by including business and commercialprojects. Clause 8 overrides the requirement to preservethe beauty of national parks in the siting of masts andoverhead cables, which appears entirely unrelated tothe imperative to extend broadband which the nationalparks strongly support. I welcome the assurances of thenoble Baroness about that in her speech and I hope thatthey meet this point. I will study her words with care.

There is a good deal of concern about Clause 6,which sets aside affordable housing requirements throughthe Section 106 process. This appears to be anotherstraightforward case of Treasury knee-jerkism. It isobviously vital that housing developments in areas ofneed are economically viable; but no case has beenmade that Section 106 is holding things back, whereaswithout Section 106 there is a real danger that fewermixed communities will be created and there will beless affordable housing.

Asked about Section 106, the National HousingFederation said:

“No evidence has been provided to suggest that planningobligations are routinely stalling development.″

The Council of Mortgage Lenders said:“We are not convinced that Section 106 obligations are necessarily

the key sticking point”.

When the planning Minister was asked by theCommons Select Committee, he could give no statisticson the number of developments being held up bySection 106 difficulties. He suggested that there were

31 32[LORDS]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

some 1,200 sites and 75,000 homes being stalled, basedon something called the Glenigan database. The nobleBaroness has just referred to 1,400 sites rather than1,200. These numbers clearly vary depending on theMinister.

When asked to publish the Glenigan database, theplanning Minister said he could not do so because itwas commercially sensitive. When asked the straightquestion of how many were stalled because of Section106 requirements, he replied:

“It is very difficult to say”.

Perhaps the noble Baroness could tell us when shereplies. If she cannot, surely Parliament should not begiving her the power to override local democracy oncause unseen. This is not a minor matter. Thousandsof affordable homes are provided each year underSection 106 agreements. I should add that the LocalGovernment Association estimates that 400,000 homeshave planning permission but are yet to be built, whichpoints to much wider economic factors at play thanthe planning system. So much for planning and localdemocracy.

The other critical concern about the Bill relates toClause 27. This is the so-called shares-for-rights scheme.The House will recall the origins of this idea: AdrianBeecroft’s controversial plan to abolish employmentrights in respect of unfair dismissal, even as the periodof qualification for such rights was in many casesbeing doubled from one year to two years. The BusinessSecretary, Vince Cable, vetoed the original Beecroftplan, saying:

“Britain is already got a very flexible, cooperative labour force.We don’t need to scare the wits out of workers with threats todismiss them. It’s completely the wrong approach”.

We on these Benches, and, I suspect, most of ourfriends on the Lib Dem Benches entirely agree withthose sentiments.

The trouble is that Vince changed his mind, or hadhis mind changed for him. At the instigation of theChancellor, the Beecroft proposal reappeared, tied tothe allocation of shares, in Clause 27. Clause 27 isBeecroft by the back door. It creates so-called employeeshareholders, who have been given shares worth between£2,000 and £50,000 on the day of issue, who will haveno rights to statutory redundancy pay, no rights torequest flexible working, no rights to request time offto train and no rights to claim unfair dismissal.

It is important to separate the issues of employmentrights and wider share ownership in this regard. Westrongly support wider share ownership among employeesand many of the detailed and well considered proposalsto that effect in the Nuttall report, published only sixmonths ago. However, that is entirely different totrading shares for basic rights in what is generally anunequal employment relationship, which is the veryreason why employment rights exist in the first placeand why they have been built up by Governments ofall parties for more than a century.

There is nothing well considered about this shares-for-rights plan. On the contrary, it makes the back ofthe envelope look like Magna Carta. The proposalwas announced on 8 October. The consultation startedon 18 October. It was completed on 9 November. Allof that was happening while the House of Commons

was approving the very plans supposedly being consultedon. The consultation demonstrated almost universalcriticism and lack of support, but the Governmentproceeded anyway and, a mere two months later, yourLordships are now all that stand between the back ofthe envelope and the law of the land.

A host of critical issues about shares for rights wasnot addressed properly in the House of Commons andneed to be addressed by your Lordships. First, whatprotection will there be against people being forced totake up no-rights jobs? As the noble Baroness juststated, in the Commons, the Government agreed tostatutory protection in respect of existing employees,but what about new employees? In particular, whatabout those on benefits who stand to have their benefitswithdrawn if they do not take up no-rights jobs? Theemployment Minister, Michael Fallon, only exacerbatedthose concerns in the House of Commons. He refusedto accept a Lib Dem amendment to give protection tobenefits claimants from having to take no-rights jobs.On the contrary, he said:

“The Government believe that jobseeker’s allowance claimantsmust actively seek and be available for work … it is right thatemployee-shareholder jobs should be as much a part of thatconsideration as any other”. —[Official Report, Commons, 17/12/12;col. 649.]

He said that, in such cases, the unemployed personshould “normally accept the offer”. Let me stress that.In the view of the Government, jobseekers shouldnormally accept jobs with no rights when offered. Theonly concession that the Minister made was that ifsome of the withdrawn rights were “appropriate”—forexample, the right to request flexible working couldwell be crucial for a parent with young children—thatcould be taken into account in deciding whether benefitsshould be docked in cases where a no-rights job wasdeclined. Michael Fallon went on to say that theDWP’s decision-makers’ guidance would be amendedaccordingly. Can I ask the noble Baroness if she willcirculate the new DWP guidance before we considerthis matter in Committee?

Far from meeting concerns about compulsion toaccept no-rights jobs, the Government are paradingcompulsion as positively desirable. Paul Callaghan, apartner in the respected legal firm Taylor Wessing,said that these shares-for-rights contracts,“will be optional to the extent that eating and drinking is optional”.

Secondly, in respect of employees facing redundancyor dismissal there is the obvious point that withoutexisting rights those who are aggrieved will be encouragedto migrate to claims of discrimination, which are generallyfar more onerous and time-consuming when they cometo tribunals. This is not just because discriminationclaims will be the only avenue open to the aggrieved,having lost their other rights. To make another obviouspoint it will often be true that discrimination is involvedsince it is purely rational that an employer would seekto dismiss, or make redundant, first those who have norights to compensation—in other words to discriminateagainst them unfairly.

Thirdly, what about tax avoidance? These shares-for-rights contracts will go up to £50,000 worth of shares,as the noble Baroness said. The Government say thatthey will get favourable tax treatment, although theystill have not given the details. They expect us to pass

33 34[8 JANUARY 2013]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

[LORD ADONIS]Clause 27 into law without knowing what the precisetax treatment of these shares will be, unless the nobleBaroness can enlighten us when she replies.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies describes Clause 27as a “billion-pound lollipop” for tax avoiders whichlooks as if it will foster a whole new avoidance industry,“just as government ministers are falling over themselves tocondemn such behaviour”.

When she replies can the noble Baroness give me herestimate of the likely cost in lost tax revenue of thesenew employee shares?

In my entire time in Government and in the HouseI have never seen such unanimous opposition to aproposal from those whom it is intended to benefit,namely companies themselves. Justin King, the chiefexecutive of Sainsbury’s, who was on the Prime Minister’sbusiness advisory group, says that the policy is,“not what we should be doing”.

He went on:“What do you think the population at large will think of

businesses that want to trade employment rights for money?

He continued:“Our agenda ... should be making employing people easier

and less costly”.

Only five of 219 consultation responses welcomedthe proposal. The Law Society says that it will be likelyto create more red tape not less. It will raise substantialrisks of costly litigation and it will create seriouspotential claims of discrimination. The proposal isnot even welcomed by the Employee OwnershipAssociation, which says of Clause 27:

“There is no need to dilute the rights of workers in order togrow employee ownership”.

We have our work cut out on this Bill. Localdemocracy, affordable housing and the rights of employeesat work are not small matters. They go to the heart ofour society and our economy. Moreover, none of themis an impediment to growth. To get growth we needvibrant local leadership, more affordable housing, andself-confident, not fearful, companies and employees.Alas, this Bill weakens all three.

4.32 pm

Lord Tope: My Lords, I declare my interest as acouncillor on a London borough council, which isalso a local planning authority. I thank the Ministerfor the careful and thorough way in which she introducedthe Bill. It sounded as if she might be choking on oneor two statements that she made, but I think that ismuch more to do with the state of her throat thananything that is in the Bill.

Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, I wasreminded, not for the first time in the past couple ofyears, of something that was said to me by a Conservativelocal government leader when I first became a councillornearly 40 years ago. He said to me that there werereally only two parties. As a Liberal I thought that Iknew what was coming. In fact he said that they werethe central government party and the local governmentparty. The more we have these debates in your Lordships’House on the Bills that come forward from a Governmentcommitted to localism, the more I am reminded of

that Conservative councillor’s statement. In some ofhis comments, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, alsoreminded me of it.

I take some comfort, though, from the way in whichMinisters in the other place showed a willingness tolisten to, and sometimes also to hear, reasonable argumentsthat were put to them and to agree to amend the Billaccordingly, or at least to provide welcome reassurancesas to the Government’s intentions. I have no doubtthat this listening and hearing approach will continuein this House, as it always does with the Minister, andI welcome again the constructive approach that thenoble Lord, Lord Adonis, has promised us fromthe opposition Benches. I feel sure, therefore, that bythe time we get to Third Reading we will be able to saypositively that the Bill will do some good rather thanthat it will do little harm, which I fear is probably thereality at the moment.

I think that we all share at least some of theobjectives of the Bill. For instance, we all wish toachieve sustainable growth and we all want more newhomes, particularly affordable ones. We may start todiffer on how and where to achieve these objectives,but the overall objectives are shared. At the least,therefore, we should start by welcoming a Bill thatseeks to achieve them and commit ourselves to makingit better able to do so.

Clause 1 of the Bill concerns the planning system.It seems to assume that the major inhibitor to growthis the planning system and local planning authoritiesgenerally. There is absolutely no evidence to supportthat contention. If we are to legislate for what I believeis such a draconian measure, were it to be implemented,then we need to have from the Government the evidencethat tells us that it is necessary. I do not believe thatthat evidence is there. Indeed, Ministers have implicitlyaccepted that by saying that they expect, as well as thatthey hope, that these provisions will never actually beused. That is all very well when we have such abenevolent Government and a Secretary of State sodemonstratively well disposed to local government,but when this is set in legislation it is there for all time,and it is conceivable that one day there may be aGovernment and a Secretary of State who are lessbenevolently disposed and are able to use these provisionsin a less constructive way. We need to be aware of that.

I understand very well why no Government wouldwant to set the criteria for designation in primarylegislation; they need to be flexible and to be able torespond to changing circumstances. However, I hopethat the Government will understand that others, localplanning authorities in particular, need to see somesafeguards in the criteria to be used for designation—ifthat is to happen—for the future when that less benevolentSecretary of State may be in office.

I hope, though, that we will look not only at what isin the Bill that could be improved or even removed,but at what is not yet in the Bill that could make asignificant improvement in achieving its objectives. Tome, the most obvious absence is the biggest cause ofthe failure of growth, particularly in the housing sector.I refer to access to finance, whether for SMEs or, moreparticularly in this context, for purchasers. For instance,between 2007 and 2011 gross mortgage lending dropped

35 36[LORDS]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

by 61%, the number of mortgages fell by 50% and theaverage deposit for a first-time buyer doubled. TheBill does little or nothing to address this issue. I hopethat we will be able to address that important omissionbefore the Bill leaves this House.

There are some interesting proposals from theCommunity Investment Coalition that seek to achievethis and which fit very well with a localist agenda. TheCIC argues, and I agree, that to deliver a real impactthe Bill needs to focus on providing local areas withthe tools to hold financial services providers to accountin order to improve access to credit on fair terms forboth households and businesses.

I turn to some of the other provisions of the Bill,starting again with Clause 1, on which I am sure wewill spend much time in Committee. On first reading itis hard to understand how this could have come froma Government who only a year or so ago promoted aLocalism Act. In the other place, as I said previously,Ministers have gone to considerable lengths to put thisproposal into a more welcome, or at least less unwelcome,context and to stress that they expect it to be rarely, ifever, used. Indeed, I would expect that any sensibledeveloper would never want to use it, except in themost extreme circumstances.

One of the many failings is that it seems to putspeed before quality—speed of decision-making beforethe quality of the decisions being made and the decision-making process. I know we will discuss more fully howwe are going to balance that. Most of us would agreethat we need both—a fast but above all a good qualitydecision-making process. I look forward to the answerto the question from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, onhow many local planning authorities will be caughtunder the current proposed criteria. My understandingis that it is none at all. If that is the case I wonder whyClause 1 of the Bill is thought to be necessary.

Times have moved on considerably. These daysmost local planning authorities understand the needsof developers. They understand that developers needto make their schemes financially viable and developersunderstand the role of the local planning authority,not least in representing the interests of its localcommunity. Of course there are conflicts and frustrationsin reconciling these interests—there are hard negotiationsand so there should be—but most of that is donebefore the planning application is ever submitted.Certainly that is the case if it is done properly. I hopewe will all recognise that, as so often, we are legislatingto deal with a small minority of the worst, rather thanany representation of the norm, and that, as usual, weare doing nothing to reward excellence or to help thebest to be better.

Of course, we accept that some planning authoritiesare not doing as well as they could or should. I knowthat the Minister—who I know well as a fellow formerLondon borough council leader—will readily agreewith me that designation must really be a very lastresort and that a far better approach would be toprovide help and support to enable those authoritiesto improve themselves. Perhaps she will say a little bitabout the Government’s intentions in this regard. Forinstance, how much warning will the Government give

that a local planning authority is on the danger list,and will that be sufficient to enable it to improve itselfand to seek help from its peers to be able to do so?

Finally, on Clause 1, the Mayor of London isproposing that if any London local planning authorityis designated the mayor rather than the PlanningInspectorate should be able to call in and considerappropriate planning applications. I have made clearmy concerns about designation, but I can see somemerit in that power going to an elected and accountablebody that will at least have some knowledge andexperience of local circumstances. I am sure we willconsider that further in Committee.

I turn now to Clause 6, reflecting the modificationor discharge of affordable housing requirements inSection 106 agreements. Again, we must recognise thatthe norm is that this happens already. All over thecountry local authorities are renegotiating Section 106agreements with developers. It does not need legislationor friendly advice from a benevolent central governmentto enable that to happen. Of course those negotiationsare hard. The developer, quite rightly, wants to get thebest financial return and the local planning authority,equally rightly, wants the best for the local community,particularly with respect to much-needed affordablehousing. Those negotiations take place. They aresometimes difficult and protracted but more oftenthan not agreement is reached. Again, the Ministerhas said that some local authorities refuse to negotiate.I hope she can quantify that even if she does notwish—or is not even able—to name them now. TheLocal Government Association in its survey said thatonly 2% of local authorities are unwilling to negotiate.Before we legislate for that 2% we need to understandbetter whether that is just because they are very difficultand very awkward or whether there is some localreason or circumstance in a particular Section 106agreement that brings that about.

It is very important that this provision is not seeneither as any real or implied reduction in the Government’scommitment to the provision of more affordable housing,nor as an easy get-out clause for reluctant developers.We must also be assured that the Planning Inspectorate,if it is to be the arbiter, will be equipped for the taskbeing given to it—although I question whether this isthe most effective use of scarce resources. Again, I amsure that we will spend some time on this in Committeewhen we will be seeking reassurance and safeguardson these points. Again, we may wish to considerwhether the Mayor of London has some role in this, asat least an elected and accountable body as distinctfrom an unelected and unaccountable one based somedistance from many local authorities.

My colleagues speaking from the Liberal DemocratBenches in this debate will raise other concerns aboutthe Bill. In particular, my noble friend Lady Brintonwill speak about those provisions relating to ruralbroadband and to employee ownership. I will leavethat to her. I have just two further short questions forthe Minister. Clause 24 would bring business andcommercial projects within the Planning Act 2008 regime.Although I understand that this does not includeretail or housing projects, can the Minister say how

37 38[8 JANUARY 2013]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

[LORD TOPE]and by whom such projects will be defined as being ofnational significance, and what additional power thisclause gives that does not already exist?

My final point concerns Clause 25 and thepostponement of the business rate revaluation. TheMinister has told us how many potential losers—Isuppose we could call them that—there would beunder such a revaluation. I wonder how many winnersthere might be. Presumably it is a lesser number, whichis one of the reasons why we are doing this. In anyrevaluation, some are losers and some are winners;there is a balance in that. I also wonder whether theMinister can tell us what effect, if any, this will have onthe localisation of the business rate that starts shortly.

I end as I began by saying that on these Benches wewill work constructively with all sides of the House totry to make this Bill even better so that it meets theobjectives which are stated in its title, and which we allshare.

4.47 pm

Baroness Valentine: I declare that I am chief executiveof London First, a not-for-profit membership organisationthat seeks to make London the best city in the world inwhich to do business. I am also a board member ofPeabody housing trust. Wearing both hats, I have astrong interest in the efficacy of the planning system.

Too often, planning is seen by both those seekingapproval for schemes and those charged with consideringthem as a confrontational process, in which one sidewins and the other loses. This ignores the fact thatgood-quality new developments benefit both the developerand the local economy. As investment in infrastructureis a key to economic growth, I am also keen to see aconstructive approach being taken to other areas suchas utilities, on which I will touch later.

In forming my views on the Bill I had usefulconversations with the Department for Communitiesand Local Government, with the Greater LondonAuthority and with local authorities, as well as withdevelopers and utilities. From those discussions, it isclear to me that the Bill contains some very welcomemeasures. In particular, I welcome the proposals thatenable the Planning Inspectorate to step in where thelocal authority has a track record of consistently poorperformance in the speed or quality of its decisions.

In London, of course, the mayor has a specificresponsibility for strategic planning, supported by awell respected team with established relationships withall relevant stakeholders. It seems that, as the nobleLord, Lord Tope, suggested, it would make sense forLondon referrals to be made to the Greater LondonAuthority, allowing the Planning Inspectorate to focuson areas of the country without such arrangements.This would surely be in keeping with the spirit of thelocalism agenda. However, no matter where it is used,this is a significant power, so we should be carefulabout how we designate an authority as “poorlyperforming”.

In its consultation on the relevant criteria, theDCLG suggests a focus on the speed with whichdecisions are taken on major planning applicationsand the proportion of decisions that are subsequently

overturned on appeal. These are important metricsbut they miss two further sources of delay: on minorapplications and on the discharge of planning conditions.Minor applications such as changing the frontage of asmall shop may appear to be relatively trivial, but thecumulative economic impact of delays can be significant.The risk is that short-staffed local authorities willprioritise major applications at the expense of processingminor ones. That, surely, cannot be the Government’sintention. Likewise, there is no point in having aspeedy resolution of the planning application if it isfollowed by procrastination over the discharging ofplanning conditions. I urge the Government seriouslyto consider these two important further metrics.

I now turn to the difficult economic climate inwhich development has taken place over the past fewyears. There is often a considerable delay between anapplication being approved and the first shovel in theearth, during which time market circumstances canchange. In such instances, local authorities have theability to modify Section 106 agreements in order tomake sure that the development they want goes ahead.However, a recent Local Government Association surveyhas shown that only one-third of respondents did soover the past two years, despite the deterioration in theeconomic climate. This lack of action has led to thestalling of perfectly good schemes, which have takenaffordable housing and other amenities with them andhave also contributed to the dire situation in theconstruction industry. I therefore welcome the provisionsin the Bill which recognise the need for planning totake more account of changing market conditions andwhich allow for the renegotiation of planning requirementsto make schemes viable.

In London I would advocate the mayor having thepower to call in major schemes where the local authorityhas been notified of a Section 106 modification. Thiswould ensure that London’s strategic needs are takeninto account while maintaining democratic accountabilityin the capital, consistent with localism. Similarly, theGovernment need to ensure that the cumulative burdenof the various levies that planning authorities canimpose do not prevent development. This is a particularissue around the new Community Infrastructure Levyin London, because both the mayor and the boroughscan impose their own separate charge. A safeguard isneeded so that this double-dipping does not stopgrowth. The mayor has proposed that he should havethe power to ensure that any proposed borough levy isconsistent with the growth objectives in the LondonPlan. I would support such a measure. This powershould apply to planning applications not only forbuildings but also for other strategic infrastructure suchas power supplies. I urge the Government to includeenergy infrastructure on the list of new developmentsthat should be referred to the mayor where they are ofstrategic importance to London as a whole, ratherthan to only one borough.

Unblocking planning obstacles is, however, onlypart of the equation. A recurrent concern is thatenergy infrastructure struggles to keep up with demand.For example, as Land Securities Group has found inits major development around Victoria station, developersoften find that connecting new buildings to the grid isexpensive and slow because existing infrastructure is

39 40[LORDS]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

already operating at capacity. At the root of thisproblem is a regulatory framework that discouragesthe distribution company from investing ahead ofneed. Imagine if every time you bought an electricalitem you had to wait for a new power socket to beinstalled at home before you could use it. In effect, thisis the problem that developers face. The difficulty ofgetting connected to the power supply is considered bymany to be one of the top three risks when bringingforward schemes. The regulator, Ofgem, should addressthis, so that the distribution company can build moreinfrastructure in areas of intense business activitysuch as central London, in anticipation of high demand.This way, new development would be able to “plug inand play” rather than suffer sometimes years of delay.

Staying with infrastructure, I welcome Clause 8,which is intended to support the rollout of high-speedfibre broadband. In the 21st century, provision ofbroadband is as vital as access to water and power forboth businesses and homes. It is good to see that suchthings are recognised as essential infrastructure andthat their contribution to growth is acknowledged.

Finally, I will recommend a structural change thatwould cost the Government nothing but which couldhave an enormous impact on the efficiency of theplanning process: that is, giving local authorities thefreedom to charge businesses the real costs of consideringplanning applications. At the moment, local authoritiescharge fees according to a government schedule ratherthan to the costs they incur. This means that at timesof acute financial stress, authorities cut their planningresources. This is one major reason why some authoritiesare poor performers. Poor and variable advice frominexperienced officers can add substantial delays andcosts. Most developers would prefer fees to be structuredin a way that guarantees clear and consistent guidancerather than suffer the greater cost of a poor process.We should allow more flexibility to provide authoritieswith the resources commensurate with the task athand.

In conclusion, I commented earlier that investmentin infrastructure was a contributor to growth. In namingthis the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, rather thanthe other way around, the Government might be accusedof putting the titular cart before the horse—but I canlive with that if the outcome is a thoughtfully integratedapproach to planning that enables the two objectivesto be met. I believe that the amendments that I suggestedwould support such an approach and help give theplanning process a key role in delivering economicrecovery, rather than being a bureaucratic and inflexiblebrake. I urge the Government to consider them.

4.55 pm

Lord Monks: My Lords, this Bill has an ambitioustitle. To the new reader, coming to it fresh, the titlemight give the impression that it has ambitious contents;that it is on the verge of giving effect to the Heseltinelarge-scale urgent initiatives call, which he made sowell recently in this House on the basis of his report;that there would be a call for a renaissance of municipalvalues in the spirit of Joe Chamberlain and otherVictorian civic leaders; and perhaps that there wouldbe evangelising for employee share-ownership, and worker

engagement and involvement, on a significant scale toshake up British boardrooms and to change some ofthe bad habits that exist.

However, if one looks at the Bill, frankly, there isnone of that. As my noble friend Lord Adonis pointedout, there are no echoes of the impressive Heseltinereport and no big ideas reflecting the way in which heapproached the problems of growth and infrastructure.Instead, the two most prominent measures are to cutlocal authority planning powers—unfairly, in my view,blaming them for blocking growth—and to threatenworkers’ rights with an implausible proposal to tradeshares for rights. In my view, the Bill rather offends theTrade Descriptions Act. The Prime Minister is ratherkeen on the Ronseal advert, is he not? But the Bill doesnot do what it says on the tin.

I will leave others to deal with the local governmentaspects. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, has made aneffective start on chipping away at that pillar of theBill. I shall concentrate my fire on shares for rightsand what that might mean. First, I find it unethicalthat you can trade a statutory right for something inyour contract in that way. Perhaps the Minister wouldtell us whether there is a precedent for this in Britishlaw; namely, that having a right is somehow a bargainingchip and something that you can buy and sell. I believethat it must be dismissed as a serious attempt todevelop employee ownership: it is more a trashing ofworkers’ rights. From the list that the Minister readout, if this legislation goes through, the proposals thatwill have the biggest effect are those relating to redundancy.I shall draw attention to that point.

However, the objections generally are many andvarious. First, is this proposal really optional? Clearly,it will not be optional for new starters. If an employersays, “There is a job here and it has the status of anemployee shareholder—take it or leave it”, the individualwill have to operate within that framework. For theexisting employee—clearly, I recognise what has beendone in the other place about the new unfair dismissalright—there will still be plenty of scope for pressure tobe applied to individuals, short of dismissal, to fit inwith the employee-shareholder concept. I do not thinkthat any employer, even the few who would be interestedin this provision, will be particularly comfortable withhaving two categories of worker—those who are employeeshareholders and others who are regular, standardemployees. I shall come to one of the problems thatthat might create for an employer.

There are questions about how the shares would bevalued. When would entitlements become due? Doyou lose statutory rights under employment law theminute that you sign the contract? When do you getthe money? When do you get rights to the shares?When does the £2,000 kick in? The share side of theequation is fuzzy and there is a lot of scope for theemployer. The loss of rights, on the other hand, isabsolutely crystal clear. How do you redeem the sharesand what do you get from them? Does the employerdecide? In the debate in the other place, the Ministersaid that it could be left to the good sense of theemployer and the employee to work out somethingthat is acceptable. As my noble friend Lord Adonis

41 42[8 JANUARY 2013]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

[LORD MONKS]said, that is not an equal relationship, particularly ifsomeone tries to cash in their shares when the companyis in some difficulty.

Do the shares confer any rights such as full votingrights and representation in the boardroom, which arecommon in employee-ownership companies? Let us beclear: around 50% of new firms in this country foldwithin five years. Is there not a danger that an employeeshareholder will find himself or herself with no rightto redundancy pay and a bunch of worthless shares?In those circumstances, he or she will be more vulnerablethan the standard employee, who will be entitled toredundancy pay. The employee shareholder will possiblybe entitled to absolutely nothing. The employer willfind it cheaper to get shot of employee shareholders. Ibelieve that most employers will not touch this provisionwith a bargepole.

The Front Benches in this debate have mentioneddifferent employers’ opinions and I will not repeatthem. Those employers who have been critical andhave damned the proposals with the faintest of faintpraise make up by far the majority. It is not as thoughemployee rights are extensive in this country. Only theUnited States and Canada offer less protection for theindividual employee. The OECD ranks us third inhaving the most “flexible” labour market, wherebyworkers can be dismissed most easily. Let us also beclear that rights are being whittled down in otherlegislation that is before the House, has recently beencarried through or is proposed—the latest being aconsultation on reduction of the redundancy period.The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill is beingconsidered in Committee tomorrow and will alreadycurb employee rights.

I guess, however, that although most employers willnot touch the proposals, some will—not least to exploresome of the tax advantages that might apply and to doso in a way that will seek to minimise any real dilutionof ownership from their embracing and welcominggroups of employees. If you are going to do employeeownership, the lesson that we have learnt over theyears is that it is the companies that really believe in itand want it that make a success of it. The John Lewisapproach does not come through coercion or takingrights away from individuals who might at some stageneed them.

Employers who go down this particular route shouldbe warned that the processes will be complex. Forexample, as regards maternity rights, one will need tocheck exactly who is a parent, how many children theyhave and all the rest of it. I was talking to my wifeabout this and we agreed that we are in the market tosell our parental rights, having long since disposed ofany further use for them, and many Members of thisHouse would be in the same position. With any powersof reflection, employers would also need to look attheir own reputation and that of their brand, whichwould be at risk if they went down this route. I believethat the scheme will be a lot more trouble to them thanit is worth.

I say to those Liberal Democrats who rightly criticisedthe Beecroft no-fault provisions that this, as my noblefriend Lord Adonis said, is a different way of introducing

no-fault dismissal. However, I go a little further: it isno-fault dismissal with no compensation. At leastMr Beecroft proposed some compensation and didnot go as far as this provision.

In May, the Deputy Prime Minister launchedthe Nuttall report on employee ownership. In ourview, it proposed a sensible way forward and did notinclude this turkey that we are debating today. So theGovernment are not entitled to claim the support ofNuttall. The noble Baroness did not do so today, butothers certainly have.

I very much hope—it may be a vain hope—that theGovernment will reflect on the Bill and be prepared toput it to one side to await the response to the Heseltinereport. The reports more or less call for the samethings and the Bill pollutes the terrain over which theHeseltine exercise ranged so impressively. This messy,ill judged Bill, with a misleading, grandiose title, is notthe way to start and not the way to organise a properresponse to a serious piece of work. In the spirit of“all being in it together”, one nationism or whatever,in all corners of this House, it would be very wise towait for the government response to an initiative whichis, at present, attracting wide support from all quarters,and which will get behind genuinely ambitious proposalson growth and infrastructure, rather than taking thisunworthy route of trashing workers’ rights.

5.06 pm

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, as my colleague andnoble friend Lord Tope said, I shall speak principallyto Clauses 8 and 27. I want to focus on the importanceof rural growth and not just on the issue that I knowconcerns some people: of large telephone masts goingup in areas of outstanding natural beauty. I am gratefulto the Minister for making it clear that the Bill excludesthat. I start by declaring a past interest. I helpedSt John’s College, Cambridge to set up its innovationpark in north Cambridge 20 years ago and I was adirector of the St John’s Innovation Centre until 2010,working with entrepreneurs as they spun ideas out ofCambridge University. I was also deputy chair of theEast of England Development Agency until 2005.

The Cambridge phenomenon spread out fromCambridge’s central areas 100 years ago when engineeringsupport companies such as Cambridge Instrumentsset up in Milton, one of the necklace villages, toprovide instruments and other essential products andtelemetry for the Cavendish Laboratory and theengineering department to start to use. The phenomenonI shall talk about is not just one of the most recent10 or 20 years of high-tech growth. Sixty years ago,Trinity College built the first science park on greenland, housing some of the new era of spin-outs fromthe university, including Cambridge Consultants andmany others.

Since then, spin-outs and sons and daughters ofspin-outs have set up further and further away fromthe centre of Cambridge because a small medieval citycannot cope with large industrial growth in its centre.In the late 1980s, it became clear that the area aroundCambridge was struggling with the problems of rapidgrowth, including rapid increases in commercial andresidential property prices, shortages of qualified staffto work in the area and an infrastructure struggling to

43 44[LORDS]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

cope with a large influx of new residents who neededschools and other services. Some of the new smallcompanies decided to move further out into the fens.Did noble Lords know that, in the 1990s, Ely was ahot spot for high-tech veterinary research products?Software companies have moved further out to placessuch as Chatteris. While perhaps one does not think ofa fen village or town in that way, these companies havedone it because they needed lower costs in order torecruit staff and, frankly, to house them.

As IT connections have become more importantthe lack of broadband—let alone high-speed broadband—has become a serious issue for companies in ruralareas. In the past it was not used universally but nowall businesses rely on broadband for their effectiverunning, even those we think of as being low-tech.Some friends of mine run a pig farm out on theNorfolk fens; even they use computers and broadbandfor communications, orders, correspondence and resultsfrom veterinary testing—and for access to governmentadvice, which can often be accessed only via the internetnow. All of this is done via the superhighway. Therehas been a serious market failure in providing high-speedbroadband in rural areas. Businesses in the fens ofCambridgeshire and Norfolk and in the Suffolk coastalareas all suffer from the lack of this fundamental toolthat urban and suburban organisations take for granted,even if it is not as fast as they want.

Clause 8 opens the door to removing the firsthurdle faced by broadband suppliers by easing theplanning regulations. However, as I have mentioned, itsensibly insists on taking account of areas of naturalbeauty, and I am grateful to the Minister for making itabsolutely clear that Clause 8 will not mean easyaccess for telephone companies to put masts upeverywhere. However, I should say that even I missed amast in Norfolk which I realised later was actually avery tall Scots pine; they can be quite discreet.

Growth in our economy is vital to the future of UKplc; it is not just a city issue and therefore cannot berestricted to city and urban areas. However, allGovernments tend to focus on urban areas. I believethat our rural areas will be key to sustaining andrevitalising our villages and the countryside aroundthem, as well as providing real income for the country.

I move on to Clause 27 on employee shareholders.The more conversations I have with Ministers andothers about this clause, the more bemused I become.First, let us look at the general principles behind it:certain companies will want to offer ownership toemployees in return for those employees giving upsome or perhaps all their employment rights. Theseinclude redundancy pay, rights to training or flexibleworking, and parental leave. Three members of myimmediate family are already employee owners: one inthe food retail sector and two in high-tech leading-edgecompanies, one of whom has had his shares for morethan 30 years. When discussing this clause with themand with senior and junior staff in a number of othercompanies, it emerged that every single person, fromdirectors and managers to new recruits, said that areduction in employment rights absolutely counteractsthe benefits of owning shares because it demotivatesthe staff. Even senior directors have said this.

The Government argue that not all companies willwant to use this mechanism and claim that small,often start-up high-tech companies are the likelybeneficiaries. These are exactly the companies I havebeen talking to. My own experience in small high-techbusinesses in the east of England and Cambridge, andmy discussions with the owners of those firms, showthe exact opposite. They know that they have to motivatetheir staff first. That is vital in the early days asspecialist companies face product development costswith no sales and often have anxious funders lookingover their shoulders. They are worried enough aboutthe future of their organisations.

Let us take another illustration, that of a firm thathas been going reasonably well in Cambridge for sometime and in which virtually all the staff hold shares. Ithit problems during the recession before this one.There was a staff discussion about how to help theircompany through those tough times, and the staffgave the company a series of loans over the two tothree-year period it took to keep it going. Some of thestaff in that organisation have said that if the companyhad taken away their rights, there would have been nomotivation for them to say, “We want to save thiscompany”. That is an example of good entrepreneurialspirit—a company where managers and staff worktogether.

I have two outstanding queries about this clause,one of which has already been alluded to by the nobleLord, Lord Adonis, and raised by my honourablefriend Andrew Stunell in another place. It concernsthe whole issue of a JSA recipient being offered a jobwith reduced rights in return for shares when enteringa company. It cannot be right to penalise an individualwho chooses not to take a job with reduced rights. Iknow enough people who have been made redundantfrom one, two or even more jobs who go into somethingasking, “Why would I give up any of the few remainingrights that I have?”. I want the DWP guidance to beabsolutely explicit and statutory. If we do not get thatguidance before Committee, I may well table anamendment to ensure that we see something.

I am also concerned about the information thatemployees will have about the size and nature of theirshareholding. They must have access to independentlegal advice, which should be paid for by the companyand should set out clearly the likely path. Shares donot just go up and down; they are often diluted out ofsight in rounds two and three of funding. Employeesneed to understand that they are taking a substantialrisk not just in giving up rights but by having shares atall. Sadly, not all our companies succeed; they certainlydo not always see growth. Of those that do, employeesoften find that a shareholding that looked quite attractiveat even 1% in the early days is very small by the timethe company is worth anything realistic at all.

Overall, my view is that this clause will not be used.All the consultation responses that I hear say that itwill wither on the vine, but the two items that I haveoutlined will, I believe, provide some protection andcover some of the points that the noble Lords, LordMonks and Lord Adonis, made about rogue employerstrying to use it. I, too, support the Nuttall report andthe Deputy Prime Minister’s promotion of it earlier.

45 46[8 JANUARY 2013]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

[BARONESS BRINTON]I believe that it is a more effective way forward bygiving employees the right, which my party has longbelieved in, to share in the benefits of growth of thecompany. Any company that grows helps UK plc, andis that not what we are all here for?

5.16 pm

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I shall focus mainlyon two areas of this disparate Bill: those dealing withaffordable housing and the preservation of our nationallandscape. Outside those, my noble friends Lord Adonisand Lord Monks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton,have spoken eloquently about the folly and injustice ofenabling businesses to buy the rights of their workpeople,which will have a particular impact on the position ofwomen. To subordinate rights to a contract is a backwardstep indeed and I hope that there will be amendmentsto redress this.

Turning to my main concerns, the Bill’s provisionsfor renegotiating the proportion of affordable housingagreed under Section 106 of the Town and CountryPlanning Act 1990 are also a real step back from theexcellent achievement of mixed housing developments,of which I have seen many successful examples. Theyspell ruin for the encouragement of sufficient, muchneeded new housing for the countless hardworkingpeople whose pay does not cover market prices. Willthe Minister say how enough new houses for peoplewho are not rich can be assured? Of course, we desperatelyneed growth and investment in infrastructure, but thisBill does not address the key issue in housing development,which is, of course, the bellwether of increased growth.The fact is that people cannot afford to buy and bankswill not lend. House prices are rising at three times therate of wages.

The Homes and Communities Agency wrote to myhonourable friend Clive Betts MP, chair of theCommunities and Local Government Committee, tosay that it was,“not aware of any current issues relating to section 106 agreementon the very small number due to start on site this … year”.

I reiterate my noble friend’s question to the Minister:how many of the Government’s claimed hundreds ofthousands of stalled sites have Section 106 as thecause? Certainly, another cause seems to be the reluctanceof local communities to accept more housing. Here Ican do no better than to quote Liberal Democratcouncillor Adrian Dobinson, who in a letter in lastFriday’s Guardian said that,“people will allow modern housing ... if building design of ourage is considered building design as good as the period buildingsfound in villages, instead of awful little boxes demanded byplanners and weak-kneed architects unprepared to stand up tothem”.

What can the Government do about that?I turn to the landscape. The powers in Clause 8

which seek to remove essential protection for ournational parks are aimed at speeding up the introductionof faster broadband, facilitating tall poles, cabinetsand overhead lines, as the Minister explained. A verylarge number of serious and representative organisationshave asked us to remove this provision. I declare aninterest as president of the South Downs Society, theco-ordinating NGO for that area.

The introduction of faster broadband for thecountryside is very important, and I fully understandthe points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton,but it is absolutely not necessary to do this at the expenseof the potential desecration of our most cherishedlandscapes. The limited time allowed in the Bill forgetting new structures up will be a further disincentiveto a careful process for managing our irreplaceablebeautiful landscapes. I am not aware of any evidencethat it is the planning process in protected landscapeswhich is holding back the advance of broadband. Willthe Minister please give the House examples, if anyexist, in the national parks? As it happens, the nationalparks authorities are already active in ensuring thatthe relevant infrastructure is installed in a way whichminimises visual impact. I could cite Northumberland,the Peak District, Exmoor, my own South Downs andmany others.

It is of course quite true that there have been delaysin rolling out superfast broadband in our countryside,but not because of the planning system. Receivingstate aid clearance from the European Union was themain culprit: £530 million of expenditure on broadbandhas only just been approved, covering perhaps half ofthe local broadband plans, which would enable 90% ofthe people in the UK to access superfast broadband.Does the noble Baroness agree?

These provisions go against paragraph 115 of theGovernment’s own National Planning Policy Frameworkand defy the intention of the great National Parks andAccess to the Countryside Act 1949: to conserve andenhance our most important landscapes. I am sure thenoble Baroness does not want to play any part inimperilling our natural heritage, which is alreadyso vulnerable, or deprive future generations of theimmeasurable benefits of the national parks’ beauty. Ilook forward to her response.

5.22 pm

Baroness Eaton: My Lords, I begin by declaring aninterest as a vice-president of the Local GovernmentAssociation. I have also represented the council wardof Bingley Rural in West Yorkshire since 1986. I rise tospeak with some unease, since I take no real pleasurein criticising any government legislation. I am a strongsupporter of the coalition’s endeavours to correct oureconomic situation and return us to a safe financialfooting, and I firmly believe that the Government aremaking great strides in that direction. However, sadly,I see this legislation as a step in the wrong direction,which will not deliver its main objective of widespreadeconomic growth but rather move us dangerously on anarrow winding path away from the golden road oflocalism down which we have, to date, made muchprogress.

My main concern is that the Bill focuses on somethingwhich is not proving itself to be a barrier: the planningsystem. We have heard from the Minister and the nobleLords, Lord Adonis and Lord Tope, of the 10-yearrecord success rate for planning applications and thefact that 87% of planning applications were approvedin 2011-12. People will note the 87%, but we all needto recognise that some planning applications jolly welldeserve to be refused.

47 48[LORDS]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

We have heard also that there is a building backlogof some 400,000 new homes across the country, all ofwhich have planning permission but are waiting to bebuilt by developers. I hope my noble friend the Ministerwill agree that such evidence indicates that the onlyrecently introduced National Planning Policy Framework,which she and her ministerial colleagues should becomplimented on introducing, is starting to do its jobof delivering sustainable development. Would it notbe better to allow the NPPF to bed in before we onceagain redraw the lines around the planning system?Why is it always local government that is blamed fordelays—and all the ills—when there is no evidence forthis, as we have heard already from the noble Lord,Lord Tope?

With regard to democratic accountability, my successorat the LGA, Councillor Sir Merrick Cockell, made thepoint very well when he described the legislation as,

“a blow to local democracy”.

This Bill takes authority away from locally electedrepresentatives and gives it instead to a national, unelectedquango, the Planning Inspectorate, based in Bristol. Ifail to see how the inspectorate can appreciate thelocal individualities that impact upon planning andthe built environment of, say, Bradford—or any otherauthority—better than the local council. Can the Ministerindicate how much additional resource the inspectoratewill be given and why the funding is not devolvedinstead to the local level to properly resource thoseplanning authorities that are struggling or, accordingto the Government, deemed to be failing? Surely thiscould address the Government’s concerns.

There is a very real threat that the Bill will becounterproductive, since the removal of local decision-making risks denting public trust. This could meanthat some communities will be increasingly reluctantto accept new development. I would welcome theMinister’s thoughts on this threat, since the last thingwe want from the legislation is increased delays. Thecriteria for measuring performance under the Bill arealso counterproductive as they focus on time taken toassess applications and the number of approvals given.Such a focus on blunt targets could result in rusheddecisions and, perversely, more rejected applications.There are a number of questions about how the newsystem can work; for instance, how would an authorityregain its decision-making powers once they have beentaken away? I would welcome my noble friend’s thoughtson how any council can demonstrate improvement ofits performance if it is no longer dealing with planningapplications.

I support the link in Clause 8 between fast broadbandaccess and economic growth. Indeed, we are now in aworld where the latter is simply not possible withoutthe former. We will all be aware, I am sure, of theconcerns raised by campaign groups that the proposalscould open the floodgates to broadband infrastructureboxes popping up across the countryside—not just themasts but the large boxes—in a very unregulatedfashion. Moreover, this clause applies to all telecomsinfrastructure, not just broadband. Perhaps my noblefriend can explain how it will be limited to the declaredpolicy.

I would welcome my noble friend’s views on how anassurance can be provided on this matter, what evidenceexists to support the clause, and how local planningauthorities will maintain control over the placementof infrastructure in order to reflect the wishes of thelocal residents and the businesses they represent. Theissue of broadband boxes obviously links to the widerdebate on permitted development. I offer my supportfor the points made earlier by my noble friend LordTope and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

This Bill presents a welcome opportunity to empowerlocal areas to drive economic growth but, as currentlydrafted, it will miss that opportunity. To really haveany impact, it must look to address the real barriers togrowth and much needed housebuilding, such as accessto finance to both build and buy.

One way to do this would be through the removalof the housing borrowing cap currently imposedon councils. I read with interest a report publishedlast month by a group of organisations includingthe National Federation of ALMOs and the LocalGovernment Association. This research demonstratesthat removing the borrowing cap could deliver 60,000homes over the next five years and increase UK GDPby 0.6%. That is the sort of proposal that we needwithin the Bill, one that will have a tangible impact ona real economic barrier.

I hope my noble friend will be pleased to hear thatmy final point is a positive one. I welcome the inclusionof clauses within the Bill on the town and village greenregistration system, specifically ensuring that discussionsabout the future of sites take place primarily throughthe democratically accountable planning system.Traditional and genuine greens are vital elements ofsustainable and vibrant communities. I am pleasedthat these clauses will not endanger such sites. I understandthat the Home Builders Federation, the Royal Instituteof British Architects, the Local Government Association,the British Property Federation, the National Farmers’Union and many other organisations all support theclauses, which I hope will survive the scrutiny of thisHouse.

I hope that the Minister is able to respond to someof my concerns. It is the role of this Chamber to offeran honest assessment of the measures put before us. Iam sure that, across the House, we can improve theBill in the way that we need to.

5.30 pm

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have nothing to declareother than a spell as a planning Minister and the factthat I was never a local authority councillor. I thinkthe Bill is very depressing. It is a bit like the situationover the past decade, when we have had an annualimmigration Bill from the Home Office. “Immigrationstill rising? Get another Bill. It carries on rising? Getanother Bill”. We are on the verge now of almost anannual planning Bill. “Less building and infrastructure?Get another planning Bill”. That seems to be thetreadmill. This is probably the third planning Bill sinceI relinquished the responsibilities that I held briefly atone time. From that point of view, I am very depressedabout it.

49 50[8 JANUARY 2013]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

[LORD ROOKER]I do not think that any planning Bill in the past two

decades advanced the cause of sustainable developmentor growth. That is my broad-brush answer. Have allthe planning Bills had good intentions to modernisethe system? You are too right that they have: everysingle one of them had that intention. Have the attemptsto use the planning system for social engineering tocreate genuine mixed communities really worked? Ihave to say, honestly and in a broad-brush answer: no.Have all Ministers had good intentions to foster gooddesign, respect local communities and work in partnershipwith local government? The answer is yes, all Ministershave been in that position. Did we obtain the Docklandsdevelopment in London—with the tens of thousandsof jobs that have been created in the past 30 yearsthere—and create Brindleyplace slap bang in the middleof Birmingham, with the thousands of jobs there, orthe new towns, by the aforementioned approach? No,we did not. The system did not work and failed thecountry. Will this Bill deliver these objectives? I do notthink that it stands a chance.

I watched the Planning Minister the other night on“Newsnight”. I was reminded of one of my ownspeeches in this House as a Minister as he recited justhow little of the land of England is developed. It issome 11% or 12% maximum. He used the same facts Idid, probably briefed by the same officials as briefedme. It is a disgrace that, as far as I can see, he has nothad support from senior government colleagues in hisbald approach to putting the case for growth and extrabuilding in a way that identifies the fact that we arenot concreting over the countryside.

By the way, I do not equate this Bill with the nobleLord, Lord Heseltine. I might have made a mistakeabout this but I did not see the connection between thetwo. The noble Lord rightly asserts that local—or,more accurately, city—regions ought to be the bedrock.He does not talk about local authorities in that sensebut about the city regions. The boundaries there areimpossible to make out. If you look from above, froma helicopter, you do not see the boundary. That is hisapproach. This Bill does not deliver his approach. I donot think that it purports to.

I do not think you can allow the decisions to bemade locally, with communities operating as super-parishcouncils. That is the reality. We are in a serious messboth on housing and infrastructure in this country. Wehave it locked in. I am not saying that there is nothinghappening but we are getting less and less, and no onecan see a way out of that. I do not think the status quowill work, but if we leave it to the present system thestatus quo will win every time. We will get less growthand will come back with another planning Bill. Ifthere is to be progress, decisions have to be made forthe greater good of society and not of particularlocal communities. I do not wish to fall out with theLGA but its briefing talks about democraticallyaccountable, locally elected councillors. First, thosecouncillors follow the Whip and, secondly, the wardcouncillors cannot vote on the issues relating to theirwards anyway.

Lord Greaves: Not true.

Lord Rooker: It also said that communities arelikely to be increasingly reluctant to accept newdevelopments in their areas. So what? If it is for thegreater good of society, why should a local communityresident already there have the final say? I cannotaccept that people own their local community in thatsense. I remember many years ago there was a majorpark area in my big, urban constituency—a constituencyof only 16 square miles but with a population of100,000. The world famous Birchfield Harriers had tohave a new stadium. They were in a terrible locationwith the way the roads were joined. It was suggestedthat the ideal place was in the park because we couldalso go for the Commonwealth Games. On the otherhand, people who lived round the park said, “This isour back garden: you cannot build on that”. If it hadbeen left at that level, the stadium that brought massivebenefits to the city of Birmingham and UK athleticswould never have been built. You have to look andelevate consideration above the level of localism. Itcaused me great pain at the time to get thoserepresentations from constituents.

I think the Minister said in the “Newsnight”interviewthat if we have only about 12% built on, an extra 2% to3% of the land of England would solve our problems.Of course, the press can take that up and say that itwould be like a city the size of A, B or C, and that canbe made to frighten people. But that is a tiny percentageof the land-mass of England.

The one area where we have to be really radical ison brownfield sites. We debated the guidelines in thisHouse some time ago—I think it was in October 2011.I raised then that there was a major problem about thelack of serious attention paid to brownfield. Moreradical measures are called for rather than the tinkeringin this Bill. I do not wish to nitpick through particularclauses of the Bill. It wants something radical: a linefrom the Severn to the Wash, and north of that for fiveyears brownfield sites need no planning permission orobligations—nothing. Let the developers go. All thefacts quoted are correct about planning authoritiesdoing this, that and the other. The thing that is missingis confidence. You will not fix that by nitpickingaround the changes in the Bill. That is my view.

There has to be development in the south-east, sosouth of that line, with brownfield sites of less thanfive hectares, again, there should be no need for planningpermission. Sites of more than five hectares probablyneed it. New towns, Docklands and Brindleyplacewere built without planning permission, but we havebuilding regulation controls and all those things thathave to take place. That is fine. I would not object to adensity directive but the barriers have to come off for adecent specified period—as I said, for about five years.

At all costs, we have to protect the national parks. Ideclare an interest; for 25 years I have had a timesharehome in one of the national parks. That does notmean that there cannot be new jobs installed there, orthat we cannot reuse former agricultural buildings andexisting properties. There are barriers to that now,where planners think they can decide whether someonedoing some work in the countryside—perhaps theyhave diversified—should have a pitched or slopingroof. It is preposterous that a planning official should

51 52[LORDS]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

make decisions like that about someone wanting tomake a modest investment for some work they aredoing, maybe to encourage diversification. But thatactually happens.

To a lesser extent, we have to protect the areas ofoutstanding natural beauty. They cover a large part ofthe country, but not that much. The green belt is acollar around the urban areas. A lot of it is rubbishland, but it is there as a collar to stop the urbansprawl. The previous Labour Government left moregreen belt than they inherited, but we allowed incursionsinto the green belt because we could replace it withthousands of hectares elsewhere. You can do that.There does not seem to be a plan in the department.The approach is laissez-faire; “We’re in charge” and“Leave it all to local government”. But it does nothave the wherewithal to do it in my view. That is notthe level at which decisions should be taken.

There are brownfield sites in existence today wherethe Chancellor or somebody should do a masterstroke.If the developers cannot conclude development in thenext couple of years on a brownfeld site where planningpermission is granted, lift the obligations now. Thatwould generate confidence. More brownfield sites arebeing created. I do not accept the argument that weare running out of it. There are thousands of hectares.If we concentrate on that we will protect cities and thegreen belt. I was very proud—and so was my noblefriend Lord Prescott—to operate the policy we inheritedfrom the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I saw examples ofit the other day in the middle of Cambridge. I remembereda particular development at the site that crossed ourdesks at the time. It regenerated the centre of the city.It protected building on green fields. Builders lovegreen fields—no doubt about it. They love flat greenfields. In fact, most of those are called flood plains.They should be required to carry the insurance ofsuch developments. This would even up the cost of theremediation of brownfield sites. It has been made tooeasy for them to get away with it.

I do not propose to cover other points. I just wantto make the point that the Bill is not radical enoughand will not work. In two years’ time we will be backagain, wondering why we have not generated growthboth for housing and for infrastructure.

5.42 pm

Baroness Parminter: My Lords, before the new NationalPlanning Policy Framework has even bedded in, andonly six months after the Localism Act—as the nobleBaroness, Lady Eaton, well said—the Governmenthave been seduced by the siren voices blaming planningas the obstacle to growth. As the noble Lord, LordTope, said, they have ignored the reality that it isfinancial restraint, borrowing difficulties and, critically,consumer confidence that are holding back development.But planning is the convenient whipping boy, and theone thing the Government can easily be seen to bedoing something about.

While I support the Government’s vigour in doingall they can to support appropriate growth andinfrastructure, that growth must contribute towardsdelivering sustainable development—a term I did notfind in the Bill. As Liberal Democrats have long

argued, local people should have a say in shaping theircommunities and environment. As it stands, this Billfalls short in several areas of securing that. Two areasthat I—along with fellow Peers—will highlight areClauses 8 and 24.

The purpose of Clause 8 is to facilitate superfastbroadband. It is a laudable aim but one which needs toensure that what is special and valuable about ourmost treasured landscapes is not lost—special andvaluable not only to our personal sense of well-beingwhen we enjoy the magnificence of the scenery, thetranquillity of the environment and the overwhelmingsense of awe that such areas inspire, but valuableeconomically given the significant tourism revenuethat national parks and AONBs generate preciselybecause of their unique beauty and wild nature.

This clause is a sledgehammer to crack a nut—andone where the existing nutcracker does not even seemto be broken. While there have been planning problemsin some areas—I cite the borough of Kensington andChelsea as the most prominent of those—there is noevidence of any planning problems in national parkswith facilitating broadband delivery. I echo the commentsof fellow Peers that it would be good to hear from theMinister during the progress of the Bill what evidencethere is that planning in national parks creates aproblem with facilitating broadband delivery. It is asledgehammer which creates a precedent by allowingthe key purposes of protected landscapes to be overriddenfor the first time since their creation more than 60 yearsago.

It is also a sledgehammer because primary legislationcannot be technology-specific. Like the noble Lord,Lord Adonis, I was pleased to hear the Minister ruleout mobile phone masts through secondary legislation.What I have not heard from the Government—or inany of the briefings that we have had—are the numberof new poles and overhead broadband lines that couldstomp across our most cherished landscapes if thislegislation goes through. The Government anticipate72,000 new broadband cabinets to deliver superfastbroadband services to 90% of the UK. That is theirstated aim. Surely this House should be asking theGovernment to confirm during the process of this Billhow many poles and lines could be needed if therequirement for underground telecommunicationsapparatus in national parks and AONBs is removedand the final decision about siting is given to operators—and, indeed, what impacts such a move would have onthe arrangements that Ofgem have put in place withelectricity providers for underground power lines insensitive landscape areas.

Clause 24 allows decisions of major local importanceto be removed from local authorities. If the intent is tofast-track decisions, again, the Government will needto show the House the evidence that a significantnumber of large-scale, major applications are not beingmet within 12 months—something their own figuresseem to refute. How realistic is it that the majorinfrastructure planning regime will speed things up inthe absence of national planning policy statementsthat set the policy framework for decisions and thusguide the Planning Inspectorate?

53 54[8 JANUARY 2013]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

[BARONESS PARMINTER]More than this, this clause flies in the face of the

commitment the Government gave during the debateson the then Localism Bill, which was enshrined in theresulting Act that the local plan was sovereign andthat decision-making should be devolved to the lowestpossible appropriate level. The Minister in this Housesaid on Report that,“our reforms achieve their objective of putting the local plan andthe views of the local community at the heart of the system”—[Official Report, 17/10/11; col.140.]

It comes before measures we fought hard to winduring the passage of the Localism Bill have beenintroduced that would help smooth the path ofcontentious local applications. I am talking aboutpre-application scrutiny for departure applications. Itcomes as no surprise that it is proposed that gasextraction projects should fall under these new procedures.Gas will play a part in meeting the energy requirementsof the UK as we transition to a low-carbon economy;but we are not America. We are a densely populatedcountry. Local communities in the north-west have theright to a say in the siting of energy infrastructure. Ifthe Government want to argue that fracking has morethan a very limited future in ensuring UK energysecurity consistent with our climate change obligations—and, as such, that the new infrastructure is nationallysignificant—they should first introduce a national planningpolicy statement which we can debate in this House.

I am sure that the Minister is as pleased as I am tolook forward over the coming weeks to replaying someof the debates we had, which resulted in the hard-wonpolicy approach to sustainable development set out inthe final NPPF. Growth may be this Government’sbyword, but we should not be afraid to say that whatmakes this country—and in particular our countryside—so special is equally worth protecting.

5.47 pm

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as has been said already byseveral noble Lords, most notably the noble Lord,Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, theBill seems to be based on some fairly substantialfallacies, the first of which is that the principal reasonfor the lack of investment in infrastructure and housingin this country is the planning system. The second andrelated fallacy is that the planning performance oflocal authorities would somehow be seriously improvedif there was an ever-present threat of central governmenttaking it over. I would dispute both fallacies. There isprobably a third fallacy in the Bill, relating specificallyto housing—namely, that we would get more affordablehousing if the one mechanism that has delivered moreaffordable housing in recent years was diluted andreversed.

The failure of investment in this country is due tomuch wider things than are tackled in the Bill. Aserious lack of confidence on the part of private sectorinvestment in the medium-term prospects of our economyis the central reason why we are not getting enoughinvestment. That goes back to the Government’s economicstrategy. There is a parallel lack of confidence in theregulatory framework within which those investmentdecisions are taken, sector by sector, to do with retaining

a degree of stability and not being beset by uncertaintyand indecision in government. There are differentexamples in housing and in renewable energy—indeed,energy of any sort—where investment has been seriouslyheld up by that uncertainty.

Moreover, the Government themselves are notinvesting. A disproportionate amount of the cuts inpublic expenditure—whatever the arguments aboutthe total—have fallen on the capital programme, bothin direct investment by state institutions and in partnershipwith the private sector. As a result, there have beenserious cutbacks not only in social housing, which Ishall come to, but in schools, road building, flooddefences and other forms of local authority investment.There is more on the cards.

When the Government themselves are not investingand are not encouraging partnership with the privatesector in those areas, that discourages investment ingeneral. In the face of that, there has been no seriousintellectual development, let alone implementation, ofnovel forms of mobilisation of private sector moneyin infrastructure development. That is true even inareas where an economic return is pretty well guaranteed,such as housing or various parts of energy and transport,let alone where there is no direct income stream againstit and where the private sector, in conjunction with theTreasury, ought to be working hard to find motivationfor private finance, for example, into flood defences orroad building.

There was a slight hint of that in the coalitionannouncement this week, but I hope that the Governmentcan go a bit further. There is a serious need for a newapproach and new thinking on infrastructure investmentby the Government. None of that is in the Bill. Nor,for example, is there any reflection of what I understoodto be the Chancellor’s serious intention to get togetherwith private institutional funders to put their moneyinto infrastructure investment. We heard a lot a fewmonths ago about his discussion with pension funds,for example. What has that come to? It does notappear that the Government have been able to motivateserious investment in our infrastructure from the privatesector—and that in an era when corporate coffers arequite full and large sums of money are resting withinstitutional investors.

That is a failure not of the planning system, localgovernment or the business rate system; it is a failureof central government. As my noble friend Lord Adonissaid, the Bill is also odd in that it is the antithesis ofwhat we thought was the Government’s intention inrelation to local government; it is the antithesis of theethos of localism. I am not saying that there are notsome measures in the Bill that may be a bit of help.It is a hotchpotch of a Bill and not everything about itis wrong, but the overall impact will be nugatory inraising the overall level of investment.

I shall say a quick word about housing, and Ideclare my interest as chair of Housing Voice, whichcampaigns for affordable housing. There is a crisis inall aspects of the housing market but, particularly, asthe noble Baroness admitted during Question Timetoday, in affordable housing in all sectors—whethersocial housing, mortgages and owner-occupied housingor in the private rented sector.

55 56[LORDS]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

One of the few measures that has delivered moreaffordable housing has been the intervention ofSection 106 in planning agreements with developers.The Bill implies that many such agreements can bemade null and void. There is no need for that. As hasbeen said, local authorities can already renegotiatetheir Section 106 arrangements in relation to housing.The provisions that suggest that the Government willlean on local authorities to dilute them further movesin the wrong direction, and I will strongly oppose thatpart of the Bill. However, that is only one element ofthe apparent centralisation of the Bill. The first fourclauses introduce a greater degree of centralisationthan we have yet seen, which totally contradicts theLocalism Act, which we have just passed. So doesClause 24.

I slightly part company with my noble friend LordRooker on this. I do not think that local authoritieshave performed their planning function absolutelyideally. I think that aspects could be reformed and thatsome degree of change in the structure of local authoritieswould facilitate that. However, I do not believe thatthe man in Whitehall or, indeed, the man in Bristol—Islightly object to the disparaging reference to Bristolby the noble Baroness—knows best. We need clearernational direction, but the logic of the Localism Act,as I understood it, was that local authorities would begiven clearer responsibility for meeting the housingneeds and delivering economic development in theirarea, in conjunction with neighbouring authorities,and that they would be given commensurate powers toget on with the job. If local authorities generally wereput in that position, we would see serious investmentin commercial and economic enterprise and in housingof all sorts.

Unfortunately, the Government do not trust localauthorities to do that. They are not prepared to give themthe powers; they are not even prepared to give themthe responsibility without the powers in any clear way.The Bill, and certain other Bills that have been passedrecently, clearly allow central government to overrideand take over those powers from local authorities.That is a step in the wrong direction. The Governmentare becoming increasingly Napoleonic in their ambitionsin this area and, unfortunately, do not quite have intheir strategic approach the generalship that Napoleondemonstrated.

I have three other quick points; I am running out oftime. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, rightly saidthat the Government need to be aware of theenvironmental issues. I do not entirely go along withsome of the environmental and countryside bodiesthat objected to the national planning framework inits initial form, but the Government need to takeseriously their concerns about sustainability in theBill. I am prepared to support the delay in the reviewof the business rate, provided that the Governmentassure us that the time taken by that review will allowus to look at the full effect of business rates and howthey are implemented on investment decisions acrossthe board—in other words, that it is not simply a delaybut a reassessment.

Finally, on employee shareholdings, as I wouldexpect, my noble friend Lord Monks has made thecase, as have others. Some time ago, in Question Time,

I asked the noble Lord, Lord Marland, how thiswould work: are you prepared to sell a few rights for afew shares, more important rights for more shares, orwhether you have a job lot and all shares are boughtout at a given time? This ought not to be a tradingissue. People ought not to be asked to give up theirrights for shares. That is completely different from allprevious forms of employee share-ownership andundermines all the good work in that area and in themutual area.

The lesson today, in the context of the Bill, is thatthat procedure—that way of getting Beecroft in by theback door—has absolutely nothing to do with growthor investment. Clause 27 should be deleted from theBill as rapidly as possible.

5.58 pm

Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I declarean interest as president or vice-president of a numberof conservation and environment NGOs. I ask theMinister’s forgiveness because I am mystified by theBill. As many noble Lords have said, it seems to be atodds with a whole range of commitments that I thoughtthe coalition much cherished, particularly localism. Italso seems to be a bit of a knee-jerk Bill. It was notincluded in the Queen’s Speech. It has been cobbledtogether with indecent haste and little consultation.As many noble Lords have said, it does little to promotegrowth but puts at risk the protection of our environment.It is also a bit of a windmill-tilting Bill, because itperpetuates the myth that planning is responsible forholding back growth, rather than focusing on thesignificant issue of the lack of finance for investmentand the difficulty that people have in borrowing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, pointed out thatplanning is not the real barrier to growth and that aconsiderable number of building schemes with planningapplications already approved are not being built atthe moment as a result of constraints other than theplanning system. Indeed, the hit rate of planningapplications being approved by local government iscommendably high. What we are seeing in this Bill is aset of proposals that do not do the business in terms ofgrowth but put at risk that important natural capitalthat we have and undermine future prosperity.

Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I am a greatfan of the planning system. It is one of the jewels inthe crown of democracy in this country. It allowsinformed decisions to be made between competinginterests on a local basis in the interests of the public.Anything that knocks that is to be resisted. It is not asif the Government have not already made some prettyclear statements recently about their position on theplanning system. For example, the planning systemwas recognised in the Government’s natural environmentWhite Paper, which was published only in June 2011,as being a vital underpinning of the protection andrestoration of a healthy functioning natural environment.That in itself was recognised as being the underpinningof a prosperous and sustainable economy.

I am mystified that the Bill follows so soon after theplanning reforms introduced by the Localism Act andthe National Planning Policy Framework in 2012. TheNational Planning Policy Framework negotiation was

57 58[8 JANUARY 2013]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

[BARONESS YOUNG OF OLD SCONE]accompanied by much sweat and tears. It seems ashame that we are not allowing it a bit of time to proveits worth.

Why was planning law not got right then, when allthese statements of government policy and legislationwere going through the full panoply of consultationand in-depth parliamentary scrutiny? Why is the coalitioncoming back for another go, which is so sadly at oddswith its recently promoted policies? During the coalitionmid-term review yesterday I was waiting for an admissionthat something was wrong in the planning system.There was a lot about what has been got right, but themid-term review did not say yesterday, “By the way,we screwed up the planning system changes and nowwe need to sort them out”.

What are the changes proposed in the Bill that areout of tune with recently approved legislation or policy?Noble Lords have spoken at length about Clause 1and the designation of poorly performing planningauthorities. That is a retrograde step. It centralisespower in the hands of the Secretary of State. It breakstrust with local communities and runs the risk ofimportant decisions being made out of the local strategicsetting and without access to local information. Thecriteria for designation seem to say “Never mind thequality, feel the speed” and could put pressure on localauthorities to make swift and potentially poor decisionsto avoid losing their planning powers.

The provision in Clause 5 to limit the power torequire information for planning applications seemsunnecessary. Local authorities need the right informationto make an informed decision and the noble Baroness,Lady Valentine, was clear about the need for expertiseand clarity at a local level if good planning decisionsare going to result. A limitation on the power torequire information could result in delays if informationis not available or in challenges to information requests,which again could prolong negotiations. The NationalPlanning Policy Framework has only recently establisheda clear policy on information requirements and, as Isaid before, should be given a chance to prove itsworth.

In Clause 8 the electronic communications codeissue underlines the importance of improving broadbandin rural areas. I live in a village where it is possible tostream the BBC iPlayer only after midnight because ofcompetition for band width. It is only recently thatparagraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Frameworkstressed the responsibility of planning authorities togive greater weight to conserving landscape and scenicbeauty in national parks, the Broads and areas ofoutstanding national beauty. The Bill’s provisions appearto go against that recently settled paragraph.

I worry that this could be a precedent for removingthe greater weight duty in other ways and for openingup an avenue for removing other protections in the future.The reality of knee-jerk legislation is that the knee canjerk in some other random direction in the future.Apart from that this is a pretty evidence-free zone.There is no evidence that the additional protectionafforded to designated landscapes has acted as a barrierto rural growth or has delayed broadband rollout. Thenoble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, rightly pointed out

that the national park authorities have been prettyproactive in minimising visual impact over the pastfive years in broadband applications.

The registration of town or village greens provisionin Clauses 13 and 14 seems to be another “tilting atwindmills” element of the Bill. It appears to have beenintroduced to prevent the registration of a town orvillage green as a ploy for stopping development.There are fewer than 200 applications each year toregister a green. In 2010 there were only 134. A tinyproportion of those could be regarded as vexatious.Potentially we are having a massive piece of legislationto prevent a small number of vexatious applications. Itdoes not seem to be proportionate.

In Clause 24, the inclusion of major business orcommercial projects in the major infrastructure planningregime is another erosion of the principle of localismand could risk that decisions are taken centrally out ofthe local context, uninformed by local expertise andknowledge, and certainly not as part of a local processinformed by local democracy. The local strategic approach,which stresses the value of landscape-level land usedecisions, was emphasised in the Government’s naturalenvironment White Paper as fundamental. This wouldoffend that principle.

The types of development expected to fall withinthe procedure have recently been set out in the governmentconsultation. As other noble Lords have pointed out,these include minerals and gas-extraction projects. Itis not clear how fast-tracking onshore gas and oilextraction could be decided validly in the absence ofnational planning policy on this issue. This must raisemajor questions about the Government’s real commitmentto climate change policy.

I shall say nothing on Clause 27 about creating anew employee shareholder employment status otherthan that I agree with every single syllable that thenoble Lord, Lord Adonis, said on that.

We have a Bill that was introduced at speed, withoutconsultation and with very brief opportunities forengagement. I hesitate to characterise the Secretary ofState as Don Quixote, but you could say that this is aBill that tilts at windmills that do not exist, given thatthere is little or no evidence that these planning issuesare the true obstacles to growth and infrastructure. Itis a Bill that flies in the face of policies and legislationthat are barely dried ink on the paper. The combinationof these features makes this bad legislation. I hopethat the Minister, for whom I have huge respect,having worked with her in Kensington and Chelsea,will use the passage of the Bill to tell us in the Housewhat the real evidence is for these measures. If she isunable to give us real evidence, I hope that she willdrop or amend these proposals.

6.08 pm

Baroness Wheatcroft: My Lords, I will restrict myremarks to Clause 27, which has nothing to do withplanning, but is an attempt to foster growth. As wehave heard, it creates a new class of employee shareholders.The concept of turning workers into shareholders isnot new. At one extreme is the John Lewis Partnershipversion, in which a business is entirely owned by itsstaff. There is plenty of evidence that the model works.

59 60[LORDS]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

The latest Christmas trading figures show John Lewisto have been one of the stars of the season. There areseveral other companies, from booksellers to jam-makers,that now follow that model. However, there are manyother versions of employee shareholders. There areSIPs, CSOPs, SAYE schemes and EMI schemes. Indeed,there are so many versions of employee shareholderschemes and tax benefits that evolve around them,and so complicated are the rules surrounding them,that last year the Office of Tax Simplification decidedthat it had to try to bring some logic to bear on them.This year there will be legislation to tidy up the taxregime relating to these schemes. But just as thesecomplications are being ironed out, this legislationbrings us a new category of employee shareholder—theone who opts to give up most of an employee’s rightsin return for stock.

I think that I understand the thinking that mayhave given rise to this idea. It is a wish to do away withthe antiquated us-and-them attitude that still coloursthe difference between management and labour insome businesses. It is an effort to remove the threat ofindustrial tribunals and potential redundancy payments,which certainly hangs over young businesses and makesthem feel unduly as if their hands have been tiedbehind their back. It is an effort to engender the spiritof the John Lewis Partnership in its go-getting new-business way, the sort of thing that will bring us thegrowth that we need.

Yet we need to look more carefully at what theclause is trying to do and whether it will have thedesired effect. As it is currently drafted, a gift of shareswith a minimum value of just £2,000 would be sufficientto buy out a package of employment rights. Imagine,if you will, a worker with family responsibilities boundinghome to tell his partner that he has signed away anyrights to redundancy for a package of shares that, ifhe is lucky, may be worth something one day but couldeventually be worthless. I am reminded of that TomLehrer song where he bumps into Walter Raleigh, whois trying to explain to him about tobacco. “What?”, hesays; “You do what?”. If someone goes home andannounces that they have sold their rights for a fewshares, that is the sort of response that they mightget—“What?”.

We need to look again at this proposal. First, ifcompanies wish to take advantage of this new employeestatus, it should be an annual commitment betweenemployer and employee. Agreeing an annual paymentof shares in lieu of employment rights may enableworkers to build meaningful stakes in businesses, butthat cannot be a one-off transaction, a small paymentto buy—potentially—many years of servitude. Secondly,it is wrong to make part of the deal sacrificing theright to demand training. If the aim of this measure isto get everyone working towards the same end, surelyan acceptance of the desirability of training is key. Weneed our businesses to be skilled; we need the workforceall to be aiming to be the best at the job, constantlyadding to their abilities and skills, not signing awaytheir rights to more training but, on the contrary,begging for more and more, and prepared to give theirtime to learn.

The object of this clause should not be to create anew underclass of employee shareholder but to generatea wider concept of ownership. It should be trulyvoluntary. I have listened to the qualms raised by thenoble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Monks, and thenoble Baroness, Lady Brinton, but I hope and trustthat my noble friend will put their minds, and mine, atrest. This provision must not be allowed to be abullies’ charter. It would fail in its ultimate aim if itwere allowed to be used that way, inflicted on anunwilling workforce. There should be no compunctionon those on jobseeker’s allowance to accept an employee/owner job. I hope that many of those would like theidea of ownership and be tempted to take that job, butwe should not force them to do so. We need to find away to make the employee/owner option an attractiveone, so while some rights are sacrificed, others shouldbe conferred—perhaps membership of a works council,for instance.

I do not like to see legislation wasted, but in itscurrent form Clause 27 runs the risk of dying on thevine. Yet there is no need for that. With some effort,the clause could be turned into a worthwhile extraweapon for employers to use to help them build businesseswith a loyal, dedicated workforce that saw itself as onthe same side. We need to look again at Clause 27. Asit is, it will not achieve anything. However, I hope thatthe Minister will see it as a beginning rather than anend.

6.15 pm

Lord Morris of Handsworth: My Lords, I trust thatthe House will understand if I limit my contributionto the provisions of Clause 27. As noble Lords havealready heard, many in this House had hoped andindeed anticipated that the Bill would have been informedby the recent report, No Stone Unturned, authored bythe noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, and recently debatedin this House. That report was built upon his experience,coupled with intellectual rigour. Sadly, however, whatwe have instead are some of the remnants of theBeecroft utterances, which are part of the packagebeing incrementally introduced through primary legislationand the regulatory framework and which demonstratethat the Government’s real agenda is to change thebalance of the workplace relationship.

In fact, the introduction to the Department forBusiness, Innovation and Skills website, on the subjectof employment tribunal changes, could not be anyclearer: it says that they will make it easier for businessto take on staff and improve the process when staffhave to be let go. So now we know what the Government’sreal industrial agenda is: there is nothing about increasingthe skills level, training and retraining opportunities,investing in adult apprenticeships for those who missedfirst training opportunities, or meaningful partnership,as the Minister recently outlined. There is nothingabout consultation, how decisions are made or theprospects for the future development of the enterprises.

At Second Reading of the Enterprise and RegulatoryReform Bill, I said:

“You do not boost recovery by making it easier to fire workers.You boost recovery by making it easier to hire workers”.—[OfficialReport, 14/11/12; col. 1585.]

61 62[8 JANUARY 2013]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

[LORD MORRIS OF HANDSWORTH]I stand by that statement. You do not build a stableworkforce by taking away workers’ rights, somethingthat the Government seem not to understand. TheGovernment do not understand that in the workplacerights and responsibilities go hand in hand. Workerscannot be expected to discharge responsibility if theyfeel devowed of their rights.

What is at risk in Clause 27 is very clear but the realdifficulty is that we pay a heavy price for Clause 27. Itundermines the fundamental rights on which goodindustrial working practices are built. Instead ofstimulating growth, this Bill, along with other packagesintroduced under the veil of growth, is a hidden charterwhich provides for hiring and firing.

It is not unreasonable to pause here and ask, “Howdid we get here?”. I read in no manifesto, or indeed inthe coalition agreement, that a Bill would be comingforward that contained the provisions of Clause 27.We got here because the Government will listen onlyto those who agree with their strategy and philosophy.They will listen only to the IoD and the CBI. Indeed,the recent publication from the IoD sets out a 10-pointcharter for so-called reform and control of the tradeunions. In some instances I am not sure whether theIoD publication draws its source from Clause 27 orClause 27 draws its source from the IoD publication.If you read one, save yourself some time—you do nothave to read the other.

The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, dealt superbly withthe issues around consultation. All I want to add isthat the 21 days allowed for consultation on a matterof fundamental importance in terms of Britain’s futuregrowth and infrastructure development is an affrontto democracy. No wonder only 184 responses werereceived—out of those, only two individuals and onebusiness stated that they would be minded to take upthe options under Clause 27.

These proposals are without support, not from theusual suspects but from business and professionalgroups as well as legal practitioners and professionalcommentators including the Employee OwnershipAssociation, the Chartered Institute of Personnel andDevelopment and, as we have heard, the Law Society.The Equality and Human Rights Commission and theFawcett Society have both expressed concerns thatthe employee shareholder proposal will encouragediscrimination because it is likely to affect women inthe workplace disproportionately. Women are morelikely to be employed part time, to be carers, to needparental leave and to be pressured into acceptinglower status even before accepting a job offer. If theGovernment are really serious about wanting womento return to the labour market, they are not goingabout it in the right way. Clause 27 takes away thesupport that working women badly need such as training,flexible working and parental support.

Where is the evidence for the Government’s claimthat this Bill is necessary? Many who work in industryand understand how it operates see this Bill not as anasset but as a potential liability. In his report the nobleLord, Lord Heseltine, stresses the need for local enterprisepartnerships to be the engine for delivering growthand infrastructure development for the future. The

architects of this Bill see the primary solution toBritain’s industrial malaise as simply attacking workers’rights. That has been tried before and it failed.

Will the Minister inform the House whether allemployees would be eligible for these shares? Will therebe a qualification period towards entitlement and, ifso, at what point would the employees lose theirrights? Will there be equality between full and part-timeemployees? What happens when the company getstaken over? What happens if the company goes intoliquidation? You lose your shares and your employmentrights.

The reality is that you have to consult, and be openand engaging. I say to the noble Baroness, LadyWheatcroft, that I was an employee shareholder in acompany for which I worked for more than 18 years. Idid not have to give up my statutory employmentrights; I was never asked to give up any rights whatever.That company was successful and still is.

I am a firm supporter of credible employee shareholderownership and of the principles advocated by theNuttall review but I doubt whether the proposals forselling workers’ rights for a few shares are credible,moral or fair.

6.27 pm

Lord Greaves: My Lords, it is a pleasure as usual tofollow the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Handsworth. Itis becoming a habit that I get put down to follow himand, as usual, I agree with what he has just said, whichfits in, as far as Clause 27 is concerned, very neatlywith what has been said by a number of noble Lordsaround the House speaking from different perspectives—the noble Lord, Lord Monks, my noble friends LadyBrinton and Lady Wheatcroft. I am grateful to mynoble friend Lady Wheatcroft for the thought thatonly in the House of Lords could someone quote TomLehrer and expect everyone present to understand thereference and remember the song.

This is a very unsatisfactory Bill. It is interestingthat, apart from the Minister’s introduction, it has nothad a huge amount of enthusiastic support aroundthe House. I call it an “odds and sods” Bill. Perhapsthat is too rude for the House of Lords. In the olddays, before Governments labelled Bills with soundbitesand slogans such as “growth”, and actually said whatthey were, it would have been called the Planning(Miscellaneous Provisions and One or Two OtherThings) Bill, which is exactly what it is.

I get very frustrated by it. Following the nobleBaroness introducing Tom Lehrer, I wondered what Ishould do to remove my frustrations and thought thatperhaps going shooting pigeons in the park might atleast take some of them away. However, there are lotsof enthusiasts for nature conservation, and even pigeons,around here who might chase me if I tried to do thatso I will forget that thought.

I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, LordRooker—I am sorry he has just gone—for hecklinghim when he was speaking, which is a most un-Lordlything to do but just shows the frustrations over thisBill. He was adamant that ward councillors cannotdeal with planning applications in their own wards.

63 64[LORDS]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

I must live in a different universe from him because inDecember I was at a planning committee—a developmentcontrol committee—at which not only was there a bigplanning application for housing in my ward but Imoved the resolution that the committee then passedunanimously. So the world is not as the noble Lord,Lord Rooker, thinks.

Thinking of local government, I declare my interestsin full—a habit I have as a local councillor, wherethe rules seem to be stricter than in your Lordships’House. I am a vice-president of the LGA. As I havealready said, I am an active member of Pendle BoroughCouncil; I am “portfolio holder for planning policy”,whatever that may mean. I am an active member ofcommittees on and a patron of the British MountaineeringCouncil. I am a member and patron of the Friends ofthe Lake District, and a member and vice-president ofthe Open Spaces Society. At least I know have thoseon record for the rest of the Bill.

I am concerned about Bills such as this, which seemto be the result of a circular that goes around todifferent departments saying, “We are putting thisgeneral Bill about growth and infrastructure forward.Have you anything lying around that you might like toput into it?”. There are two or three Bills of this naturegoing around at the moment. They can lead to unintendedconsequences and unexpected outcomes. The departmentsput forward what I might call one-off wheezes whichhave not been properly thought through in the contextof the legislation of which they are part. There is nounderlying structure or philosophy about it; they arejust put forward and can have unintended consequences.The outcomes of the Bill might be like that.

They can also, if we are not careful, undermine thebasic principles and structures that lie behind legislation,areas of government and government policy. We seethat in this Bill. We see it in the planning system. Wespent a huge amount of time discussing the passageof the Localism Act 2011; many noble Lords in theChamber today were involved in it. Whatever many ofus thought about the outcomes—some very good,some perhaps not so good—they were neverthelessbased on the philosophy of how the planning systemshould work. Now we are putting it into practice tosee if it will work.

However, what we have here is ad hoc, hotchpotchmessing about with bits of the planning system, someof which seems to completely contradict the philosophybehind the Localism Act. We have changes to planningrules and regulations proposed for national parks,removing requirements on the Secretary of State tohave special regard to conservation and the environmentin national parks, done on an ad hoc basis. If theGovernment want to change the way national parkswork to make them more growth-based, perhaps theyshould change the philosophy and the ideas behind itand let us have a national parks Bill under which wecan discuss that properly across the board. Some of uswould be very unhappy about it but we could neverthelessdiscuss it. Bringing one-off measures such as thisforward, which may then be cited as a precedent—“Wedid that for that and it was not too disastrous, so wecan do it for that and a bit more”—is not the way toget coherent legislation.

The proposals for town and village greens sufferfrom the same problem. There are clearly problems insome places. It is ludicrous that somebody can applyto register a town or village green on a piece of landwhich already has housing built on it. The wholeprocedure for registering town and village greens is, inmy view, too legalistic and overbureaucratic. However,just bringing forward a one-off proposal which seemsto solve a small-scale problem is not how to makequite significant changes to the whole regime set out inthe Commons Act 2006. It is not the way to dolegislation.

Noble Lords have referred to Clause 1 and the wayin which naughty or inefficient councils might bedesignated so that people then have the option tomake planning applications direct. Quite apart fromthe principle behind this, with which many of us areobviously not happy, all sorts of practical problemswill arise which we have to look into very carefully inCommittee. The local authority will need to keep aplanning department because some planning applicationswill go to it, so presumably that department will getless cost-effective and efficient. We have not beengiven any proper figures on the cost to government ofboosting the Planning Inspectorate. There is the question,for example, of pre-application discussions with applicants.Who will do those? Will it be the local planningauthority? Will it be the Planning Inspectorate? Whowill be responsible for that? Will it be the local planningauthority up to some stage, and then, when people say,“Oh, we are not getting very far with that lot”, will itmove to the Planning Inspectorate? Perhaps everythingwill have to start again.

Where the local planning authority has to do work,on behalf of the Planning Inspectorate or otherwisebecause the application has gone there in the first place,will it be reimbursed for that? Where will the planningapplications fee go? It all seems to be a very messysledgehammer to crack a nut, with lots of unintendedcompromises. If nothing else, we in the House ofLords have to probe properly the workability of it all,in the way that the House is very often so good at.

On Clause 8, on electronic communications, I amconcerned about why these large cabinets are requiredand why the electronics industry, which is miniaturisingeverything at such a huge rate, still needs these cabinetswhich are the size of a big wardrobe. That kind ofpractical thing, in addition to all the other importantpoints that have been made, must be sorted out.

On town and villages, under Clauses 13 and 14,there is a perfectly acceptable way of doing exactlywhat the Government want without driving a coachand horses though the very principle of the CommonsAct and the registration of greens. There is a lot ofmisunderstanding about greens. They are not a planningdesignation. It is not a matter of deciding whether it isa good idea or not, it is a matter of fact. It originallycame from prescriptive common-law rights acquiredover time, which were first codified in the CommonsRegistration Act of 1965, and then most recently inthe Commons Act 2006, of which some have ablessed memory. If we are to disrupt that whole system,we should do it very carefully. On the other hand,the Government said that they wanted to align the

65 66[8 JANUARY 2013]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

[LORD GREAVES]commons registration system with the planning systemwhere there were planning proposals. That is absolutelysensible. It can be done, and a consequence may bethat the town and village greens registration systemcan be made more efficient. However, the way in whichit is being done in the Bill abolishes people’s rights,rather than aligning them with the planning system.

I will certainly be making proposals in Committeethat I hope the Government will at least consider anddiscuss sensibly. I look forward to the Committee,along with everybody else.

6.37 pm

Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, I should have likedto welcome a Bill that encourages growth and improvesinfrastructure. The country certainly needs it. However,this Bill is largely a missed opportunity. Before I start,I need to declare my interests as well. I am leader ofWigan Council and chairman of the Greater ManchesterCombined Authority. I remind London-based colleaguesthat theirs is not the only conurbation with a form ofgovernance; we have one in Manchester. I am also avice-president of the LGA.

Like other Members, I think that the evidence thatthe economy is being held up by the planning system isjust not there. The Minister has not really added toour understanding of that. We are not holding backgrowth with an inadequate planning system. In fact, inhousing, as the Minister herself said, there have been alarge number of approvals in recent years. People havesaid that there are over 400,000 outstanding planningapplications, so clearly there is an opportunity in thesystem to build homes if people want to take it.However, they are not being taken up, largely becauseof funding issues and the weaknesses in the housingmarket. In most parts of the country, economicuncertainties and the changes to mortgage fundinghave certainly fundamentally altered the demand forhousing. Developers are uncertain and, assuming thatthey can find funding, they are unlikely to start buildingnew homes which are likely to go unsold.

Contrasting with the Government’s view on theneed to stimulate growth is the recent report, whichmany Members have already mentioned, of the nobleLord, Lord Heseltine, No Stone Unturned. He believesin a localist approach, not the centrist approach whichthe Bill seems to be. He wants to identify publicfunding and allocate it to infrastructure projects, makingsure that local and central government have arrangementsthat can achieve growth.

I should like to make some more detailed commentson Clauses 1, 6 and 25. The most worrying aspect ofClause 1 is its undermining of local accountability.Any major development will have a significant impacton local communities. Local authorities are best ableto understand the impact of this effect and to makesure that it can be considered—and where possiblethey can achieve some degree of mitigation. No inspector,wherever they come from, will have that level ofunderstanding of a local area. They will come in andgo out, but the local planning authority has to livewith the consequences of its decisions in the future.We are, in fact, undermining localism.

Effectively, the clause intends to create a blacklist ofplanning authorities that cannot be trusted with majorapplications. We need to understand more about howthis will work. It is a significant change to localauthorities. While we might not want to see criteriaput on the face of the Bill, we need to understandmore about which criteria will be used and how theywill be applied. The Government have mentioned thewords “timeless” and “quality”, but how will that bejudged—on a one-yearly, two-yearly or five-yearlybasis? Clearly, if an authority has a very complex,major application in one particular year, it may distortthe results, which could result in their being put on theblacklist. I am also intrigued to know how, if anauthority has got on such a blacklist, it can get off it.How can it get off a blacklist if it is not dealing withmajor planning applications? How can it prove that ithas now reformed itself and can deal with it? That isan important issue.

The Government also have a blind faith in thePlanning Inspectorate’s ability to do the job better. Itcertainly does not seem to have the capacity to do it atthe moment. In my experience of it dealing withplanning decisions, it is not very timely, it is veryexpensive, and it does not always come to the rightdecision. I could quote many examples of that and Iam sure that noble Lords could also do the same.

Under Clause 6, local authorities may seek Section 106agreements so that they are able, when they approvemajor applications, to get the developer to attempt tomitigate some of the impacts on local communities.Affordable housing is the most important part ofthese obligations. It enables local authorities to startdoing something about what I believe is a very urgentproblem and one which was not tackled enough by theprevious Government and is not being tackled enoughby the present Government. Section 106 agreementswere beginning to start to show an increase in that andI would be very concerned if that was not the case.

My authority renegotiates Section 106 agreementsif we feel that it is necessary to do so. However, we doit on a case-by-case basis because we recognise thateconomic circumstances have changed. I feel that Clause 6might give an opportunity for unscrupulous developers—Iam sure that people do not know any of those butthere may be one or two around—who will overpromisewhat they will deliver in order to get a planningpermission and then not deliver it by seeking to have itundermined under this clause. The key to this is todetermine the economic viability of a particular scheme.It is a very complicated deal. If developers have overpaidfor a piece of land, is that not their responsibility?They made that judgment. We seem to be providingthem with insurance. They can offer what they wantfor land and they will somehow get away with itbecause they will be able to renegotiate a Section 106agreement. I am concerned that we are saying that ifwe are to give powers to the Secretary of State, thenthis will come under the Planning Inspectorate.Determining the economic viability of particular schemesis not the skill of the Planning Inspectorate.

I have tried my best to understand the Government’sobjectives in Clause 25 with regard to deferring therevaluation of business rates. In her opening statement,

67 68[LORDS]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

the Minister referred to the need to give certainty tobusiness. However, that is not a neutral act. We providebusinesses with this certainty, but in fact we keep theunfairness, which is that businesses that have beenbadly affected by the economic changes from fiveyears ago will not have revaluation at the moment.This will have a significant impact on certain parts ofthe economy.

As I began to look at what I would say in today’sdebate I became more aware of the amazing feeling inthe property sector against this clause. One propertycompany has an online petition to try to stop thisclause going through, and many others are complainingagainst it. Coming from the north, what concerns me,as Members might understand, is the regionaldifferentiation that this will create. The economicperformance of this country over the past five yearshas been different in different parts of the country. Ifwe perpetuate the current level of business rate in thefuture, then we simply perpetuate that unfairness goingforward. Of course, this is in favour of London andthe south-east.

It will also impact differently on different sectors ofthe economy, not all of which have performed well.Much of the concern that I read about is for the retailsector. We have clearly seen today that the impact overChristmas has perhaps not been what the retail tradewould have wanted. We have seen the closures ofmajor retail companies over the past few months.Anywhere you go, in all parts of the country, you seein many town centres the blight of boarded-up shopsand the consequences of that on shopping in towns.

What will this do if we then keep the high level ofbusiness rates for the retail sector for those towncentres that need some stimulus? The Government areright that some sectors will benefit from the change,one of which will be caravan parks. With all respect tothe Government, I do not feel that our economicfuture is dependent on a successful caravan park sector.We need to stimulate more important parts of theeconomy.

I am also concerned that once we stop what hasbeen an agreed five-yearly review of business rates,when it comes to 2017 the government of the day maythink, “Oh my goodness, this is going to be moredifficult. It’s more turbulent than it would have beensome years ago. We’ll put it off again. We don’t wantto cause turbulence”. What is my belief about that?We have a system of council tax where the propertiesare valued as though we were back in 1991. NoGovernment have had the courage to revalue counciltax valuations since 1991. We are simply frightened ofdoing it. We are now fossilising the business rates asthough we are back in 2012.

Following the inspiration of the noble Baroness,Lady Wheatcroft, I also thought about a song. Lookingaround the House, I see that noble Lords are mainly ofmy generation. Do noble Lords remember from theiryouth the song “The Grand Coulee Dam”? When Iwas a lad I did not understand that. Who would writea song about a dam? However, when I grew up Iunderstood the importance of the “Grand CouleeDam” as part of Roosevelt’s New Deal programmeand the impact that it had on the north-west of America

both in the short term and in the long term, providingthe power that stimulated Boeing and other companiesto provide all those bombers that were needed duringthe Second World War.

I would like to think, but I do not believe, that thisBill will provide such a stimulation for a piece ofinfrastructure in the north-west of England that wouldcreate jobs both in the short term and in the long term.However, I am an optimist, and I hope that we canimprove the Bill so that it lives up to its name.

6.49 pm

Lord Teverson: My Lords, I, too, declare my interests.I am a member of a unitary local authority, CornwallCouncil. I am a substitute member of the planningcommittee. Because I am a substitute, I thank goodnessthat I do not often have to attend in terms of thatparticular function, but I went through all the trainingand did all of that. I also have a role which in someways is on the other side: I chair a commercialdevelopment company with interests in the south-west,which applies for a number of planning permissions todo with commercial development.

Something that particularly struck me about thetiming of this Bill is that, although it seems a long timeago—in politics I guess it is—it was only in March lastyear that the National Planning Policy Frameworkwas decided, and the Minister delivered it and made aStatement. I will come back to that Statement. It was amere 10 months ago that we completely revolutionisedthe planning system. I was very iffy about what wouldcome out of it and was one of the many people who,when the Government started to move into consultation,thought that we would have rip-roaring development;that the sustainable part of development would beforgotten; and that the Government, for good reasonsin many ways but with a bad effect, would not pay alot of attention to the consultation.

However, my cynicism was absolutely wrong. TheGovernment came out with an extremely good andbalanced planning foundation that set a course that Ithink will be successful for the future. It was wellbalanced, and it took away the sclerotic planningsystem and all the different policies and recommendationsthat local government departments had at the time. Itwas also absolutely clear where government planningpolicy was going.

I took the opportunity of reading the right honourableGreg Clark’s Statement to the House of Commons.He was very good in outlining what the reforms wereabout. There were three fundamental objectives. Thefirst was,“to put unprecedented power in the hands of communities toshape the places in which they will live”.

The second was,“to support growth better to give the next generation the chancethat our generation has had to have a decent home, and to allowthe jobs to be created on which our prosperity depends”.

That is very much what this Bill is supposed to beabout, but we will have to see whether it achieves that.

The third objective was,“to ensure that the places we cherish—our countryside, townsand cities—are bequeathed to the next generation in a bettercondition than they are in now”.

69 70[8 JANUARY 2013]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

[LORD TEVERSON]That time dimension incorporates an understandingthat planning is not just about now, or about economicgrowth now, but about sustainability for the future interms of the environment and about long-termenvironmental viability.

Greg Clark continued with what to me is the keysentence. He said:

“A decade of regional spatial strategies, top-down targets andnational planning policy guidance that has swelled beyond reason—over 1,000 pages across 44 documents—has led to communitiesseeing planning as something done to them, rather than bythem”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/3/12; col. 1337.]

I think, “Hallelujah, that is absolutely right”. I havebeen involved in European-level politics, national politicsand local government politics. That is exactly how it is:local government feels that it is done to it rather thanby it.

That is why this Bill really disappoints me in termsof what I see as the Government somehow, after only10 months, losing confidence in that very clear visionthat they had at the time—and that I hope that theystill have. It seems that they have somehow shifted intoreverse gear. I will not go through the clauses in detailbecause noble Lords have done so already. Clause 1enables the Secretary of State to take over the planningfunctions of failed authorities and to delegate upwardsto the Planning Inspectorate.

As regards the information requirements, again Icome back to the National Planning Policy Frameworkdocument. Paragraph 193 states:

“Local planning authorities should publish a list of theirinformation requirements for applications, which should beproportionate to the nature and scale of development proposalsand reviewed on a frequent basis. Local planning authoritiesshould only request supporting information that is relevant,necessary and material to the application in question”.

I do not think that anyone could disagree with that;yet somehow we are trying to redefine that in this Billwhen we have already cleared out past policy andmade it very clear.

My local authority is very aware that if Section 106agreements do not work or are not working, theyshould be up for review. I take absolutely the instancethat what that should not do—but what it risks doing—is,as has just been said, make the bad deals done bydevelopers in the past somehow too big to fail. Themoral hazard issue comes back there. In terms ofClause 24, I find it very concerning in that here we aredealing with the major infrastructure planning regimethat we went through in the 2008 Act under the previousGovernment. Perhaps unlike some of my LiberalDemocrat colleagues, I strongly believe that somenational projects—perhaps on energy or transport—didnot fit well into local planning and that there neededto be an alternative approach. I get very concernedwhen that now could apply to commercial and industrialdevelopments, which by their nature have a local basis.I believe that there are a number of dangers here.

In terms of planning at the local authority level, weshould decide that if it is broken we should not putanother infrastructure above it but should fix theproblem where it is at the moment. In particular, weshould give the National Planning Policy Frameworktime to work. Where are we at the moment? As far as I

am aware, we have not had even one neighbourhoodplan agreed. Yet we have that balance between localcommunities being able to produce their own plansand having to make sure that they do not opt out of allthe obligations of a community but have to tie up withthe broader local plan, which I think is the rightbalance. We have not given it time to be implemented.As to bad planning decisions and whether they aremade by the national inspectorate or are outside thecommunity’s control, we are stuck with them for decadesonce we have made them. That, too, is an issue we haveto remember.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, mentioned theproportion of land that is industrialised or developedat the moment, which is relatively low. On one point Iparticularly agreed with him: even in rural areas—theNPPF does this—we have to be aware that there isproper development. I believe that the NPPF alreadydoes that. I suggest to the Government that an areathey really want to look at is something like vexatiousjudicial reviews on planning, which can happen throughvery rich, narrow interest groups that are trying tostop community developments. Perhaps the three-monthlimit should be reduced.

The main thing that I will say is that I am acomplete convert to the Government’s planning policy.I just wish that this Bill would conform to their ownviews on planning for the future.

6.57 pm

Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I have a completelydifferent take on the National Planning Policy Frameworkfrom the previous speaker. Our present—perhaps Ishould say pre-existing—planning system had its inceptionin the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, whichwas enacted by the post-war Labour Government. Butplanning in the UK has had a far longer history.

The 1947 Act was inspired, in large measure, bysuch advocates of town and country planning as OctaviaHill, Henrietta and Samuel Barnett, and EbenezerHoward, but the line of descent extends back at leastto the Welsh social reformer Robert Owen. The historyof planning is closely aligned with that of the socialistmovement. However, that has not prevented some inthe Conservative Party honouring the early protagonistsof planning.

In a recent speech, delivered at the annual conferenceof the Town and Country Planning Association, PlanningMinister Nick Boles extolled the virtues of this longtradition. He described the planning system as a meansby which villages, parishes and other neighbourhoodscan take control of their future and decide for themselveshow and where development should take place. Herethere was surely an allusion to the Conservatives’localism agenda. Of course, this is not the principalvirtue of our planning system. Our planning system isa means by which the conflicting interests of diverseparties on a national, regional and local level can bereconciled in an orderly manner within a rationalframework and in a way that might help to preserve orenhance our urban and rural environments.

Notwithstanding the acknowledgements of thePlanning Minister, it is undoubtedly true that in theperception of many Conservative politicians the planning

71 72[LORDS]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

system is tainted by socialism and is therefore theobject of much thoughtless criticism. The planningsystem’s careful provisions and restraints are characterisedas so much red tape to be cut through, to release debristhat can be swept away vigorously. The Government’sNational Planning Policy Framework, which is a precursorto the planning and innovation Bill, is a product ofthis Conservative mentality and gives a good indicationof the equivocation and confusion to which that mentalitycan give rise.

A boast that was proclaimed by the previousConservative Planning Minister, Greg Clark, in hisintroduction to the document issued in March 2012 bythe Department for Communities and Local Government,is that the National Planning Policy Framework hasreplaced more than 1,000 pages of guidance andregulations with 50 pages, written simply and clearly,that are aimed at allowing people and communities toparticipate in the business of planning. In the main,the nostrums of the National Planning Policy Frameworkare unexceptional, and some are even laudable in amanner that befits a Government who, at the outset,declared their intention to be the greenest Administrationever.

On the strength of the text, it might seem that theConservatives have absorbed the ethos of town andcountry planning and that they are intent on making ittheir own. However, the words of the document arean utter deception. Its real import is contained in amere two pages of an annexe, which lists the 44 planningdocuments that are replaced by the new planningframework. The two pages are evidence of anextraordinary act of vandalism. A set of sophisticatedand carefully crafted documents, which have providedpolicy guidance in many specific circumstances andhave been developed and refined over the past 25 years,have been tossed into the rubbish bin, to be replacedby 50 pages of vacuous pieties.

The atavistic attitudes of the Conservatives havecome to the fore in the Bill that we are considering,which is remarkable for the way in which it representsthe Conservative mythologies regarding the planningsystem. The Bill proposes to promote investment ininfrastructure projects and reduce delays in the planningsystem. Under the proposals, many infrastructure projectswill be referred to the Secretary of State rather thanto local planning authorities, supposedly in order toexpedite the progress of those projects. This extraordinaryand high-handed measure will give arbitrary andexorbitant powers to the Minister and represents acomplete reversal of the Government’s localisationagenda.

In a manner that is reminiscent of the Government’sattack on supposed benefit scroungers, the Secretaryof State for Communities and Local Government,Eric Pickles, is proposing to target recalcitrant councilsand planning authorities with special measures. However,when challenged to name any such authorities or todeclare the criteria against which they might bejudged, he has not been forthcoming. No evidence hasbeen provided to show that the planning process isimposing costs or delays on private developers thatare not justified by the protection of the publicinterest.

Merrick Cockell, the Conservative chairman of theLocal Government Association, has recently demolishedthe idea that planning regulations are inhibiting thebuilding of houses. As we have heard, Cockell pointedto the fact that 400,000 plots across England andWales already have planning permission, which isenough to last for three years at the current rate ofconstruction. He has indicated that the problem liesnot in the planning process but in financing. Developerscannot borrow money to start building homes, andpotential homeowners cannot get mortgages. Nor arethe developers willing to proceed before they can see aprospect of increasing house prices.

The Bill will also allow planning obligations relatingto affordable housing, established under Section 106of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to berenegotiated and, in effect, suspended, with the aim ofmaking development more profitable to constructioncompanies. It is extraordinary to be contemplatingsuch a measure at a time when we need affordablehousing in a way that has never been more acute. Oneis reminded of the fact that, in a previous period ofprolonged economic distress, the 1930s, local authoritieswere actively encouraged by central government toprovide affordable housing on a large scale, in theform of so-called council houses. A policy of this sortis something that the present Government are unableto contemplate.

Of course, housing is not the only concern of theBill. Many national projects such as airports, powerstations and railways are to be taken into account. Inthis connection, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,George Osborne, is on record as expressing his regretthat we cannot proceed in the manner of China, whichis to ride roughshod over all interests that might beadversely affected by such projects. However, it is noton account of unconquerable opposition that thiscountry is failing to proceed with the major projectsthat are necessary for the revival and maintenance ofits prosperity. In every one of these connections, it isthe Government’s failure of political will that is atfault. The Government are fearful of the effect ontheir electoral prospects that the pursuit of such projectsmight have. Surely it is only by reconciling conflictinginterests via a vigorous planning system, involvingproper compensation of disadvantaged parties, thatsuch major infrastructure projects can be pursued tothe advantage of all of us.

7.05 pm

Lord Best: My Lords, I declare my interests aspresident of the Local Government Association, whichrepresents local planning authorities, and as chair ofthe Hanover Housing Association, which seeks planningconsent for numerous housing projects for older people.

In terms of the Bill’s main policy objective—topromote economic growth and remove barriers todevelopment of infrastructure and new housing—Imust express my full support. In particular, I greatlywelcome the Government’s ambition to secure morehousebuilding at this time when the output of newhomes is at its lowest level since the early 1920s,despite a far higher population today that is living farlonger. This pathetic level of housebuilding is creating

73 74[8 JANUARY 2013]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

[LORD BEST]enormous strains on the lives of almost all those intheir 20s and 30s who wish to leave their parental home.I strongly commend the robust stance of the Ministerfor Planning, Nick Boles. With backing from all partsof the coalition Government, this Minister is preparedto speak out for the generation which the rest of usseem determined to condemn to paying huge proportionsof their income in rents or, for those few who canraise large deposits in mortgage payments, to commutinglong distances to match a home that they canafford with a job that they can secure, or to living inseverely overcrowded conditions or even experiencinghomelessness.

The Bill seeks to ensure that inhibitions on housingproviders—housing associations and housebuilders—donot perpetuate the huge shortfalls between the numberof new households formed each year, which is around250,000, and the number of new homes built eachyear, which is less than 125,000. It is essential toaddress this vast gap between supply and demand thatis accumulating year by year and creating a nationalhousing deficit that will take even longer to eradicatethan the nation’s financial deficit.

I feel particularly warmly towards a Minister who isprepared to take a stand on the need for more newhomes because I know that this is not a road toelectoral popularity. His robust stance is desperatelyneeded, but it always meets entrenched vocal opposition.I appreciated the way that Charles Moore, previouslyeditor of the Daily Telegraph, summarised this recentlyin the Spectator, with special reference to rural areas.He said:

“Only in Britain—only, actually, in England—do people believethey are doing country life a good turn by refusing to buildhouses for the next generation to inhabit. It is a more powerfulattack on rural culture and the rural poor than were the HighlandClearances”.

Almost no one votes for new housebuilding in theirarea, let alone for new roads or other infrastructure.Over recent decades, I have had dealings with virtuallyall the relevant Housing and Planning Ministers, includingthe noble Lord, Lord Rooker, of course. They haveusually been keen to see housing shortages reducedbut have been overwhelmed by opposition to development.During Ministers’ tenure, which is seldom more than acouple of years, there is time to become unpopular bytaking a pro-development line but not time enough tosee any meaningful results. The problem thereforepasses to the next Minister and the accumulatinghousing deficit grows larger.

I congratulate the Government and the leadershipof their Planning Minister on giving this problem ahigh priority and on trying to ensure that the currentoutput of new homes is not exacerbated by bureaucraticbarriers and defects in the planning system. Do Ibelieve that easing planning delays or reducingdemands by planners will lead inexorably to a returnto housebuilding levels equivalent to the 1950s, 1960s,1970s or 1980s, or even the 1930s? No, it willtake more than a few tweaks to planning to make realprogress, but I greatly welcome the Government’s newcan-do, must-do approach to reducing the housingdeficit.

Turning to points of detail in the Bill, perhaps Icould briefly put down some markers—positive andnegative—on matters that I hope we will debate whenthe Bill moves into Committee. First, there are concernsthroughout local government about the Government’sfall-back provisions to bypass those local planningauthorities that are deemed to be failing in their duties.We will need to look at those measures with very greatcare, as several other noble Lords have said. Secondly,there is the welcome measure to prevent abuses of thetown and village green legislation. That will get my fullsupport, having experienced at first hand the frustrations,expense and delays of ridiculous applications for so-calledvillage greens; for example, for one of about 50 acreson the edge of York. Thirdly, I was pleased to see themeasures for easing inhibitions on selling land atbelow market value, which will be important.

Fourthly, there are the proposals for modifying orremoving the requirements for affordable housing,agreed between local planning authorities andhousebuilders. I am unable to help the Government onthat. These Section 106 agreements have been hugelyvaluable in achieving much needed rented and shared-ownership homes, almost always with ownership andmanagement being transferred to a housing association.They mean that so-called social housing is providedwithin mixed-tenure developments, not in segregated,separated ghettos just for those on the very lowestincomes. The cost of those obligations on housebuildershas been reflected in the price that those buildersnegotiate with landowners, and communities havebenefited by obtaining more affordable homes withoutthe public subsidy that would otherwise be needed.

Local planning authorities should not lightly giveup the benefits that they have secured through thoseextremely important Section 106 agreements. Of course,housebuilders would like to increase their profitabilityby being let off commitments that they have made.Perhaps foolishly, they paid over the odds for sites,speculating on further price rises that never happened.Now they want to be bailed out for the mistakes thatthey made. How galling would it be for more prudentdevelopers to see those who outbid them for sitesbeing rewarded for their gamble by being let off theobligations to which they had signed up? However, insome cases prices have fallen significantly, as in NorthernIreland, although the Section 106 agreements do notapply there.

It would be better for the wider community toforego the benefits of some affordable housing inreturn for keeping some housebuilding going. Localauthorities have shown themselves willing to act flexiblyin these cases and the LGA has provided lots ofexamples of councils being sympathetic and sensible,not that authorities should make such concessions tooreadily. A number of major housebuilders have seenmuch improved profits of late; indeed, house priceshave risen in London and elsewhere. Developers maynot be holding back on building on the sites withplanning consent—there are 440,000 homes on thosesites—for reasons related to Section 106 agreements.Rather, they are waiting for confidence to return to themarket with, once again, buyers clamouring to buy.

75 76[LORDS]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Meanwhile, undeveloped sites remain valuable. Theyfortify balance sheets and convince shareholders ofthe housebuilder’s worth. Holding land—hoarding land,as some would say—can be good business. The worstoutcome from the Bill’s measure on easing planningobligations for affordable housing would be to encouragedevelopers to sit on their hands and await an easing ofrequirements so that when market pressures are soextreme that they can sell everything they build easily,profits will be magnified. Any deals must clearly involvea requirement on the developer to get buildingimmediately. Obviously that part of the Bill can beonly about the past—about deals done in better times—and the signal should not go out that there will be anyreduction in the obligations on housebuilders to includeproper levels of affordable housing in all new developmentsin future.

Councils must not be sent into negotiations andrenegotiations of Section 106 agreements with theirhands tied and with what is, I hope, a false expectationhanging over them that the Government will supportless affordable housing in the months and years ahead.However, I note that the Planning Minister has alreadyannounced an important change; namely, to excludeso-called exception sites in rural areas from this provision.This amendment was raised by the housing expert andformer Housing and Planning Minister, Nick Raynsford,in the other place and it bodes well that, despitepolitical differences, the Government have taken thison board.

I hope that there will also be the opportunity inCommittee to consider other measures not yet in theBill that could help to achieve the much needed increasein housebuilding which so many of us desire; forexample, allowing a local authority to borrow prudentiallyand raising the cap for borrowing for the housingrevenue account to support development—no doubtin partnership with housing associations and housebuilderscould stimulate a great deal of new construction, asthe noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, the noble Lord, LordWhitty, and others have advocated. In removing blockagesI would also like to see the removal of the need for alocal, potentially wrecking, referendum where aneighbourhood plan has been agreed by the countycouncil, the district council, the parish council, anindependent assessor and more.

In Second Reading terms, I welcome the intentionsof the Bill and applaud Ministers’willingness to confrontthe national housing deficit. Important improvementsto the Bill must emerge from our deliberations. OurMinister, the noble Baroness, helped us to make somany worthwhile changes to the Localism Bill and Iam sure that we will be able to do the same this time.

7.16 pm

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, listening to the manyexcellent contributions to this Second Reading debate,I thought I would read again the Long Title of theBill. I see how it can cover a multitude of differentsubjects. If I were feeling a little wicked, I could thinkof an enormous number of amendments to table onany conceivable subject that would probably be allowedunder this title. Of course, I shall not. Perhaps it canbe construed as a curate’s egg—some good and somebad. We have heard about many things that concern

me, led by many colleagues on these Benches and bymy noble friend Lord Adonis. However, I shall concentrateon one part of the Bill, the planning of major projects,which comes under the “good but not enough”category.

In her opening remarks, the Minister said that theintention of the Bill was to reduce the delays to majorprojects, which I fully support. I declare an interest aschairman of the Rail Freight Group. That is a laudableintention. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, spokeenthusiastically about how the recent changes to theplanning system had helped a lot. I submit that cost,time and delay for such projects are still very realproblems. They reflect rather badly compared with theprocesses that appear to take place in some othermember states, such as France, Germany and others,which were summarised in a report by InfrastructureUK a year or two ago as well as in the McNulty reporton the railways.

I start with the planning Acts, which established anew regime for authorising nationally significantinfrastructure projects. That regime was intended toprovide a unified and more efficient decision-makingprocess for the important projects that we are talkingabout. I welcome that. Early experience has shownthat things are going reasonably well but that moreimprovements need to be made, particularly as regardsan efficient and unified consents process and in movingtowards a sort of one-stop shop for developers.

Some amendments have been proposed to the Billbut I suggest that one or two more are necessary anddesirable to further reduce all the things, such asdelays, costs, uncertainty, that affect developers. Theone-stop shop idea is good but it has subsequentlybeen changed so that the final decision on projects istaken by Ministers rather than the Infrastructure PlanningCommission. This introduces yet another problem,which is that of timing. The IPC, or the PINS projectwhich follows on from it, is supposed to take a maximumof one year, which is perfectly reasonable. However,there are two problems.

The first is what happens pre-application and thesecond is the time taken for a ministerial decision atthe end. At the moment, the pre-application processseems to leave the applicant for a development consentorder rather on his own. There have been one or twoexamples recently of applications being rejected dueto the lack of involving the transport or planningauthorities, so there is an argument for saying that itmight be useful if the Planning Inspectorate and theexamining inspectors had more involvement in andcontrol over programme management, in a case oversightrole, at the pre-application stage. I hope we could lookat that further in Committee.

At the other end of the process is the time taken fora ministerial decision. The best example of this is anintermodal logistics terminal site in beautiful Radlettin Hertfordshire, which is at an old airfield that thedeveloper applied to turn into a logistics centre. Ithink he has been at it for 10 years and how many tensof millions, or more, have been spent is not clear. Itwent through two public inquiries and a judicial review;finally, before Christmas, the Minister made the decisionto allow the project to go ahead. This is the problemwhen things get political.

77 78[8 JANUARY 2013]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

[LORD BERKELEY]Some five or six years ago the noble Lord, Lord

McNally, said to me, “You are involved in rail freight.I live in Radlett and I do not really want this thing onmy doorstep”. I said, “Well, perhaps you would like tomeet the developer, who might be able to persuade youthat not every truck going into the terminal will knockthe hanging baskets of Radlett as it goes past becausethere will be access from the motorway”. Radlett is apolitically difficult constituency because both the Toriesand the Lib Dems believe that they should represent itin Parliament and neither want a nasty developmentin their backyard. Things have moved on since then. Ihad thought that the Liberal Democrats were in favourof such developments, but apparently not in theirbackyard. Anyway, two public inquiries and one JR later,the project is going ahead but at what cost? It is apretty bad example of how our planning system works,or does not work.

As other noble Lords have mentioned, we now havethe idea that the Planning Inspectorate should begiven extra projects to look at; perhaps 10 or 15 moreare in the pipeline. But apart from whether the peoplein the inspectorate are the right ones to do this work,are they suddenly going to have the resources for it? Ifthey do not, there will be problems. This is somethingwe will need to reflect on during the later stages of theBill.

I have two other issues to mention briefly. The firstrelates to Clauses 22 and 23, which would remove thespecial parliamentary procedure from certain types ofproject. My concern is that the availability of suchprocesses will be removed from railway and portsinfrastructure. These both consist of pretty criticalinfrastructure projects for the UK so there is a strongargument for saying that if there is a real problemrequiring a special parliamentary process it shouldstill be allowed—although probably by reducing itsscope to only those issues that are relevant to theconcerns raised, rather than revisiting the entire planningapplication.

My final issue concerns something that is not in theBill, but which I hope will be if Ministers accept itlater, and which has been brought to my attention byTransport for London. TfL is trying to develop a newroad tunnel under the Thames at Silvertown which isto have a road user charge attached to it. As part ofthe development consent order requirements, TfL hasdiscovered that it has to build toll booths and big tollplazas. It is not allowed to bring in what might becalled automatic road-user charging because of thedetail that would be required in the DCO for theproject. We could say, “Well, it’s one tunnel in eastLondon, so what does it matter? Dartford tunnel usedto have charges”, and so on. But apparently theGovernment will introduce new toll roads soon. TheA14 has been talked about. The Birmingham northernrelief road has a toll on it and I believe that theoperator, the Macquarie group, can charge what itlikes for any type of traffic for the next 50 years or so.

It would be useful if the Government could look atthe wider policy here. They are talking about road-usercharging for trucks nationwide, but I think they aregoing down the wrong road by introducing the chargeson a time rather than a distance basis. We have the

congestion charge in London and perhaps in someother places. If each new road being built might have adifferent system for tolling, we are going to lookextremely stupid within the next 10 years. I am toldthat the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not like theidea of distance-based road tolling because it mightaffect him driving up the M1 by his having to paymore. I hope that that is not the real reason and that infuture stages of the Bill we can see whether a DCOreally needs to specify what type of collection is usedfor a project, if it is to be tolled.

7.28 pm

Lord Taylor of Goss Moor: My Lords, I should firstdeclare my interests. I chair the National HousingFederation, the voice of housing associations in England.I also chair the strategic partnership of the privatesector with Cornwall Council and the Homes andCommunities Agency charged with delivering eco-communities in the St Austell area. Further, I makethe case for good planning and sustainable developmentin various fora, not least to the previous LabourGovernment on their review of rural planning inrelation to housing and business, and more recentlythe current review of planning guidance for theGovernment, which I also chair.

However, my real interest lies in meeting the needsof the people of this country, in particular familiesand the next generation of people who need homesthat they can afford and that meet their needs in theplaces where they live and work. This means that Ihave a deep interest in great planning because I believethat it is through planning that we will deliver homesin ways that meet our environmental needs andacknowledge the sensitivities of villages, market townsand other communities which do not want to bewrecked by poor development. That means that I am astrong believer in planning, not as rationing, a tick-boxprocess of approval, or an endless argument over thenext 50 houses, but as a way of raising our eyes tomeeting the needs that we see coming over the nextone or two decades in far more imaginative ways thanthat.

As we heard earlier, the origins of planning, such asthe garden city movement and the 1945 Act were notabout rationing. I am not one of those who believethat our planning system is not at fault; we have had asystem of rationing and not one of great design andplace-making, by and large. That is why I stronglywelcomed the NPPF and, along with many otherindividuals and organisations, participated in tryingto get it right. I am delighted that right across theboard, organisations that had in many cases expressedgreat concerns about earlier drafts of the NPPF, welcomedthe product that was delivered. I am talking aboutthose concerned about the environment, great planning,development and the delivery of housing. I see theNPPF as an essential compact between local communitiesand national policy. The national policy is clear: weneed to meet the needs that I have described and to doso in a way that is sustainable. It must unlock botheconomic growth and the need for homes. The compactis that it then requires local communities both toassess that need locally and decide how to meet theneed locally.

79 80[LORDS]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

It was sometimes misunderstood in the early daysthat localism was somehow about local authoritiesdoing whatever they wanted; if they did not want tohave development, they did not have to have it. Butthey have to meet the needs of their community, whichmust be right. They assess it and are given theresponsibility of delivering on it. We are at a crucialstage in this process because many local authoritieshave resisted the scale of development to meet theirneeds. It is always unpopular to deliver new homes tothose who already have a home. A lot of people do notwant development if they are okay, but increasinglyeven they are saying that their own children are beingpriced out of a home. They see that the person servingthem in the shop or working in the school cannotafford a home in their community. We have seen atransformation of attitudes in many villages and weare starting to see that transformation in many markettowns, too. However, they still want a developmentthat works, is well designed and does not ruin what isthere already. I believe that the NPPF describes thatextremely well. We have to see that now delivered inthe local plan-making process, but I am not yet convincedthat all local authorities have either understood theirresponsibilities or seized the opportunities for greatplanning that is implicit in that policy.

My question is: does this Bill help to deliver thosethings that I have just described at this crucial stage inthe NPPF process? There I have doubts in part. Let usbe blunt; I have been here for most of the debate and Ido not think that anyone has yet said that this Bill wasproduced and cobbled together with all sorts of thingsto fill a gap because Lords reform was not in front ofus. There was a space in the agenda and things werecobbled together, some of which are hugely useful—stuffthat might not have happened otherwise, and I shallcome on to that. Other things would frankly have beenbetter kept in the box. They would have been had therenot been this big gap and a space, which I shall cometo, as briefly and as quickly as I can.

If Clause 1, referring to poorly performing councils,were so crucial we would have seen it before. Thereason why it is not so crucial is because the powersare already there. Undue delay gives the right ofappeal; bad decision-making can be called in, as canissues of national importance. The powers are broadlythere, so what is this about? It is clearly about a bigstick to wave around and threaten councils, saying,“You have to get on with the tasks outlined in theNPPF”. Ministers, of course, are also saying, “It willhardly apply to anyone; in fact, we hope that it won’tapply to anyone at all”. So, it is just a bit of flagwaving, if we believe that; or it is a complete reversalof the process of localism that the Government haveset out, which I supported, in the NPPF.

If this is about timeliness, it is simply unnecessary.If it is about bad decisions, I am not convinced thatnationalising it is the way to go. I believe that theremay need to be special measures with some councils ofall sorts, but one of the biggest special measures is theprocess of adopting a local plan. They have to persuadepeople that that local plan is right and if they do not,the principles of the NPPF—the presumption in favour

of sustainable development—kick in anyway. One hasto ask whether this is really necessary, much as Iunderstand the bit of flag waving that may lie behind it.

However, I believe that Clause 5 is needed; it providesthat the information requested should be relevant andnecessary to the decision. I feel very strongly aboutthis. The planning guidance review I conducted meantwading through 7,000 pages of an almost entirelyout-of-date, wildly contradictory and in many casesunnecessary layering of guidance within which wereabsolutely essential pieces of guidance. One of the keythings said by the group as a whole—which includedpeople working within the environment to those workingon housebuilding—was that we need to help bothdevelopers and councils with issues of proportionality.There is concern in local authorities to ask for as muchinformation as possible to ensure that their appraisalsand assessments cannot be challenged at judicial review,but equally, large developers can layer on all sorts ofappraisals because they can afford to do so. They areapplying for supermarkets all over the country andcan defray their costs, knocking out the medium-sizedguys and the local builders who cannot afford to dothat. They ratchet up the requirement because if theyhave done it for their supermarket proposal, or housingdevelopment, somebody else will do it for theirs. Talkingabout what is proportionate and reasonable is essential.I am not certain that it needs to be in legislation; itcould be in guidance, but I am prejudiced as I have justdone all that work on guidance, so I would think that.Nevertheless, I think that that principle is right.

We then come to Clause 6 on the modification ofSection 106. Time is running out, so I shall try to bequick. The first essential point is that we should notsee affordable housing as somehow the bit at the endafter we have done everything else. Why is affordablehousing more arguable or negotiable than the transport,density or all sorts of other requirements that mayhave been put on the development, and now CIL too?Affordable housing is not somehow the residual. Ifthere is a residual, it should be the profit to thelandowner who has benefited from the planningpermission and the huge escalation of the value of theland. Of course, we are talking about deals that havebeen done, and the first thing that should happen isthat the deal should be looked at by the developer. If itis an option, the option should be renegotiated. Iaccept that in some cases we need to look at this again,but it should be drawn more widely than simply Section106 affordable housing. Unlike the private sector, housingassociations do not hold land banks. Some of thedemands for affordable housing were excessive andunrealistic, but if we surrender it in a blanket way wedo not have a way of making it up.

I have two suggestions. The Government announced,at the same time as this, some hundreds of millions ofpounds to make up the shortfall in the housing that islost. Why is that not the first stage rather than theoption of appeal and trying to get out of the obligation?Why is the HCA not the first port of call for adiscussion on whether it should use some of the hundredsof millions of pounds to help the developer unlock thesite and deliver the affordable housing he agreed to inthe first place, not least because that is what thecommunity was told it was getting? The land may have

81 82[8 JANUARY 2013]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

[LORD TAYLOR OF GOSS MOOR]been released specifically because there would be affordablehousing. We should start with the HCA which canassess viability. It would be better at assessing viabilityin PINs as the HCA negotiates on sites all the time.Only then should there be the right of appeal if thedeveloper is not happy, but they should lose any offerthat the HCA may have made for money. You can havethe money to deliver your affordable housing, if youhave persuaded us of it, but if you appeal you will losethe offer. That way, we will not have the hold-up that islikely to occur with appeals happening all over thecountry.

The village green change is important, but I made arecommendation on this in the Taylor review in 2008and have to ask whether it would be better to have asimple weeding out at the first stage when village greenapplications are made as to whether they have a reasonablecase before going through the whole process, ratherthan the trigger of an application. My worry about thetrigger is that many communities will only realise atthe point of an application that their community land,which they have accessed for years, is under threat.However, worse than that, this policy may trigger awhole lot of village green applications to go in, on thepossibility that there might later be an application fordevelopment on the site, in which case PINs and theGovernment will be entirely bogged down in the processthat they have just invented in a counterproductiveway. I have many other things I could say on thissubject but I will stop there.

7.40 pm

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, of course Isupport steps in favour of growth and the employmentthat it should bring. But does this Bill cope with ourcurrent economic malaise? I do not think so. The firstpart of the Bill, as we know, gives the Minister thepower to remove from local planning authorities theability to decide planning operations. Why is that?Planning applications will thus bypass local communities.At present, local communities are involved. In myarea, there is local consultation; I am involved in sucha consultation at the moment. We believe that thisshould continue. The Government claim to be in favourof localism, so why interfere with local arrangementsthat already exist via elected local authorities? In thecountryside, as we know, this could well involve threatsto the local environment.

There is no indication that these arrangements willimprove the availability of social housing. In Londonand the south-east, there is a crisis of affordablehousing and the Bill does little about that. In fact, thesection on affordable housing is so complicated that itis likely to make the provision much more difficult.The right to buy council housing was fine for some,but nothing was done to replace the affordable housingthat became privatised as a result. House prices are sohigh that they have put mortgages out of the reach ofmany young people and private renting is also quitedesperately expensive. There was of course a housingcrisis in the years following the Second World War,because of the bombing, and it is interesting to recallhow subsequent Governments, both Labour andConservative, dealt with it at the time. There was a

campaign to build cheap housing—the so-called prefabs—many of which still exist. There was also a restrictionon the level of rents, with rent tribunals to which recoursecould be made if there was overcharging. Rents werethus kept within the range of affordability for ordinarywage earners. Without those policies, many wouldhave been rendered homeless—in fact, most were not.

The Bill before the House does not tackle theproblems of the housing market; nor does it give anecessary boost to the construction industry. Indeed,other government legislation under consideration bythe House—the Enterprise and Regulatory ReformBill—actually has a clause undermining health andsafety at work law, which would make inherentlydangerous work even more dangerous for the workersinvolved in construction.

Unfortunately, the Bill now before us follows whathas become a normal course with this Government:employment rights of any kind are viewed as somethingto be undermined or removed. Hence, businesses areto be allowed to buy the rights of workers, to slashthem: “Beecroft by the back door”, as my noble friendLord Adonis has already said from the Front Bench. Iabsolutely agree with him. However, it will not work.The Government seem to hope that unions will disappear,but they will not. A sensible approach would be torealise that economic recovery needs the support ofworkers and their unions. Removing hard-fought-forrights will not achieve this.

Moreover, any plans for growth must include a planto rebalance our economy by a government campaignto boost manufacturing industry. Many areas have agreat deal of unemployment because the factories andworkshops that once provided employment, often forskilled workers, no longer exist. The report of thenoble Lord, Lord Heseltine, made reference to this.He, too, is in favour of a more balanced economy. Myunion, Unite, has been involved in the development ofthe Automotive Council, which has worked withemployers to promote the motor industry, the supplychain, and the training and skills of the workforce. Asa result, the industry is doing relatively well.

There are issues that must be dealt with if growth isto become a reality rather than simply rhetoric utteredby government Ministers. It involves co-operation withthe workers and their unions, rather than attempts toremove hard-won employment rights as proposed inthe Bill before us today.

7.45 pm

Lord True: My Lords, I declare an interest as leaderof a London borough council which is also a planningauthority. I will not follow the noble Baroness oppositeon Clause 27, but will say that I hope my Front Benchlistened to the brilliant and humane speech made onthis subject by my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft. Ishare the objectives set out in the title of the Bill,although perhaps the PR people might wish that thetitle had been preserved for something that goes a littlefurther towards the great leap forward than the contentsof this Bill.

From the start, we heard eloquent speeches fromthe noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Tope, abouttheir fears that centralism was creeping back. It is

83 84[LORDS]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

impossible to deny that that feeling has been very strongin this House throughout the debate and I share it.However, I will confine my comments to certain of theplanning aspects of the Bill and will not go over thewhole ground, because I recently troubled your Lordshipswith some detailed comments on the ideas put forward,rather suddenly, lately by Mr Boles. Some of thoseideas are in the Bill but others, such as those relatingto the protection of our suburban environment andpermitted development in back gardens, are not currentlyincluded in the Bill and are intended to be the subjectof secondary legislation. However, they are clearly inthe scope of the Bill, given the long title relating to thecarrying out of development and the Government’sown provisions on reforming PDOs in Clause 4.

I have not lost hope of persuading the Governmentto drop this—in my view—foolish plan, which is whollyirrelevant to growth, to extend rights to building inback gardens without the need for planning consent. Ido not understand why my Government want to setneighbour against neighbour in this way or side withthose who do not wish to play according to the rules.Removing such local controls, as is being proposed,and then saying you will let them be reintroduced in afar more costly and cumbersome way by use of Article 4,seems a very bizarre way to proceed. It smacks ratherof the old ways of the 17th century, when the Governmentpassed legislation but the Crown said that certainpeople did not need to adhere to it. If there is no sensein it, I hope my noble friend will agree it should bedropped or at least consider methods to allow localauthorities to opt in to any changes the Governmentmay propose and so leave the decision as a local one. IfI cannot, in the course of the Bill, persuade theGovernment to change their mind on this, I must givenotice that at a later stage I will consider laying myown amendment to enable your Lordships to express aview on whether unrestricted development in backgardens of this kind should be allowed. “Unrestricted”is not quite the correct word—“greatly derestricted”,perhaps.

Consultation on these proposals closed on 24 December—always a suspicious date, in my mind, for consultationsto end. Can my noble friend, in responding, say whenthe Government’s response will be published? Ideally,this should be before Committee stage, but certainly ingood time before Report, to enable proper considerationof this outside the very restricted and unamendableprocedures of secondary legislation.

On permitted development, I am grateful to mynoble friend for indications she has given in relation topoints that I and other local authority leaders havemade about the freer change of use from employmentto residential, especially in parts of London and othercities, where there is limited employment and commercialspace and the scope for creating it is restricted. So Ialso ask my noble friend to indicate whether, before wereach Clause 4, she will say how the Governmentintend to address this concern, for which they haveexpressed sympathy. I would welcome a chance todiscuss that with her in her usual open manner.

Like many others who have spoken, I am not agreat enthusiast for Clause 1. It certainly is a setbackfor localism. Like others, I can see the attractions to

central government of a potential stick with which tohit the worst-performing authorities, whoever theyare—we will hear that shortly, I understand. We aretold that its use will be limited. In fact, the unelectedPlanning Inspectorate could be absolutely overwhelmedby this legislation if a future Government took Clause 1powers to their potential end. As it legislates, theHouse should understand that while this Governmentmay intend to restrict the use of this, a future Governmentcould extend it by waving an unamendable wand insecondary legislation. I am also interested in the pointraised by my noble friend Lady Eaton and the nobleLord, Lord Smith, about how a planning authoritywill be able to get out and be disgorged from thisposition.

I welcome the provisions on disposal of land, whichare a great step forward. The small provision onstopping-up orders is very welcome. I disagree withsome of those who have opposed the question ofacting on village green applications. I very much welcomethe Government’s action here. Some have expressedconcern about precisely how this would operate, andwe can look at that in Committee. Certainly, no onewishes to weaken village green protection but therehave quite clearly been abuses of such powers bycampaigners against development in some places andthe Bill points towards finding the right balance.

I also understand the Government’s wish, expressedin Clause 5, to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy inrelation to requests for information. That is a perfectlyreasonable aspiration. However, good decisions requiregood evidence and accurate information. As has recentlybeen said, many of us thought that this had beenaddressed in the NPPF; paragraph 193 was quotedand is very clear on this subject. My fear is that,perversely, this clause may lead to more confusionand, worse than that, recourse to the courts as theemerging definition is tested through review. If thathappens, it will be precisely at the time when we wantthe Bill to work in order to encourage growth, andthere is a risk that we may encourage more legislativeaction.

While I agree that bureaucracy should be avoided,what I miss in this Bill is a recognition that much ofthe delay in the development process comes not fromlocal authorities but from others in the planning process,as the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, said. For example,I could cite the cumbersome process of judicial review,on which I greatly welcome the current consultationlaunched by my right honourable friend Mr Grayling,and indeed the often time-consuming requests andslow responses from statutory undertakings. Try gettinginformation from the lower ranks of some of ourstatutory undertakings in relation to implementationof conditions, or indeed whether they wish to exerciserights as statutory consultees. There are many othersources of delay in the process, and if this clause is tostay, perhaps the Bill can be amended at a later stageto address some of those other issues, rather than justbashing planning officers.

On the subject of statutory undertakings, like others,I do not support the sweeping provisions in Clause 8on broadband boxes. Of course we need goodinfrastructure. Local authorities are actually friends,

85 86[8 JANUARY 2013]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

[LORD TRUE]not enemies, of this. But do the Government understandhow unpopular many activities of statutory undertakingsare, how unaccountable, and the great cost to theeconomy that arises from their frequent wilful refusalto negotiate and poorly co-ordinated action betweenthem? Removing totally the need to negotiate reasonablesites with representatives of local communities willlead to wholly capricious, absurd and illogical outcomes—as I have shown my noble friend’s honourable friendthe Minister in photographs—such as pavementsobstructed to the disabled or boxes placed in front oflisted facades and free-standing on greens when theycould quite easily have been placed nearby.

If this clause is not to be omitted, it would benefitfrom amendment to impose on the undertakings areasonable duty to consult local and other competentauthorities in conservation areas, parks and otherplaces of outstanding beauty. Quite frankly, most ofthese issues could be sorted out in a day or two by twocompetent project managers, one from the regulatoryauthority and one from the undertaking, rather thanwhat I fear we have: well paid directors going off tothe Treasury to mutter in the ears of officials and berewarded with a free hand.

To conclude, it is important that this Bill receivesclose examination in Committee. I have no doubt thatit will. I hope I will be proved wrong that it seemsbased on a false prejudice that local authorities are anobstacle to growth rather than, as I believe, that theplanning system is a method to secure orderly publicconsent to the kind of growth that we all wish to see.

7.55 pm

Baroness Donaghy: My Lords, I will start on apositive note. I believe that local authorities should beempowered to assist economic growth and should beallowed to borrow more money to build houses. Theyshould have powers to deal with the 700,000 existinghomes in England that are empty. They should also beable to work with a Government who are fully committedto localism. Unfortunately, there is very little in thisBill that will achieve these objectives. In fact, most ofthe proposals will reverse the previous commitment tolocalism.

In Clause 1, the Government want to give themselvesplenipotentiary powers to overturn local authoritydecisions. Clause 1 creates an imagined obstacle togrowth, in the form of planning delays, as the nobleLord, Lord True, has just said, and proceeds to focuson tackling that. The truth is, as has already been said,that there is a building backlog of 400,000 new homeswith planning permission but yet to be built by developers.Approval for residential and commercial applications,as the Minister herself has said, are at a record 10-yearhigh: 87% of applications were approved in 2011-12.

In a reversal of the emphasis given in the LocalismAct, the Secretary of State has indicated that it is thejob of the Government,“to identify where some—very few—local planning authoritiesare failing to discharge their responsibilities to local people”.—[OfficialReport, Commons, 17/12/12; col. 605.]

The definition of failing could catch many local authorities,which could appear on the list through no fault of

their own, and could even cover those that have beenspecifically praised by this Government for their initiative.My response to how one interprets “failing to dischargetheir responsibilities” is that the council may actuallybe giving priority to the views of these local peoplerather than developers. I am not reassured that officialsat the DCLG would be,“putting an arm round those authorities that are beginning to getinto the danger zone”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/12/12;col. 606.]

As we all know, there are different ways of “putting anarm round”. At worst, it will be a stranglehold; atbest, a patronising reminder that the Governmentknow best.

How sure can we be that the Planning Inspectoratewill be sufficiently funded to take on the significantincrease in workload, even if it was the right thing todo? My view is that this power in Clause 1 wouldundermine all local authorities, not just the “veryfew”, and would create delays and uncertainties asapplicants find new and ingenious ways of avoidingtheir local responsibilities.

Clause 6 is an attack on affordable housingrequirements set out in Section 106 agreements. Whereis the evidence that this requirement alone is holdingup planning applications? In the short term, this proposalwill delay applications that are already in the pipelineas developers hold out for higher profit margins. Ihave said before that we need a proper debate abouthousing provision in this country. The terminologycan be confusing: affordable housing, market valuehousing, council housing—even the Prime Ministermanaged to confuse affordable housing and councilhousing.

We have a serious situation in that there is insufficientmoney to lend for both mortgages and housingdevelopment, but this is not the first time that this hashappened and it will not be the last. In a sense, itmasks the real problem of houses and jobs needing tobe in the same place. The previous Labour Governmenthad a regional strategy. It may not have been 100%successful in every area, but at least it grasped theconnection between economic development, jobs andhousing. This Bill is dressed up as a plan for growth,but it is actually allowing 100 developers to blossom. Iam not accusing the Minister of being a Maoist,incidentally, but her colleague in the House of Commonsgave the game away when he said that he wanted localauthorities to do,“whatever it takes, pragmatically and practically, to ensure thathomes are built”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/12/12; col. 625.]

To be fair, he also said that he wanted,“mixed communities to remain a key theme; we do not want gatedcommunities”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/12/12; col. 625.]

That is fair enough, but undermining Section 106agreements is more likely to see those gates going up.The Minister wants local authorities to take responsibilityinstead of,“fetishing an agreement which sets out a vague target”.—[OfficialReport, Commons, 17/12/12; col. 625.]

I try not to be diverted by the trend to use nouns asverbs, but as a fully paid-up English language pedant,I had to check out the word. As a noun, the word“fetish” is described as,“an object regarded with superstitious trust or reverence”.

87 88[LORDS]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

There is another alternative, which is,“an object believed among a primitive people to have a magicalpower”.

I will not mention the one about bodily parts, but mypoint is that the Minister has painted a picture of a“very few pig-headed local authorities”—presumablythese are the primitive people—not acting in the interestof their own people. Why not name them? Why notembarrass those very few pig-headed local authorities?Where is the evidence that this clause is necessary?

The Government have promised to deliver homesfor first-time buyers and young families. In reality,they have increased the threshold for what can becalled affordable rents to up to 80% of market ratesand are now attempting to weaken the obligations ondevelopers to build such housing. House prices arerising at three times the rate of wages. Now is reallynot the time to weaken the obligations that ensure thatdevelopers build affordable homes, not just homes forthe wealthy.

Clause 24 postpones the business rate revaluationfrom 1 April 2015 to 1 April 2017. It must always betempting for any Government to avoid taking potentiallysensitive decisions which coincide with a general election.However, the postponement date will fall during counciland other elections in 2017. Will that be anotherexcuse not to bite the bullet? If this is a genuineattempt, as my noble friend Lord Whitty said, to givetime to discuss how business rates are set arising fromthe provisions of the Local Government Finance Act,will the Minister give an assurance that local councilsas well as businesses will be fully consulted? Willthe Government publish their full reasons for thepostponement and have they taken fully into considerationthe impact on retailers, pubs and manufacturers? Havethe Government considered the unintended consequencesof this postponement and the continuing injustices inthe system—for instance, the level of assessment ofout-of-town superstores, which is considered to bevery low; the instability created where property valueshave fallen substantially; the increase in cases of evasionand the increase in home-based business—all of whichwill have a perverse impact on local authority income?Some evidence that these issues have been fully exploredwould be welcome.

Finally, I do not intend to say much about Clause 25on shares for rights. I think John Cridland, the DirectorGeneral of the CBI, had it about right when he said,“I think this is a niche idea”—not a nice idea—“andnot relevant to all businesses”. I suspect that this nicheis so small that you could grow a particularly rarevariety of lichen in it. I do not know how the Governmentreconcile their proposal to require longer notice periodsfor return from maternity or adoption leave with thefact that they will retain anti-discriminatory employmentrights. The Employee Ownership Association believesthat employee ownership can be promoted withoutrequiring a dilution of rights. I will not repeat what mynoble friend Lord Adonis said about the Institute forFiscal Studies.

The consultation has been shambolic and the costingsare a joke. I do not know whether this is a totemproposal to distract attention from other clauses in theBill, but just in case it is not, will the Minister give us

an indication of what safeguards there will be toensure that the scheme is voluntary? Will jobseekerswho choose not to take up such an offer be penalisedin any way? The Minister’s response at Third Readingwas less than reassuring. Will the noble Baroness givean assurance that this is not just a tax avoidance scam?Will she assure the House that the Exchequer willmake money, not lose money, on this venture?

In conclusion, I look forward to Committee stage,when we will have the opportunity to examine thesecentralising proposals in more detail.

8.05 pm

Lord Burnett: My Lords, I draw the attention ofnoble Lords and others to my entries in the Register ofLords’ Interests. We are all only too well aware of thecrisis precipitated by years of failure to build sufficienthouses to meet the huge and growing demand. Housingstarts slumped again in 2007 at the start of the recession.Noble Lords are well aware that household growth inEngland increases by approximately 240,000 per year,whereas fewer than 100,000 houses are being built.These problems date back many decades and there isnow a massive accumulation of demand that has ledto terrible stress for individuals and families. There isan estimated shortage of 2 million homes.

The first major problem to be overcome is finance. Iam delighted that the Government are taking steps toensure that there are competitive and reasonable sourcesof finance for house purchase, especially for first-timebuyers. I hope that this year mortgages will be easierto obtain with competitive rates and not such stringentdeposit requirements, especially—again—for first-timebuyers and young families. The main headline on thefront page of yesterday’s Financial Times was,“‘Massive Softening’ of Basel bank rules”.

It was reported that,“global liquidity standards would be less onerous than expectedand not be fully enforced until 2019, four years later than expected”.

This is encouraging. I also welcome the Government’sproposed new funding for affordable homes.

If the financial problems are beginning to be resolved,this leaves the difficulties that successive Governmentshave faced in dealing with the planning system. Thereare signs from the front line that local planning authoritiesare responding more optimistically and more positivelyto the dreadful shortage of housing. Local councillorsare elected on a local, not a national mandate. It isvery difficult for local planning authorities and councillorsto respond to what are not only local but also nationalpressures. This is true especially in areas where thedemand is particularly great, including London, thesouth-east, East Anglia and what I call the near andfar south-west. The National Planning Policy Frameworkis assisting, and there has been some further impetuswith the relaxation of planning rules for change of usefrom commercial to residential.

In rural areas, planning policy should also, inappropriate circumstances, allow for conversion ofredundant agricultural and other buildings—I am talkingabout more modern buildings and what could becalled rural brownfield sites—to residential use. Ruralareas need houses, especially affordable ones. At present,an individual has to be wealthy to buy a house in much

89 90[8 JANUARY 2013]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

[LORD BURNETT]of rural England. I remind the House that wages formany in the rural areas of England are very low.Nevertheless, although there are signs of a more speedyand realistic response from planners, as my noblefriend said when she opened this debate, there is stillmuch to be done. We have a plan-led system. That isunderstood by professionals in the field. It shouldwork well. Local plans should be produced expeditiouslyand time limits for consultation should be adhered to.

One matter that must be given more attention ishousing need. It appears that with the demise of theregional spatial strategy each local authority will facethe task of assessing housing need for its individualarea. There must be a clear, intelligible and compellingbasis for assessing that need. The underlying basis andcalculation should and must be made publicly available,and should accord with publicly available nationalguidelines. In sensitive areas, there is always pressureon local councils and planning authorities to reducethe need figures. The measure of need must be robustand ensure that local authorities do not buckle underpressure and reduce the housing need for their areas.The robust measure of need, combined with a five-yearsupply and other rules, should ensure that we start tomeet the massive pent-up demand for housing that, asI said, has built up over decades.

If planning authorities are to assess the need forhousing in their areas, they must carry out that assessmentopenly, robustly and—as I have said before—withinnational guidelines. If a planning inspector at the corestrategy consideration stage is not satisfied with thelevel of housing, he or she should not find the localplans sound. I hope that my noble friend will let mehave some assurances on this matter when she windsup at the end of the debate. A sound local planproduced swiftly, with objective, robust housing neednumbers and a formula that can be tested by potentialapplicants, is essential.

In the past the Secretary of State in the other placereferred to “muscular localism”. I take it that thatmeans, among other things, that local planning authoritiesshould not be able to deny need and, if they do nothave a five-year supply and cannot point to othermore suitable sites, applications should in the main begranted. I am aware of analysis made by the Centrefor Economics and Business Research that suggeststhat housebuilding, which sank to 95,000 units in2010, could be boosted to 300,000 units annually by2015. This would add some 201,000 extra permanentjobs in construction, and contribute £75 billion toGDP, or 5 percentage points to growth. Furthermore,it is estimated that this would reduce rents by nearly11%. Housing would then become more affordableand the financial pressures on the working-age populationwould be substantially reduced.

I welcome the measures in the Bill to deal withexisting planning consents that are now economic.Some local authorities are already more realistic. Iwould hope that local authorities are being madeaware that landowners already pay either capital gainstax or income tax on the proceeds of the sale of landfor development. Furthermore, for many proprietorsof small and medium-sized owner-managed businesses

in this country, the sale of their premises, with orwithout planning permission for development, will bethe basis of their pension. The self-employed do nothave the benefit of, for example, generous public sectorpensions or the pensions that are available to thosewho work for large corporations. I hope that theMinister will make the foregoing clear to planningauthorities when they consider Section 106 agreementsand the burdens to be imposed on developments.Further, I hope she will exhort local planning authoritiesto have a simple, straightforward measure of viabilityfor development that is easily understood andimplemented. For example, a small site of fewer than15 houses should not, in these difficult economictimes, have to bear substantial planning burdens.

There is not sufficient time to deal in detail with thecommunity infrastructure levy, which could be yet athird-tier tax on house construction. I believe somelocal authorities have already introduced a communityinfrastructure levy and I know that the Governmenthave set up a committee to review that levy. I remindthe House of a previous episode in the chequeredhistory of the taxation of development in this country.In approximately 1976, the then Government introducedthe development land tax. At the cost of millions, anew tax office was set up in Middlesbrough, formswere produced and, if my memory serves me right, therate of that development land tax was about 80%.That led to the absurd situation that, with capitalgains tax or income tax for traders, the rate of tax wassometimes in excess of 100%. This led to a completedrying up of the supply of land. Attempts like thisserve only to make housing more and more scarce andenrich further those lucky enough to be able to affordto own a house.

I welcome the Government’s proposals in relationto town and village greens. I hope my noble friend willgive consideration also to the inclusion in the legislationof a clear right of appeal or challenge to a registrationof a town or village green under the 2006 Act. Theright of appeal should be designed to catch future andsome past registrations. The registration authority—invariably the local authority—often appoints an expertto advise the registration authority, which is bothjudge and jury in the matter. It is contrary to the rulesof natural justice to deny an appeal. I hope that theGovernment will consider introducing a mechanismfor reviewing town and village greens registered underthe Commons Act 2006 and over land already allocatedfor development or subject to an existing planningapplication. There is rightly a democratic process forformulating a local development plan, and if land hasbeen allocated for development for a particular purpose,that process should not be overturned and changed bymeans of a town and village green application lodgedat a late stage.

Finally on this matter, the Bill provides that anapplication should be stayed when land is allocated fordevelopment or when a valid planning application hasbeen made in relation to the land. The stay wouldcease if the land were removed from allocation or if anexisting planning application were withdrawn or refused.I hope my noble friend will give consideration to thestay becoming effective once the consultation draft of

91 92[LORDS]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

the local development plan is first published. This wouldeffectively make the process subject to the more democraticprocesses that apply to emerging local plans.

Planning is a complex subject, and good intentionscan often thwart and deny the possibility for many tofind a reasonable house to buy or rent at a reasonableprice. We need to balance the protection of the countrysidewith the legitimate need for housing of millions of ourfellow citizens.

8.18 pm

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am pleasedto follow the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, on one particulartheme: the question of democratic accountability andthe role of Parliament. I will speak briefly aboutClauses 22 and 23, which deal with special parliamentaryprocedure. I believe that I am right in saying that onlythe Minister in her introductory speech referred tothese clauses in the debate this afternoon. I do so asone of three of your Lordships’ representatives whohave served from last October, meeting virtually everyWednesday, on the Rookery South Joint Committee,with three Members from another place. We haveconsidered petitions against an application from acompany called Covanta to build a resource recoveryfacility—a waste disposal incinerator and power stationgenerating electricity from burning refuse—in a formerbrickyard pit in Bedfordshire. Although we have onefurther meeting scheduled, on 16 January, the conclusionsof the committee have been made known to all theparties, and I am therefore not breaching any confidencesin speaking today about our deliberations.

My starting point is that if this Bill is enacted as itstands, there will be no more Joint Committees operatingin the way that we have done on Rookery South, andas a result there will be significantly less parliamentaryscrutiny in future.

SPP—special parliamentary procedure—wasintroduced by the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure)Act 1945. It is an additional procedure that must befollowed when compulsory purchase is authorised undervarious enactments. It is triggered when what is calledspecial land—local authority, statutory undertaker,commons and open spaces, and National Trust inalienableland—is acquired and the landowner objects.

SPP is not triggered very often, and in the majorityof cases when it is, the orders are unopposed inParliament. Since 1990, only three SPP orders, ofwhich Rookery South is one, have been opposed andhave had to be dealt with by a Joint Committee. Since2000, 10 other SPP orders have gone through withoutopposition.

The 2008 Act set out a new procedure for authorisingnationally significant infrastructure projects. This isachieved by the making of development consent ordersby the Secretary of State, following examination ofthe order by an inspector. These can include powers ofcompulsory acquisitions, and, like CPOs under the1981 Act, are subject to SPP if they allow the acquisitionof special land.

Clause 22 of this Bill repeals Sections 128 and 129of the 2008 Act. Subsection (1) will ensure that SPPwill no longer apply in the case of the acquisition oflocal authority and statutory undertakers’ land. That is

why the Rookery South order would not have beensubject to SPP had these proposed repeals been madeearlier.

Clause 23 in this Bill applies to all orders—not justdevelopment consent orders—that remain subject toSPP. So it will apply not only to nationally significantinfrastructure projects but also, for example, to roadschemes where public open space land is acquiredcompulsorily using the 1981 Act procedures.

When a compulsory purchase order or a developmentconsent order provides for the compulsory acquisitionof special land, the current position is that if certainconditions are met, the order is referred to specialparliamentary procedure. Clause 23 will change thatto the extent that in the case of a CPO of localauthority, statutory undertaker or National Trust land,SPP will be triggered only if the owner objects to theacquisition of the land. As the law stands, SPP couldbe triggered if the owner objected to the order even ifthey did not object to the acquisition of the land.

The powers of Parliament, however, once the SPPprocess is under way, will change as a result of thisBill. The owner—or anyone else with sufficient interest—would still be able to petition against a CPO or DCOthat was made subject to SPP and which authorisedthe acquisition of special land, but the scope of such apetition would be limited to that part of the orderwhich authorised the compulsory acquisition of theland. As the law stands, a petition could be madeagainst the whole order or any part of it.

The powers of the Joint Committee which wouldconsider the order if there were petitions will be similarlylimited. The committee could decide that the order beamended so as to remove or amend the power toacquire the special land, but it could go no further. Atpresent, the committee could decide that the wholeorder should not proceed, or could amend parts of theorder unrelated to the acquisition of the inalienableland. Similarly, the powers of each House to annul theorder by resolution will change. Instead of being ableto resolve to annul the whole order, the Houses will beable only to resolve to annul that part of the orderwhich authorises the acquisition of the special land.

I apologise to your Lordships. This is a complicatedpoint. I can see some noble Lords nodding, so I thinkthey are following this. Had those changes alreadybeen made, it could have made a considerable differenceto how the Rookery South order deliberations wereconducted. I say “could have”, because the JointCommittee by majority vote decided that the promotershad no case to answer on the main petition lodged bythe local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes,and I both took the view that they had a case toanswer. We both felt that it was necessary for the needfor the new resource recovery facility to be proven,given convincing evidence that there was already sufficientcapacity to deal with waste at existing plants withinthe stated catchment area.

The committee was told that the new facility wouldgenerate more than 1,100 heavy lorry movements perday, despite the fact that it is to be located adjacent tothe Bedford to Bletchley railway line, and a feasibilitystudy had demonstrated that a private rail sidingcould be constructed to bring in the waste by rail.

93 94[8 JANUARY 2013]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

[LORD FAULKNER OF WORCESTER]Members of the committee saw the location for therail access when we spent a day visiting the site and thesurrounding area on 28 November. Unfortunately, as Isaid, the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and I were not ableto convince a majority of our fellow members of theJoint Committee that issues needed to be considered.It is important that these matters should be subject toparliamentary scrutiny. In future, if Clause 23 remainsin the Bill, that opportunity will be lost.

I would be grateful, therefore, if the Minister couldadvise me whether petitioners will still be able to raiseissues which are not directly related to the acquisitionof the land but are to do with the public interest. It hasalways been a central tenet of compulsory acquisitionlaw that the applicant for the powers must demonstratethat there is a compelling case in the public interest forthe land to be acquired compulsorily. Those words arecontained in Section 122(3) of the Planning Act. Inorder for petitioners to demonstrate that there is nocompelling case in the public interest, they should beable to bring evidence to bear about the benefits of theproposals as a whole, compared with the injury thatthey will suffer when losing their land.

I also hope that the Minister will be able to answerthe points made by the Open Spaces Society, which isparticularly concerned about Clause 22. It points outthat the clause provides that, where an open space isthreatened with a DCO and compulsory purchase andthere is no suitable exchange land, or the exchangeland is deemed too expensive, the Secretary of Statefor Communities and Local Government may himselfdecide that the DCO need not be subject to SPP. Asthe Open Spaces Society states in its submission,Parliament will no longer have the final say; its poweris relinquished to the Executive.

Open space is any land,“used for the purposes of public recreation”.

Therefore, according to the Open Spaces Society, theprovision potentially puts at risk all open spaces enjoyedby the public, formally and informally. They includethe many acres of land registered as access land underthe Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

Special parliamentary procedure is rarely invoked,so why do away with it? It is there as the final safeguardwhen people’s rights over open space are threatened,and when wider consideration needs to be given tomajor planning projects. I hope that the Minister willbe able to provide good reasons why this change isneeded. I am sure that we will return to this issue inCommittee.

8.26 pm

Lord Shipley: My Lords, I declare my interest as avice-president of the Local Government Association.

The Government have been pursuing a stronglydevolutionist agenda in England. The Localism Actestablished a range of devolved powers and provided astructure for enhanced borrowing powers to drivegrowth. City deals are passing powers from Whitehallto localities, a trend which will continue, with submissionsfor the second wave due shortly. Whitehall may sometimesknow best, but it does not automatically do so. Becauseit is organised in departments, it is very difficult for it

to focus geographically on a locality. Mostly, it is toofar away anyway, which is why local authorities andlocal enterprise partnerships have such a crucial leadershiprole, as my noble friend Lord Heseltine has so emphaticallyshown.

The main aim of city deals is to promote growth.Growth outside London and the south-east is too lowand too slow compared to elsewhere in Europe. Iwelcome discussion of any sustainable initiatives thatmay help to drive growth; so, in theory, I welcome theBill. The title at least represents a statement of intent.However, whatever a Bill is about, the legislation proposedneeds always to reflect a clear understanding of theproblems that need to be resolved. As we progressthrough Committee, I hope that we will examine thechanges proposed in the Bill in that light: do thesolutions proposed solve a defined and recognisedproblem?

I hope that we will examine a number of areasclosely. For example, is the planning system a barrierto growth? I have listened to all sides of the argumentover recent months, and I have concluded that, in themain, the planning system is well run by most localauthorities. In some cases, there may be a tendency todelay or to adopt an overzealous bureaucratic outlook,where the development control process has become ameans of prevention; but, in the main, councils understandthat growth drives jobs and that more new homes areneeded. Those councils want to rise to the challenge.

There are 400,000 new homes not yet built, whichhave planning approval. Seven out of eight applicationswere approved by councils for residential and commercialdevelopment in the last full year of 2011 to 2012. Thecase that new central powers are needed has not beenmade. The problem for developers is primarily one offinance, not planning. There has been a proposal thatan 18-month period should elapse between a poorlyperforming council being identified and centralintervention taking place. There seems to be merit inthis and I hope that we can look at it more closely indue course. Peer support from another council isbetter than central control. It can be done very quickly,certainly within that 18-month period. However, wehave to build more homes for all the reasons that havebeen identified in this debate. As we examine the Billin Committee I hope that we shall keep this objectiveof building more houses in mind.

On Clause 5, I am unconvinced that any change tothe National Planning Policy Framework is needed. Itseems to have defined the information requirements ofa local authority perfectly well. Its informationrequirements should be relevant, necessary and material.Adding to the Bill that they should be “reasonable”strikes me as unnecessary, since being relevant, necessaryand material seem to be reasonable requirements already.Indeed, adding “reasonable” may create greateruncertainty and potential for delays.

A number of people argue that it is possible thatClause 6, which relates to Section 106 agreements, isnot needed, because councils can renegotiate and arealready doing so. Most that are doing so seem to beaccepting a reduction of around a third in the amountof affordable housing. The problem may be solvingitself. It should be seen as temporary, given the

95 96[LORDS]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

introduction of the NPPF, and it should therefore betime-limited. I hope that in Committee we can discusswith the Minister relevant amendments to make Clause 6time-limited. This is partly because I have two concernsin relation to this clause. First, how do the publicknow that a change to a Section 106 agreement is theright thing to do? Making public the figures on whichdecisions are based seems to be important and thereshould be a common formula that is followed indifferent parts of the country to ascertain viability.Secondly, councils need to be able to share in any risein prices once a new agreement has been signed—inother words, to have secure clawback to compensatefor the affordable housing that was not built, if andwhen values rise. I understand that guidance is goingto be issued on this point, but I wonder whether it willbe sufficient.

Clause 8 relates to communications equipment. Ihave not understood why it is deemed appropriate forsix-foot high junction boxes and overhead poles to beput in place without prior approval or conditions.Junction boxes are big. I hope that as a minimumthere will be assurances that this will not happen inconservation areas, or in historic places, or in areas ofnatural beauty. Local people have a right to knowabout proposals, to object and to propose alternatives.Denying them that right is hardly localist.

On Clause 24 I have some concerns on extendingthe major infrastructure planning regime. Nationallysignificant infrastructure planning is one thing, butsurely residents and their councils have rights to decidemajor local applications, such as shopping centres,office and leisure complexes. Given that local authoritiesare already meeting their response times in most cases,it is not clear why large-scale commercial and businessapplications need to be fast-tracked in the way that theGovernment seem to be proposing. I hope that theMinister will clarify what constitutes business andcommercial development, and what will be centralisedunder the Bill.

A lot has been said about Clause 27. It creates anew employment status of employee shareholder withthe aim of increasing the employment options companiesmay use. It is said that it will be voluntary for a jobapplicant, but what if it is the only job offer out ofhundreds of applications that someone has made? Sofar the Government have not provided safeguards forpeople on jobseeker’s allowance. If someone refuses totake up an employee shareholder job, they could facelosing their benefits because whether their decision isreasonable will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Thatis hardly voluntary for a jobseeker desperate for a job.

The Bill is about growth and infrastructure, but Icannot see how this policy will increase growth. Itreally is not right to force someone to give up employeerights in return for a company share. Protection againstunfair dismissal, the right to flexible working, theright to time for training, parental leave rights and theright to statutory redundancy pay are all fundamentalemployment rights, and it is hard to see how theseproposals fit with true employee ownership schemes,which can be hugely successful and should be encouraged.It is also hard to see how administrative costs for acompany will be reduced by the proposed measures.

I can see that for a small business starting up in afast-growing sector, equity as an incentive and reducedrisk to its capital from employment tribunals could beattractive but, surely, in only a very limited number ofcases. What is much more likely is that offers topotential new members of staff of employee shareholderstatus will reduce the willingness of good people toapply for such posts, with most existing companiesproving unwilling to use it. I hope that in Committeewe will have the opportunity to examine these proposalsin much greater depth.

In her introductory speech, the Minister emphasisedthat the Bill was about deregulation and removingbarriers, particularly in the planning system. The troubleis that most of the barriers to growth are actuallyfinancial, not regulatory. I hope that, as the Bill progressesthrough Committee, we will approve clauses andamendments to it on the basis of established facts andthe primacy of localism over centralism.

8.36 pm

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, in speakingabout this centralising Bill, I suppose that my qualificationis that when I was leader of the Labour Party onCambridge City Council and I was in Moscow in1972, I was described as a leader of the Cambridgesoviet. I have an alternative qualification: I declarethat I helped to set up an environmental consultingcompany in Cambridge. It was interesting to hearabout Cambridge earlier from another speaker.

When considering legislation on social, environmentaland economic issues, it is reasonable to consider whetherit is bringing us closer to or further from countries thatare evidently very successful in those fields. The UKhas no peer in the fields of humour and creativity, as Isaw in the Christmas pantomime “Norwichababa”,and as we saw in yesterday at No. 10; indeed, the UKis now exporting pantomime, so that is one area ofeconomic growth. However, I think that most peoplewill acknowledge that we have something to learn fromother European countries. They have rigorous planning,preservation of the countryside through strong localcontrol and sufficient high-quality housing—anyonewho has been a city councillor visiting councilaccommodation in Germany is somewhat humiliated.I would say, though, that over the past 20 yearshousing standards in Britain and Germany have becomecloser. The other feature of those countries is thatthere are small industries all over the country, includingin natural areas, and that is also developing in thiscountry. Furthermore, I should add that all thosecountries with admirable economic and social policiesare working within EU rules and regulations.

As many noble Lords have commented, the UK isfacing the problems of a lack of housing and a lack offinance for housing. We have also seen that many ofthe regional projects that began in the previous decadewere stopped, to the protests of many industries, whenthe present Government began to abandon the regionaldevelopment authorities. The support of this by theLib Dems, who had many of their own councillorsand regional officials involved in those developmentagencies, was most surprising—I never could understandthat.

97 98[8 JANUARY 2013]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

[LORD HUNT OF CHESTERTON]The other feature of those countries, particularly

Germany, is worker representation on the boards. Oneof the most important features of the supervisoryboards is that the workers have an interest in thepreservation of the companies. Those companies havenot been bought up and sold like chips on a gamblingboard, as we have experienced in the UK. We have along way to go to get that kind of management.

The real problem for developing our economy—ashas been made plain over and over again by the CBIand the Institute of Directors—is that there has been acomplete lack of decisiveness about major infrastructureprojects. We could now be having a third runway atHeathrow; we could be having toll roads. We needmany more of these fundamental measures and everyday that we do not have them we lose our competitivenessto other countries. When the Prime Minister talksabout competitiveness, he just has to listen to what theCBI is saying.

However, the Government have pushed ahead onenergy and the further energy developments in the Billare to be welcomed. The fact that we now have permissionto develop a big nuclear power station in Somerset is avery important development.

What else does this Bill propose? First, it proposesa reduction of local planning powers, which manynoble Lords from all sides of the House have commentedon. I hope the House of Lords will be able to vote onthis, as in the other place, and that the decision will bedifferent.

However, some of the most important developmentsin the UK, as pointed out by a Lib Dem colleaguetalking about Cambridge, were done through localplanning. The development of Cambridge’s high-techsociety was an extraordinary case of the local councilchanging its mind and working with local universitiesand industry.

Equally, there have been other developments thatcould not be done by local planning. We have hadActs of Parliament to develop, for example, Felixstowedocks or some of the processes in London. The nobleLord, Lord Rooker, was quite correct to say that thereare certain things that local councils do not have a bigenough power to do. It really requires a concept thatcombines localism with a national view. That is whatwe have been struggling with this afternoon.

One of the aspects that has not perhaps been coveredis the localism developed in Denmark, which haspioneered the economic involvement of communitiesin controversial developments. It completely transformedthe way they considered energy developments. There isan element of that in the UK with local participationin housing developments. We have been talking aboutthat much this afternoon. In Denmark, for example,there is local participation in many other projects. Inmany other areas of the continent there is local investment,which means that there is tremendous commitment todevelop local businesses. Again that is somewhat lackinghere. We had that with our regional developmentauthorities but, for reasons that I do not understand,they have gone—of course they are supported by thenoble Lord, Lord Heseltine, but his views and thePrime Minister’s are not completely consistent.

In the past, the UK has been a Mecca for plannersand Governments from all over the world to see howwe have combined industrial growth with the preservationof our natural environment. The way in which nationalparks manage to have the natural environment, localbusinesses and local housing is a global model. Thereare people who are worried about Clause 8 of the Bill.It is very important that we continue that tradition.Some of our major national parks are very close to thecentres of great industry. One of the attractions forworld-class engineers who go to work at Rolls-Royceis that Derby is very close to the Peak District, whichis an untrammelled and marvellous national park.Other countries also have major manufacturing centresclose to great parks. Manaus in Brazil, home to itsmain electronics centre, is close to the forest environmentof Amazonia.

I have a nice example of the small industries in ournational parks. I once sat next to a lady on a BritishAirways aeroplane. When we got to the stage of eatingcupcakes, as we were flying over her village, she said,“We make them down there”. Those kinds of small-scaleindustries are very important. The Government andall parties believe that they should be expanded.

A strange feature of the Bill is that, although it hasto do with economic growth, housing, infrastructureand the environment, there is no mention of or referenceto the economic value of the environment. This is nowa standard concept in government; the White Paperrefers to it. The Prime Minister now refers to the factthat gross national product is not the primary definitionof growth: it has to include the environment. Therecent Secretary of State at Defra referred to thisnatural capital. Since, perhaps, not all noble Lordsknow about this, a document developed by the NGOGlobe, of which I am a vice-president, has been put inthe Library. I recommend that noble Lords do a littlehomework on that, particularly the people in DCLGdevising the Bill, or perhaps read the speeches ofMinisters in other departments.

The last part of the Bill, in Clause 27, is equallyperverse in going against the spirit of many successfullyrun businesses. The Government seem to be amplifyingoccasional problems and producing a complex solutionwith implications that have not been foreseen. Can theMinister say what kinds of complications there are,and give examples of where the approach in Clause 27has been tried as a pilot? I thought that the Governmentwanted to reduce red tape, and maybe reduce justslightly the income of lawyers dealing with complicationsin government. I was obviously wrong. This is a newjamboree for all of them. Furthermore, now it is evena jamboree for the tax lawyers. All I can say, as thedirector of a small company in Cambridge where thestaff have regular maternal and paternal leave—it isan unusual software company, with 70% women—isthat current human resources management is complicatedenough. This is just another problem and will addcosts to small companies where these issues are important.The Minister has been asked many things, but we havenot heard what the costs of legal challenges are likelyto be as a result of this new legislation.

In summary, the Government are quite right toemphasise the need to invest in infrastructure andhousing, and to maintain their commitment to national

99 100[LORDS]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

parks and the natural environment. Both are neededto grow the economy and to develop communities.However, the Government’s determination to reducelocal involvement through this clumsy legislation hasto be resisted. There are so many successful businessdevelopments involving local business and localorganisations—and, dare one say it, local politicalparties. However, there are exceptional situations thatwe all recognise, in which national projects have to beplanned on a national basis. Special measures such asparliamentary Acts are possible, but the Bill needsgreat changes if it is to be supported in this House andin the country. Of course, lawyers and tax advisers willlove the Bill as it is. It will give them a field day.

8.48 pm

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, this has beenan extensive and excellent debate, but one which hasexposed the gap between the reality of the measures inthe Bill and the needs of our country for growth andinfrastructure. The Bill lacks coherence, vision and aplan for growth. In the terms of my noble friend LordRooker, who put it bluntly, “It won’t work”. My noblefriend Lord Smith said that it was a missed opportunity.My noble friend Lord Whitty said that it ignored theneed for serious thinking on infrastructure investment.The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, called it, “ad hoc,hotchpotch”, with no structure. The noble Lord, LordTaylor, said that it was cobbled together to fill thevacuum left by the lack of Lords reform. My noblefriend Lady Turner said that there was no comfort in itfor the construction industry. The noble Lord, LordShipley, at least clung to the view that the title could beseen as a statement of intent.

Much of the Bill is focused on reform of theplanning system before the ink is dry on the LocalismAct and the NPPF. We had a mini-debate on theNPPF, with a difference of views between the nobleLord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend LordHanworth. That bodes well for Committee. The Bill ispredicated on the notion that the planning system,rather than the lack of finance, is holding back growth,a theme that was challenged by a number of nobleLords. That assertion is based at best on anecdote andit lacks a systematic and rigorous basis of assessmentthat takes account of both cost and benefit. The nobleLord, Lord Tope, asked where the evidence is. Yetagain we see the imprint of a Secretary of State whoespouses the cause of localism but everywhere removespower from local authorities and takes them to himself.

We welcome some measures, especially those whichflow from the Penfold review, and which we expect tobe able to support. However, they do not amount to acomprehensive plan for growth, and they will notcatapult us into the premier league of competitiveness.We have grave misgivings about Clause 1, which areshared by many noble Lords, including the nobleLord, Lord Tope, the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, mynoble friend Lord Whitty, and the noble Lords, LordTeverson, Lord Best, Lord Taylor and Lord True. Theclause gives unprecedented powers to the Secretary ofState to strip any local authority of its planning powersif deemed to be failing so that a developer can seekapproval for major applications from the Secretary of

State. On the basis of the initial criteria, and takingaccount of planning performance agreements, vanishinglyfew local authorities may be deemed to be failing,bearing in mind that planning approval rates are at a10-year high. However, the risk is a tightening of thethreshold in subsequent years, although the Governmentrefuse to set out their response to their consultation onthis matter until the Bill becomes law. Why is this?

In all of this there is no recognition of the intensefinancial pressures which government cuts are imposingon local authority planning departments, as on otherservices; or that designation will weaken local authorities’ability to improve as they lose fees and struggle toretain more able staff to deal with major applications;that the policy will tilt the balance struck in the NPPFand encourage local authorities to eschew quality anddevelop their engagement for speed; or that engagementwith local communities will be impaired. Frankly, thisclause should be deleted.

In Clauses 2 and 3 we see yet further examples ofthe Secretary of State taking powers to himself. InCommittee we will seek to ensure that these are exercisedin a transparent manner and in line with properconsultation.

Clause 4 touches on permitted development rights.Our major concern in this regard is not what is in theBill concerning the extension of rights. Decisions toextend these centrally will lead to unintended consequencesin different localities. If the Government really believedin localism they would agree that these matters shouldbe determined locally.

We desperately need more affordable housing andwe should acknowledge the important role that Section 106agreements have played in delivering this ambition. Asever, the noble Lord, Lord Best, spoke with passion onthis matter. We consider that Clause 6, which enablesdevelopers to seek renegotiation of the affordablehousing obligations with a right of appeal to thePlanning Inspectorate, is particularly egregious. In thewords of my noble friend Lady Whitaker, it is a stepback to another world. It is another example of overridingthe judgment of local authorities, which already havethe power, which they use, to renegotiate such agreements.

We will challenge the linking of project viabilityjust to affordable housing and will argue that any testto be applied should not just be one of economicviability. The development plan policies and differenthousing needs of an area, including rural areas, mustfeature in the assessment. However, if this clause is toremain, then it should be considered as a short-termmeasure with a sunset clause to bring it to an end. Mynoble friend Lord Adonis has asked the Minister totell us precisely which stalled sites she considers unviabledue to Section 106 affordable housing obligations. Ihope that she will do that.

While we support steps to increase access to broadband,including for national parks, this must be done in theright way and not with the sledgehammer approachreferred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. Asthe Bill stands, there are concerns that Clause 8 wouldpermit a free-for-all in areas of outstanding naturalbeauty, which is why we will continue to pursuemechanisms which will narrow the focus of this provision.We understand the point made by the noble Baroness,

101 102[8 JANUARY 2013]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

[LORD MCKENZIE OF LUTON]Lady Hanham, in her introduction about EU requirementsand will look to see how that bears on secondarylegislation. We were reminded by the noble Baroness,Lady Brinton, about the importance of broadband,particularly in respect of rural areas, and by the nobleBaroness, Lady Valentine, more generally.

Clauses 13, 14 and 15 seek to make it more difficultfor a green space to be designated as a town or villagegreen. The intent is to stop vexatious applications toregister land which are submitted to thwart proposeddevelopment. We would have common cause in notwanting to see the opportunities to designate greenspace used in this manner but remain unconvincedthat it is a major problem. The CPRE cites there beingonly 185 applications for this status in 2009, which canbe compared to many tens of thousands of planningapplications.

However, we do not oppose all change to the existingarrangements but will look for assurances on publicityaround landlord statements and will seek changes tothe heavy-handed approach to removing the right forlocal inhabitants to apply for registration of land as agreen space once it has been marked down fordevelopment. This approach goes beyond what Penfoldproposed.

A number of provisions in the Bill are focused onclarifying and streamlining the process for infrastructureplanning but also on restricting the special parliamentaryprocedure in part to overcome anomalies. The interventionof my noble friend Lord Faulkner in relation to Clauses 22and 23 is highly relevant. These clearly are mattersthat we will have to review in depth in Committee.

My noble friend Lord Berkeley spoke about theneed to extend some of the provisions relating toeasing the infrastructure process. That also will besomething which we will need to examine in Committee,as well as his point about the resources for the PlanningInspectorate, given the multiplicity of different rolesprovided for it in the Bill.

Clause 24 seeks to bring business and commercialapplications into the major infrastructure regime, whichwas established in the Planning Act 2008. We are notopposed to a broadening of the regime, although theway in which the clause does this would represent aconsiderable departure from the current system.“Business” and “commercial” need to be adequatelydefined as they are not so obviously in the publicinterest or nationally significant. Widening the regimeopens up yet further possibilities for bypassing localdecision-making and the lack of any national policystatements bypassing parliamentary scrutiny. We willpursue amendments on these matters.

The inclusion of a clause to defer the 2015 ratinglist revaluation by two years comes as a surprise,particularly as we have only just completed our scrutinyof the Local Government Finance Act where we hadextensive discussions about the role and resourcing ofthe VOA. The deferral breaks a tradition of more than20 years of regularly uprating business rates that hasnot been subject to political interference. As my noblefriend Lord Smith pointed out, the Government havejustified this decision on the grounds of providingcertainty for business at a difficult time and that there

would be many more losers than gainers from the 2015revaluation. It is accepted that a revaluation wouldnot overall increase or decrease aggregate revenuefrom business rates but a revaluation is supposed tomaintain fairness by ensuring that rateable valuesreflect up-to-date rental values.

As we have heard, the VOA undertook its high-level,indicative estimates based on limited rental data. Othershave called into question the projections made fromthis analysis and the CBI has declared that it considersthe benefits of deferral to be overstated. Before proceedingwith a deferral, there should be a full consultationprocess and the Government should publishcomprehensive estimates of how businesses are to beaffected. We also would want to take the opportunityto assess the current fitness for purpose of the VOA,its resourcing and how it is handling appeals fromprevious valuations. The Minister will recall ourdeliberations on the business rate retention schemeand calls then for rating revaluations to coincide witha general resetting of the system. Will putting back therevaluation affect the current 2020 timetable?

Finally, the nonsense that is Clause 27 has beencomprehensively taken apart by my noble friend LordAdonis, and he was supported by many other nobleLords—my noble friends Lord Monks, Lord Morris,Lady Turner and Lady Donaghy, as well as by thenoble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord,Lord Greaves. Seldom have we seen a governmentproposal that has such little support. The raft ofamendments that the Government have already beenforced to bring forward underlines the technical complexityof the scheme. If it is anything, it is a job creationprogramme for lawyers and accountants. In concept,perhaps the Government will explain why it is okay forsenior executives to sit on their stock options yet stillbenefit from handsome payoffs when they leave, but itwill be a spur to growth if employees are offered thearrangements to forgo their redundancy entitlementthat are proposed in the clause.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, made referenceto the range of existing employee shareholding schemes.If such arrangements are out there, why cannot theybe used? What is so great about the proposals in theBill? Concerns have been expressed about the schemebeing used for tax avoidance. From debate in Committeein the Commons, it would seem that we will have toawait the Budget to understand the extent to whichthe issue of shares, fully paid, will be free of incometax and capital gains on subsequent disposal. Can theMinister shed further light on this? What is the estimatedcost in term of tax forgone as a result of these proposals?

There remains a raft of technical issues to pursuearound valuation, TUPE, JSA claimants, compulsion,realisation, share rights and dilution—to name but afew. Our opposition to this clause is not principallyabout technicalities. Cutting the rights at work ofemployees is wrong in principle and, in the terms ofmy noble friend Lord Monks, unethical. It will nothelp jobs and growth, and that is why it has so littlesupport among employers as well as employee groups.The proposition is divisive and the clause should bescrapped.

103 104[LORDS]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

The Bill displays the worst features of a strugglingGovernment. It is contradictory on localism, lackingin evidence base on planning, misguided in underminingemployee rights, divisive in reducing affordable housing,and devoid of a strategic context. It will keep us busyin Committee.

9.02 pm

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, perhaps I may startby welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, to hisposition on the Front Bench for the Bill. I am delightedto see him there and, having listened to the debate, hewill realise that we are in for a lively time—as I do. Ialso congratulate all noble Lords for having survived.This is the first time in this House that I have sat in thisChamber and been so hot that I did not know what todo with myself. Noble Lords have all done extremelywell to survive.

The noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Whitty,and many other noble Lords have portrayed not onlythe Bill but the Government as being anti-localist.Perhaps I should say immediately in our defence thatwe have spent a lot of time in this House making surethat this Government are localist. Beyond the LocalismBill, we have been through the NPPF, and we have hadgreat discussions on localism and giving priority tolocal authorities. I do not therefore think that thisBill undermines that in any way. The Governmentare committed to localism. They recognise that insome areas there are small problems that need to bedealt with, and that is what we are trying to do in theBill.

Perhaps we can start with Clause 1, which hasattracted a great deal of attention. The clause is todeal only with those very few situations where aneffective planning service is not being delivered locally.We published an impact assessment, which, togetherwith the consultation document on planning performancethat supports this clause, is clear about the evidencebase. I am sure that by the time we reach Committee,all noble Lords will have read those documents.

As I said in my opening remarks, although the greatmajority of applications—about 88%—are approvedin good time, that is not the situation everywhere. Thecriteria that we have proposed in relation to localauthorities that are failing in their duty would meandesignating—I emphasise what my noble friend theplanning Minister in the other place said—a verysmall number of authorities that fail to determinemore than 30% of their major decisions on time. Thatis not a standard of performance that we shouldregard as acceptable. I will not name specific authoritiesfor the simple reason that circumstances can changebefore any initial designations are made.

On that point I want to reassure the noble Lord,Lord Tope, and other noble Lords that we have beentalking to the Local Government Association aboutthe role that the sector can play in helping otherauthorities to improve and to stop them being designated.We do not particularly want them to be designated; wewant to use this as a way of ensuring that standardsare maintained. We want the Local GovernmentAssociation to help authorities regain their powers ifthey have been designated.

I was asked by various noble Lords how failingcouncils will initially be designated. They will be designatedinitially for 12 months, and that will be reviewedbefore the year is up. It will be done on criteria that Iam sure we shall discuss in Committee. Althoughapplicants can appeal against non-determination, oncethe statutory period is up, we believe that they shouldhave the choice of accessing a better service from dayone, where there is clear evidence that the planningservice is not being delivered effectively.

I must underscore that these provisions are notmandatory on every local authority. They give theSecretary of State powers to designate, as I said, thissmall number of local authorities. This is not a case ofswiping at localism; this is saying that there are smallareas that we need to deal with. The provisions do notentirely take the powers away from local authoritiesbecause they enable the applicant to decide whetherthey want to leave their application with the designatedlocal authority or whether they wish to go to thePlanning Inspectorate. I do not think that the PlanningInspectorate, under these circumstances, will beoverwhelmed with extra work.

I am conscious of not having a lot of time. PerhapsI can turn to Clause 5, which deals with informationrequirements. The noble Lords, Lord True, Lord Taylorof Goss Moor, Lord Teverson and Lord Shipley, allraised points on why that clause is needed as the policyis already set out in the National Planning PolicyFramework. The clause is needed because there havebeen court cases and we need to ensure that applicantscan get to appeal, if they need to, when there aredisputes about information that cannot be resolved. Itis also quite unnecessary for local government to haveto seek, particularly with smaller applications, a wholeraft of information that does not necessarily appear tobe germane to the application. People can always askfor that information as the application proceeds, ifthey wish, but it is clearly not helpful if there is somuch information that it never sees the light of day.

Section 106 renegotiations on affordable housinghave received quite a lot of attention. As I made clearin my opening remarks, there are already 1,400 stalledsites with more than 75,000 houses that should beunder construction. A number of those homes will beaffordable, so it is not that there will be 75,000 affordablehomes, but within that figure will be such homes. Weknow that there are many reasons as to why developmentis not coming forward, and those reasons will varyfrom site to site. We accept that there will be financialimplications as well, so this is not the entirety of theproblem.

At the moment there is no central assessment of theviability of every site. Noble Lords asked whether thatwould be a general requirement, and perhaps I maycome back to the point in Committee. However, weknow that Section 106 agreements are a significantcost to developers, and historically 50% of the cost ison affordable housing. Our measure provides for aquick and focused review of the Section 106 agreementwithout reopening the policy context or merits of theplanning consent. It will deliver the development ofaffordable housing. That is because this particularclause relates to the affordable housing aspect of

105 106[8 JANUARY 2013]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

[BARONESS HANHAM]Section 106, and we know that a number of authoritiesare already carrying out those negotiations. I agreethat the assessment of viability will be key to theconsideration of appropriate affordable housingrequirements. We are going to issue guidance to establishthe key considerations for assessing that viability forthe purposes of this clause. I do not agree that thePlanning Inspectorate is not able to consider mattersof viability. Inspectors regularly examine that aspectin planning appeals and local plan considerations.

My noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor askedwhy we should single out affordable housing ratherthan use the Homes and Communities Agency to helpdeliver affordable housing obligations. I have said thatwe know historically that 50% of the value of obligationsis on affordable housing, and councils are already freeto renegotiate any aspect of that Section 106 obligationat any time on a voluntary basis. This measure onlyprovides a backstop where local authorities may notbe prepared voluntarily to undertake those negotiations.It gives the developer the right to make sure that theytake place. Funding historic aspirations on individualsites for affordable housing is not going to be the bestway of securing value for money from the Homes andCommunities Agency investment, and our aim is touse guarantees to deliver 15,000 new affordable homes.

One of the other areas that was the cause ofconsiderable discussion is that of Clause 8 and broadband.The provisions of this clause will be instrumental inremoving the planning red tape that is currently slowingdown, and in some places blocking, the rollout ofbroadband. The question of state aid was raised bythe noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. I accept immediatelythat state aid has been a delaying factor, but it is notthe only one. Planning issues have been the cause ofdelays as well. As I said originally, the Government’sambition is for this country to have the best superfastbroadband network in Europe by 2015 and it is vitalthat the rollout of this infrastructure is fast-tracked inorder to kick-start economic growth, create jobs andsupport the country’s long-term economic future.However, it is also absolutely vital to ensure that ruralareas have broadband and are thus able to take part inthat growth and economic improvement. So we believethat the introduction of short-term planning relaxationsis justified and we will ensure that the Government’sambition for superfast broadband and universalbroadband coverage is not prevented by planningobjections where we believe that they are causing ablockage.

I understand the concerns regarding protected areas,but it is the communities in some of these areas thatare in the most need of the upgraded infrastructure.Certain rural areas are in danger of being left behindand are the most expensive and difficult to reach,where underground cabling is often difficult to put inplace. If these remote areas are excluded, a number ofhouseholds and businesses will be left completely behind.In the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine,broadband is an essential infrastructure. My noblefriend Lady Brinton described eloquently the ways inwhich broadband is essential to the rural economy.

9.15 pm

The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, asked aboutthe number of new poles. It is difficult to estimate asoperators will first be expected to explore using theexisting infrastructure of poles and ducts before puttingup any more. We shall be asking how much use operatorsplan to make of the relaxation of restrictions on newoverhead lines in the forthcoming consultation. Decisionson how that is delivered will depend on the outcome ofthe procurement process. However, I can reassure mynoble friend Lord Shipley that the Bill’s provisionsinsist that communications providers will have to workclosely in conjunction with local authorities and localpeople, and they will have to get their co-operationbefore undertaking any work.

Town and village greens are all areas that havegenerated the most enthusiasm. On the reforms to thesystem for registering land as town or village green,the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has suggested that themoratorium on green applications when a planningproposal is first published is Kafkaesque—I think thatis how he put it—and unfair. On the contrary, webelieve that the trigger event marks the start of theconsultation, not the end. It enables communities tohave their say on whether land should be developed orkept open, for example, because of its recreationalvalue, without that decision being pre-empted beforethe process can be concluded.

As my noble friend Lady Eaton said in her speech,this puts the decision in the democratically accountableplanning system. Also within that planning system arelocal and neighbourhood plans, and we expect verymuch that all this aspect of green, open and designatedspace will be taken up in those plans. Therefore, theywill be well and widely known about by the peopleconcerned.

On the one-stop shop, under Clause 21, the nobleLord, Lord Berkeley, asked whether the PlanningInspectorate will provide pre-application advice. I canassure the noble Lord that the planning inspectoralready provides that advice. I am sure that the nobleLord will appreciate that I cannot comment on detailedindividual cases. However, I hope that he will welcomeClause 21, which expands the one-stop shop for majorinfrastructure and note that we recently consulted onexpanding and improving the one-stop shop approach.The noble Lord talked about our special parliamentaryprocedures. We propose to continue the specialparliamentary procedure under the nationally significantproject regime in respect of statutory undertakers’land. We do not believe that this land warrants inclusionas statutory undertakers can make representations aspart of the examination process. I am sorry, I think Ishould have said that we propose removing specialparliamentary procedure in respect of statutory undertakerland.

Also on the subject of special parliamentary procedure,the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, asked about petitions.In future, petitions will be able to be made only aboutthe acquisition of special land. We have responded tothe concerns of the Joint Chairman of Committees toaddress inconsistencies in legislation, and I made thatpoint in my opening remarks as something that hascome about as a result of people seeing the way in

107 108[LORDS]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Growth and Infrastructure Bill

which the legislation operates. We are committed toreforming the special parliamentary procedure so it istriggered only in cases where there is a real need forParliament to confirm a ministerial decision. Therewill remain four opportunities—I think the noble Lordasked about that—for the views of all interested partiesto be taken.

On Clause 24, a number of noble Lords raisedquestions on how changes to the nationally significantinfrastructure regime will operate. We have recentlyconsulted on these proposals and our considered responsesto that. We propose to set out the types of developmentin secondary legislation, but it will be for the Secretaryof State to reach a view on national significancefollowing the receipt of a request to use the regime.Applications accepted into the nationally significantprojects regime will be decided within 12 months fromthe start of examination.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and LadyYoung, raised the issue of hydraulic fracturing, orfracking. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley,raising fracking ages ago. The Government supportindustries and endeavours which pursue new energysources, so long as tapping these proves to be technicallyand economically viable and can be carried out withfull regard to the protection of the environment.

On business rates and Clause 25, the noble Lord,Lord Tope, asked how many ratepayers would haveseen reductions in their bills at the 2015 revaluation. Ihave said that it is not possible at this stage to sayprecisely how many would have benefited, but theValuation Office Agency’s high-level analysis suggeststhat only 300,000 premises would have seen reductionscompared to 800,000 that would have seen increases.That would have had an impact.

Finally, I want to touch briefly on Clause 27. Iapologise that I am not going to have time to deal fullywith that last point. I want to remind the House thatthis is a new employment status, which employers maywish to use if it suits them. However, it is importantthat we do not confuse employee shareholders withthe employee ownership agenda, which is now beingtaken forward following the Nuttall review. We haveconsistently stated that guidance would be provided asto how this new employment status will work and wewill update the House as guidance is developed. I notenoble Lords’ concerns about the type of shares thatwill be issued but we have been very clear that it will beup to individual contracts to determine the nature ofthe shares.

Lord Adonis: I thank the noble Baroness for givingway. These are crucial issues. She says she will updatethe House as guidance is developed. Will that bebefore Committee stage?

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I do not know theanswer to that. I will let the noble Lord and the Houseknow as soon as I can get an indication of when thatguidance is going to be available, but I would expectthat we would be able to discuss it. We want to giveemployers and people more choice. Clause 27 doesthat and when we reach Committee stage, we will beable to deal with some of the more detailed points.

In concluding, I again thank all noble Lords whohave taken part in the debate. I believe the measures inthis Bill will build on the steps that this Governmenthave already taken to make the planning system simplerand make sure that we encourage economic growth. Ihope that we can all agree that freeing up businessesfrom the swathe of red tape that has engulfed them is asuitable objective for this House in passing legislation.I hope the House will support the Bill. I am sure that itwill in the end and I look forward to the discussions inthe middle.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committeeof the Whole House.

Armed Forces: Future SizeQuestion for Short Debate

9.23 pm

Asked By Lord Empey

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the lightof recent international developments particularlyin the Middle East, whether they will review theirplans for the future size, configuration and equippingof the Armed Forces.

Lord Empey: My Lords, I welcome the opportunityfor the House to discuss defence issues, given theongoing sacrifice that our soldiers, sailors and AirForce personnel are being asked to make on behalf ofthis country. Sadly, another example of that sacrificehas been drawn to our attention today.

Leaving aside the question of how or whether weshould be fighting in recent theatres of operation, thereality is that we have had large numbers of troopsdeployed overseas for many years, enduring great hardshipand significant losses. Before the Recess, I asked theMinister for details of those who had suffered life-changinginjuries as a result of their deployment in Iraq andAfghanistan. For the record, I will repeat the Minister’sAnswer:

“My Lords, for reporting purposes serious UK operationalcasualties are usually categorised as having either serious or veryserious wounds and injuries. Between 2003 and 2009, 222 UKcasualties in Iraq were included in these categories, while thenumber for Afghanistan between 2001 and November this yearwas 591”.—[Official Report, 19/12/12; col. 1543.]

These are sobering figures and do not even includethose who may suffer mental health issues in lateryears as a result of their experiences.

I labour this point because, due to the vastimprovements in battlefield medicine, wounded soldiersare surviving injuries that they would not have done inearlier conflicts. It follows that upon returning to theUK with severe injuries, they will require perhaps60 years of care, and I wonder if the NHS, which willhave to bear this burden, is fully prepared and resourcedfor the challenge.

One keeps hearing examples of the problems returningsoldiers and their families have in adapting to civilianlife, especially if injuries have occurred while in service.The number of former soldiers who end up in thejustice system should alert us to the difficulties they

109 110[8 JANUARY 2013]Growth and Infrastructure Bill Armed Forces: Future Size

[LORD EMPEY]face. The long-term welfare of our Armed Forcesmust remain a top priority and I hope the Ministercan give the House an assurance that there will be noskimping when it comes to assisting with both welfareissues and professional services aimed at helping andequipping former soldiers for the world of work.

Upon taking office in May 2010, the coalitionGovernment undertook a review of the Armed Forces,with the emphasis on ensuring, among other matters,that the sums for procurement add up and that, infuture, programmes and equipment would be affordableand delivered on time. For a new Government, with anapparent multibillion pound overage in its spendingcommitments, this was an obvious thing to do.Furthermore, the threats faced by the United Kingdomare always changing and any responsible Governmentare required to test our military configuration andequipment against the threat levels we face.

Considerable controversy followed the 2010 strategicdefence and security review. This is not surprising, butperhaps the most hurtful and humiliating developmentwas the realisation that we currently—and for someyears to come—have no seaborne fixed-wing air capability.For an island nation to have such a limited option toproject its power from aircraft carriers leaves us effectivelyout of business in many possible conflict scenarios. Itis hard to see how we could defend ourselves withoutsignificant help from others.

Only months after the review was published wewere plunged into the Libyan conflict. I believe thatthe Government did the right thing by interveningwith our allies to protect the people of that countryfrom almost certain mass murder by the Gaddafiregime, but our inability to fly missions from aircraftcarriers added to the cost and the risk to our ArmedForces. Air crews, who did a magnificent job, had tofly long distances to land bases in Italy, which even afew years ago may not have been available to us.

We know that the previous Government commissionedtwo large aircraft carriers, which are under construction,but more embarrassment was to follow when we learnedthat there were no aircraft to fly from them. Ourchoice of a replacement for the Harrier went from onedesign to another and then back again. It reminds meof sending a football team on to the pitch without thebenefit of a goalkeeper.

Given that the UK still has a large military spendcompared to many of our competitors it is hard tofathom why we find ourselves in this powerless position.We did not get here simply from 2010 but were clearlygoing to founder because of decisions taken, or nottaken, long before then. As protection of the nation isa top priority for any Government, ending up in thismess represents a fundamental failure of the state toprovide adequate protection for its citizens.

Our present political model leaves us open, as anation, to short-term and bad decision-making. We allrecall that the decision to save a paltry sum in theSouth Atlantic in 1982 cost this country dearly, inboth personnel and treasure, by signalling to the Argentinemilitary junta that we were not serious about protecting

the Falklands. What message are we sending out nowwhen we are incapable of providing adequate seaborneairpower?

Earlier I referred to the situation we found ourselvesin during the Arab spring in Libya. This “spring” willsoon be two years old, and a major civil war is ragingin Syria, with all the usual suspects in the regioninvolved by proxy. Iran will defend Assad to the last,even if the Russians and Chinese see that he is finished.Iran will stop at nothing if it sees its main ally in theregion about to fail. The Strait of Hormuz is stillunder threat. None of us here can tell how things inthe Middle East will play out.

Last week, Danish, German and American troopswere deployed to Turkey to set up Patriot batteries toprotect the Turks against Scuds and other missiles thatwe know Assad possesses. Lebanon and Jordan areonce again being destabilised by the mass movementof refugees, and internal disputes have reignited inboth these countries. Will the Minister assure the Housethat the Government continue to keep the MiddleEast situation under constant review and will adjustand reconfigure our forces as required to meet theemerging threat posed by the instability in this region?

One of the principal reasons given for the secondwar in Iraq was the alleged presence of large volumesof weapons of mass destruction, hidden by SaddamHussein for future use. Despite many searches, littleevidence was produced that such weapons existed inIraq. Since then, however, weapons of mass destructionhave been used by terrorists in Iraq. Nerve gas booby-trapbombs have been deployed on a number of occasionsand other chemicals have been combined with explosivesto maximise casualties, including in al-Qaeda attacksin east Africa. Can the Minister confirm that coalitionforces in Iraq and Afghanistan have encountered nerveagents and other chemical weapons which were in thepossession of terrorists? Can he assure the House thatour own Armed Forces are adequately equipped andtrained to deal with attacks involving such agents andchemicals in this country, as well as in other theatresof operation?

One of the biggest defence-related debates, evenwithin the coalition Government, is the future of ourindependent nuclear deterrent. The current deliverysystem is moving towards the end of its operationallife; in view of our current financial position, peoplewill be asking if there is a less expensive alternative,given that the threats the UK faces are more likely tocome from unconventional enemies. Can the Ministerset out government policy in this matter and the extentto which decisions have been taken for a replacementfor the Trident system?

As a result of the 2010 review, the three serviceswere all subject to personnel reductions. I accept thatnumbers are not the whole story; nevertheless, thereappears to be a pattern developing of more taskshaving to be performed against a background of fallingnumbers. We had two long-term overseas deploymentstaking place at the same time as Operation Bannerwas happening here in the UK. Is the Minister satisfiedthat the Armed Forces are not being overstretchedand, as a result, seeing their flexibility severely depleted?Furthermore, given recent and unjustified violence

111 112[LORDS]Armed Forces: Future Size Armed Forces: Future Size

from both loyalist and IRA sources in Northern Ireland,will the Minister assure the House that, should it berequired by the chief constable of Northern Ireland,military support will be available to him? Sadly, overthe weekend, a threat was made by IRA elements toany Irish citizen serving in the British Army. I ask theMinister, therefore, to bear that in mind in his response.

When we debated the Armed Forces Bill in 2011, anumber of amendments arose from our deliberations.A commitment was given then that the Secretary ofState for Defence would report annually to Parliamenton the progress being made throughout the UK inimplementing the covenant under certain headings.Can the Minister say when such a Statement is likelyto be made so that we will have the opportunity toquestion him on developments? Following on fromthat, can the Minister confirm whether Armed Forcesadvocates have been appointed from all parts of theUnited Kingdom?

I said at the outset that we owe a massive debt ofgratitude to our Armed Forces for the work thatwe ask them to do. They do not unilaterally go to wagewar or defend our interests around the world: we sendthem. It is therefore our responsibility to ensure thatwhen things go wrong and service personnel are killedor injured, those left behind or needing long-term careare adequately provided for. We continue to hear casesof hardship. During the debate on the Bill in 2011 itwas suggested that we should have something like theUS Veterans Administration in this country. In response,the Government said that they preferred the currentmodel.

I care little about which model we follow; whatmatters is that the help is provided. It annoys a lot ofpeople to hear tales of ex-service personnel beingrefused this or that help from a country that can findendless supplies of money to cater for the needs ofAbu Qatada and his ilk. I trust therefore that even inthese times of economic difficulty we will continue topay close attention to the defence needs of this country.If we fail to do so, history teaches us that we alwaysend up paying a high price as a nation.

9.34 pm

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill: My Lords, first, fromthese Benches I offer condolences to the family of theBritish soldier shot dead by a rogue member of theAfghan national army. I also thank the noble Lord,Lord Empey, for putting this debate down—it was apleasant surprise when I read about it in Bangkok.

The title of the debate mentions the potential problemsin the Middle East. Of course, that is only one potentialarea of conflict and there are others. Did we expect awar in the Falklands or in the Balkans? Did we expectconflict in Iraq or Afghanistan? Can we keep out ofconflict in Syria, where horrendous killings are takingplace, or Israel/Palestine, whose almost intractableproblems seem to be getting worse, or Egypt, Lebanonor Tunisia? The list of potential trouble spots is endless,as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, indicated. Where willthe next conflict or conflicts be?

With an Army of a mere 82,000 personnel, whatwill be feasible when any conflict takes place? Couldmy noble friend the Minister, who does such a great

job in the Ministry of Defence, indicate how manygenerals will be left in this Army of 82,000? How doesthe number of generals in the Army now and when itis so reduced compare to the number of generals inother armies in France or the United States, relative tothe number of personnel in those armed forces?

The title of the debate includes the word“configuration”. An important point from my perspectivehas always been the configuration of procurement inthe Ministry of Defence. The questions really are:what equipment do we have, what equipment do weneed and do we know what we need? The questionthat perhaps no one wants to ask is: what do we notknow that we need? What Navy and RAF do we haveand do we need? I am pleased to see the noble Lord,Lord West, in his place. I will leave all naval andaviation problems to him. The noble Lord, Lord Empey,mentioned two aircraft carriers being built. What planeswill be able to fly from those carriers? The noble Lordmade the analogy to a football team and said it waslike sending a team on without a goalkeeper. I disagree:it is like sending a team on without a team. All youwould have is the football stadium or the aircraftcarriers and nothing to fly from them at the moment.

Then the questions are: what vehicles do we haveand how do we use them in the conflicts that takeplace? We have armoured vehicles and we send themto an area that is sandy so we paint them a sandycolour. Then, if we have a conflict in an Arctic regionwe take the same vehicles and paint them white. Butthey are not necessarily—in fact they certainly arenot—the proper equipment for our forces. The armedpersonnel will lose lives because of the inadequacy ofthat equipment. Would my noble friend accept thatdefence reviews and procurement move far more slowlythan the fast-changing events around the world,particularly in the Middle East and north Africa?How can the Government ensure that the UnitedKingdom is able to react in a timely way to thesedefence and security challenges? Then of course thereis the financial aspect and the unexpected need forfinance. When conflicts take place, will finance beavailable from some pot somewhere to pay for it? Willthe equipment needed be available at short notice?

Could the Minister say what assessment has beenmade of new types of warfare such as the Iron Domedefence infrastructure protecting civilians in Israel,which has meant that the rockets sent against Israel donot land in any areas of population? They are in factdeveloping a system that is Iron Dome-plus and IronDome-plus-plus to deal with medium and long-rangemissiles. That is something that I hope would be in ournational security strategy.

The Government’s second annual report on thenational security strategy and defence review lastNovember highlighted increased instability in the MiddleEast as one of the major developments since the nationalsecurity strategy in 2010. How will the Governmentupdate the national security strategy to reflect thischange? Is the idea of just having a review and then,after a given period, another review and another reviewthe way to go about it? Surely we should be thinking ofthe review as ongoing and seamless; one should bereviewing it all the time and not just at given times.

113 114[8 JANUARY 2013]Armed Forces: Future Size Armed Forces: Future Size

[LORD PALMER OF CHILDS HILL]Does the Minister accept that the developments in theMiddle East and north Africa since the publication ofthe national security strategy have seen major changesin our defence and security picture that were notanticipated when the strategy was first presented. Whataction will the Government take as a result?

The Times today talks about extensive Armyredundancies and the effect of the ability to controlthe future shape of the Army. The great worry is thatthe redundancies will include people with needed tradesand that they will leave gaps in the performance ofcertain functions. I wonder how that will be coped with.

Perhaps the Minister will relate that to the use ofthe Reserve Forces. A lot is mentioned in the reviewsas to the building up of the Reserve Forces, but I havemy doubts as to whether people with the relevant skillswill always be available, and whether they will be ableto take the time off from their main employment to goand serve their country. There is a quote in the Timesthat perhaps doing defence on the cheap is leaving keyroles empty. It really is a problem of whether the Armywith 82,000 people is going to be fit for purpose.

As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, we owe aconsiderable and continued debt to our Armed Forces.We are lucky to have the Minister here who I knowdoes an incredible job in the Ministry of Defence.Nothing that I am saying is meant to be critical ofthat. A lot of these problems are inherent in what hasbeen happening not just during the present Administrationbut during previous Administrations. There is greatscope for looking in a fresh light at what conflicts arelikely to happen, what stocks of equipment we have,what we will need, what we could need and whetherthere are new items of defence and attack available inthe world that we should be looking at to bring ourforces completely up to date.

9.43 pm

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I thank the nobleLord, Lord Empey, for raising this debate. It is verypertinent. I apologise for not having put my name onthe list of speakers. I was more focused on my Christmasfestivities than on knowing what the business of theHouse was, but I felt it was very important to speak.

I will speak very briefly on the aircraft carriers—otherwise people might think that I am a one-trickpony on that. The Government have begun to get theirmind around that and understand the importance ofthem. They are something that we should be reallyproud of, rather in the sense that we were proud of theOlympic work, employing some 20,000 people acrossthe UK, building these amazing ships. The Governmenthave made it quite clear—certainly the Secretary ofState did in a conference I was at—that they intendrunning both of them. Yes, there have been a lot ofproblems. Yes, there have been issues about what aircraftthey will have; we now know what aircraft they willhave. I am glad that the Government are getting togrips with that.

However, I believe that our nation is standing intodanger. Since I joined the Royal Navy 48 years ago,our military has suffered a steady attrition in size andresources. That has happened year on year in all my

48 years in the Navy. The 2010 strategic defence andsecurity review is, I believe, the straw that has almostbroken the camel’s back, but a further £1.3 billion hasbeen taken from the defence budget.

Our military is not now capable of what the peopleof our nation expect of it. If Ministers think that it is,I fear that they are deluded. The internationaldevelopments in the Middle East—the Arab springwas referred to as the basis of this debate—are justone example of what a chaotic, unpredictable anddangerous world we are in. At the time of the 2010SDSR, a number of us—some of whom are in theChamber tonight—pointed out that the cost-drivenexercise took no account of strategic shock. The eventsin Libya and Syria have proved the point. The nobleLord, Lord Palmer, asked: where will the next one be?We have no idea what the next crisis might be. That iswhy we need capable Armed Forces. As an aside,Libya was a minor operation, but we could not havedone it without the United States. I would stronglyadvise that we do not get involved militarily in Syria.

I come back to defence spending, because that iswhat I want to focus on. It is complacent and, Ibelieve, shows a lack of understanding, to parrot thefact that our defence spending is the fourth highest inthe world, as if that answers criticism that it is toosmall. First, figures can be very misleading, as manynations, as I know from my time as chief of defenceintelligence, hide what we see as defence spending inlots of other areas, so it is sometimes difficult to knowwhat they are actually spending.

Even if we are in the top six, so we should be. Weare the fifth or sixth richest country in the world; weare a permanent member of the Security Council.Unlike many nations, we have a responsibility for14 dependencies world wide. The Government recentlyreiterated our responsibility for defence of thosedependencies. We run global shipping from London,the sinews that hold the global trading village togetherand are a huge earner for this nation. We are thelargest European investor in South Asia, South-EastAsia, Australasia and key parts of the Pacific Rim.Global stability is crucial to our investments and ournation’s wealth and security.

I share in the congratulations to the Minister, becausehe has been very good about briefing us in this Houseon defence issues, but he will, because he must as aMinister, no doubt talk about balancing the defencebudget. Yes, the MoD equipment programme wasoverheated—there is no doubt about that—but talkingabout a balanced budget is sophistry. Future Force2020, the headmark for the SDSR—

BaronessGardenof Frognal:Iapologise for interrupting,but the noble Lord will be aware that speakers in thegap have a limit of four minutes.

Lord West of Spithead: I am aware of that.Future Force 2020, the headmark for the SDSR,

required a 1% increase in defence spending year onyear from 2015-16. The Treasury has allowed only a1% increase in the procurement budget. Therefore, theprogramme is underfunded; and therefore it is notbalanced. The cuts so far have led to an underspend of

115 116[LORDS]Armed Forces: Future Size Armed Forces: Future Size

£1.3 million, and they are being taken from moneythat has been voted by Parliament for defence. If, asDavid Cameron has argued, defence is the highestpriority, we must increase defence spending, even if itmeans cutting other departments’ budgets. Certainly,involvement in any more foreign adventures withoutthat commitment could be catastrophic. I repeat: ournation is standing into danger unless we increasedefence spending as a matter of urgency.

9.48 pm

Lord Rosser: My Lords, it is late. Perhaps becauseof that, the interest shown in this debate in terms ofthe number of speakers is limited. Nevertheless, theissue raised is one of real interest and importance. Ithank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for giving us theopportunity to have this debate.

Relationships between countries and continents,strengths of countries and continents and their levelsof influence change over time. For example, it will notbe long before the size of the Chinese economy willexceed that of the United States. China’s militarycapability is also expanding fast and, with it, theconfidence in wielding influence and greater politicaldominance that that brings. The United States, for itspart, has made clear that it will be devoting more of itsattention and resources, not least military ones, to theFar East and China, which will become its new strategicpriority, and fewer to Europe. The United Statesambassador to NATO has recently been quoted assaying that the NATO allies need to find the money tospend on military equipment to maintain the organisation’sstrength. The US itself accounts for 75% of NATO’sbudget and spends 4% of its GDP on defence. Theambassador asserted that the campaign in Libya hadexposed what he described as “worrisome trends” inEurope’s ability to act without US help, that someEuropean stockpiles had run out and had to be replenishedby the United States, and that there were a,“number of other critical capabilities that the US provided inspades”.

The future direction for the Middle East, in whichwe have considerable interests, is far from clear. Significantchange, which was not predicted, has taken place inEgypt, Tunisia and Libya. We have seen the rise of theMuslim Brotherhood as an international phenomenonand the Gulf States, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia,becoming more active players in events. The Sunni/Shiasectarian animosity in the Middle East continues to bea telling factor. Syria is in a state of turmoil and that ishaving repercussions in the Lebanon and Jordan. Itremains to be seen in which direction Syria goes oncePresident Assad has left the scene, and in particularthe impact that this has on the Iranian Governmentand stability in the region, since the Iranians back thecurrent Syrian regime.

Presidential elections are due in Iran in June andthe current president will have to step down after twoconsecutive terms in office. Iran continues to facepressure over its nuclear intentions and its economy isin trouble. Israel also has elections later this month,though a significant change in government directiondoes not appear to be likely. The peace process betweenIsrael and Palestine appears at present to be going

nowhere, and there continues to be speculation onwhether the Israeli military will strike against Iraniannuclear facilities.

On top of this the growing strength of al-Qaeda inparts of Africa, the rise of new powers in Asia Pacific,weak states outnumbering stable states by two to one,and new threats in cyberspace, which have been thereality in the Middle East in recent months, are allmatters to be taken into account in assessing futuredevelopments and priorities. Even though we may nothave predicted at least some significant events thathave taken place, forecasting what is going to happenin the future is likely to become more, not less, difficult.Today, energy security, climate change, demographicshifts, and the spread of chemical, biological, radiologicaland nuclear materials are threats, alongside state-on-statewarfare, or contorted religiously inspired terrorism.

The global economic downturn that we face meansthat we and the majority of our allies are makingspending cuts, with unavoidable consequences forcapability and global reach. In the UK the situationhas not been helped by the fact that decisions taken bythe Government have not yet stimulated domesticgrowth and austerity is set to be extended. Budgetaryrestraint is unavoidable, however undesirable. If weare to realise our intentions and ambitions for ourforces they will have to be affordable, and the profile ofthe defence budget will be an expression of our priorities.

Carrier strike and improved ISTAR are vital. Strategicwarning capabilities and intelligence will be crucial inproviding early indicators of threats and potentialcrises. Two state-of-the-art fighter fleets, advancedunmanned vehicles supporting all three services andstrategic air lift are also key components. Our ArmedForces personnel will continue to be our most importantasset and skills must also be a strategic capability. Weneed highly trained service personnel able to use highertechnology platforms and exploiting to the full theopportunities new technology presents, reservists usingniche civilian skills in military contexts, not least in thefield of cyberspace and cyber security, and a high-skilled,broad-based defence industry. Remote surveillance,manoeuvrability in cyberspace, better communicationsand acting at distance with accuracy are all necessaryfeatures for our future forces.

Alongside this must also be a greater focus oninternational alliance-building. Shared threats andfinancial challenges demand that we pool resourcesand expertise. The UK/France accord may lay theground for multiple discrete bilateral or regionalarrangements between nations. NATO, though, is theprimary military grouping through which action willbe taken, and Europe’s focus should be on greaterdeployability and burden-sharing within the alliance.

It is vital that European nations work together towardsmeeting military objectives. European NATO nationsare making deep cuts to defence budgets in isolationof each other and the consequence could be cross-allianceshortfalls or duplication, which would certainly not bethe best use of available resources overall.

We also need to consider the opinion of the Britishpeople when considering our defence posture in protectingand furthering British interests and ideas. The publicare wary of interventionism, following recent conflicts

117 118[8 JANUARY 2013]Armed Forces: Future Size Armed Forces: Future Size

[LORD ROSSER]and the financial crisis. We have to make the case forstrong, proactive defence postures, with our goal beingprevention before intervention, and early interventionbefore conflict.

Diplomacy can be more effective than the painfulcure of military action, albeit that a key function ofour Armed Forces is to deter and be a credible threatto those who wish us and our allies harm. Whether intackling climate change, investing in civil society andgovernance or diplomatic engagement, the spectrumof soft-power capabilities at the UK’s disposal todefend our interests and promote our ideas in theworld should be capitalised on.

Defence is becoming more intricate and complexwhile the world is becoming more interdependent, andwe need a policy response as broad as the threatsthat we face. We must aim to have flexible forces withwhole-spectrum capabilities, able to respond rapidlywhether through preventive measures, reactive disasterrelief or multilateral interventions, and we must ensurethat our intentions and ambitions for our forces areaffordable and can be financed, with the needs of thefront line being matched to those of the bottom line.

9.56 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministryof Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): My Lords, I, too,am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, forintroducing this timely debate. It is clear that on allsides of the House we share respect for the determination,professionalism and bravery of our Armed Forces.

The noble Lord is correct that the welfare needs ofour service personnel are, and will remain, a keypriority—a duty that we extend to our veterans aswell. The Armed Forces have long-standing structuresin place to support service families, including welfareofficers, trained social workers and other specialists.Under the Armed Forces covenant, the Governmenthave made good progress on improving the care thatwe provide—for example, by doubling council taxrelief to £600 per six-month deployment and ensuringthat Armed Forces compensation scheme paymentsare excluded from means-tested social benefits.

There is much that we are doing with regard toveterans. The Armed Forces mental health strategyenables the co-ordination of policy, and focuses effortsand resources where they are most needed. We havealso ensured that veterans will be given priority treatmenton the NHS for all service-related conditions.

We work hard to ensure that our service personneltransition smoothly back to civilian employment. Allpersonnel are entitled to assistance through this process.The single services, in partnership with RightManagement, work with service leaders to deliver arange of practical assistance, including training andassistance with recruitment. My noble friend LordAshcroft, the Prime Minister’s special representativefor veterans’transition, will be reviewing current processes,and we look forward to his recommendations.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, made reference tothe annual report on the Armed Forces covenant,which was notified to Parliament last month by meansof a Written Ministerial Statement. I warmly welcome

the interest in this House in the Armed Forces covenant,and would welcome the chance to debate it should theopportunity arise.

The noble Lord also asked whether Armed Forcesadvocates had been appointed from all parts of theUnited Kingdom. I can confirm that there are nowArmed Forces advocates in the devolved authorities ofWales and Scotland. Both Wales and Scotland haveproduced their own commitment papers on how theywill implement the covenant, as well as contributing tothe Secretary of State’s statutory report. An ArmedForces advocate has not been appointed by the NorthernIreland Executive, as their strict equalities legislationmeans that implementation of the covenant is morecomplicated.

Additionally, many local authorities in England,Wales and Scotland have appointed local Armed Forcesadvocates or champions as part of their commitmentto the community covenant, working with localcommunities to improve access to services and supportfor serving and ex-service men and women and theirfamilies. Relevant UK government departments alsohave Armed Forces advocates, all of whom are representedon the Covenant Reference Group and are responsiblefor making sure that their departmental policies upholdthe principles of the covenant.

As the noble Lord explained, we live in an uncertainworld. As such, we need to ensure we have the capabilitiesto adapt and address a very broad range of challenges.The NSS and the SDSR made a number of strategicchoices: to support the deficit reduction programme;to seek to maintain the UK’s international profile; andto honour our operational commitments in Afghanistan.They remain at the heart of this Government’s approachto foreign, defence and national resilience policies.The NSS also acknowledged the uncertainty of thefuture strategic environment, and the SDSR respondedby prioritising those capabilities across governmentthat will allow us to adapt to changes as they happen.

The noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord West, andmy noble friend Lord Palmer all mentioned carrierstrike. We will have planes. We will have the B variantof the Joint Strike Fighter—the STOVL variant—which,as the noble Lord, Lord West, knows flew very successfullyoff the USS “Wasp” in November 2011.

In the SDSR the Government confirmed our beliefthat it is correct for the United Kingdom to retain, inthe long-term, a carrier-strike capability. In the shortterm, however, there are few circumstances we canenvisage where the ability to deploy air power from thesea will be essential. That is why we reluctantly tookthe decision to retire the Harriers and Invincible-classcarriers before the new carriers become operational.We did not take this decision lightly, but did so mindfulof the current strategic context in which we live. Thedecision on the second carrier will be one for the nextSDSR after the general election.

The Middle East remains a significant source ofinstability. One immediate risk, as noble Lords said—

Lord West of Spithead: Just on a point of clarity,the Secretary of State said that it was an aspiration ofthis Government that they would run two carriersalthough the final decision had not been made. Is thatthe correct decision?

119 120[LORDS]Armed Forces: Future Size Armed Forces: Future Size

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am not sure whatthe Secretary of State said but I can confirm that thisis definitely a decision for the SDSR. It is my personalaspiration that we have a second carrier operating.

As the noble Lord said, an immediate risk is thecollapse of the Syrian regime. We will continue tosupport our allies in the region and would like to see adiplomatic solution but we cannot afford to removeoptions from the table at this stage. Our current posturein the region supports UK interest in internationalefforts by securing globally important economical arteries,including the Strait of Hormuz, ensuring the well-beingof regional partners and contributing to regional security.

The UK currently has one frigate, one destroyer,four mine hunters and two Royal Fleet Auxiliarysupport vessels deployed to the Gulf conducting maritimesecurity operations. I can assure the House that theGovernment continue to keep the Middle East underconstant review. We will adapt as required to meet anyemerging threats wherever they may arise.

While responding—and being prepared to respond—inthe Middle East, we have continued to make significantprogress in Afghanistan. We have built the capabilityof the Afghan national security forces so that they canprevent Afghan territory from ever again being usedas a safe haven by international terrorist groups suchas al-Qaeda. We have helped to underpin a more stableGovernment and have overseen elections. We havedemonstrated the Armed Forces’ ability to act elsewhere,such as in the seas off Somalia, where we are workingalongside navies from around the world to control thespread of piracy.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, asked about nerveagents and chemical weapons. Happily, I can confirmthat insurgents in Afghanistan have not used nerveagents or other chemical weapons against coalitionforces. There have been a few cases in Iraq whereimprovised devices containing industrial chemicals andsmall quantities of chemical agent were detonated, butthese did not result in any coalition fatalities. I canalso assure the House that our Armed Forces areadequately equipped and trained to operate in anenvironment where these threats exist, both overseasand in the UK.

The noble Lord asked me to outline the Government’spolicy on the replacement of the Trident system. Itremains as set out in the SDSR. We will maintain acontinuous submarine-based deterrent and will beginthe work of replacing the existing submarines. Workon the assessment phase of the replacement submarineprogramme has been under way since May 2011. Thefinal decision as to whether to proceed with the MainGate investment decision for the replacement programmewill take place in 2016, after the next election.

I can reassure my noble friend that the ArmedForces are not subject to overstretch. As we recoverand recuperate from Afghanistan, our flexibility willbe greatly enhanced. The SDSR set out plans totransform defence so that we emerge with a morecoherent capability in the future, under what is knownas Future Force 2020. This required tough decisions toscale back the overall size of the Armed Forces and

reduce some capabilities less critical to today’srequirements. The SDSR gave us the full structure ofFuture Force 2020 which, by the next decade, willenable us to deliver our adaptable strategic posture. Itis based on our assessment of the forces required tomeet our standing commitments, while conductingthree overlapping operations: a simple, non-enduringintervention; a complex non-enduring intervention;and an enduring stabilisation operation.

The top defence priority remains success inAfghanistan. As we move towards Future Force 2020,the ability of our Armed Forces to respond to additionalcontingent tasking is kept under constant review bythe Ministry of Defence. It is from this realistic capacitythat additional commitments are delivered.

In response to the question of the noble Lord, LordEmpey, relating to the violence in Northern Ireland,first, I am sure that the House will join me in condemningthe violent demonstrations that we have witnessedrecently. We should recognise the outstanding effortsof the PSNI and the bravery demonstrated by policeofficers in maintaining law and order. I call on allpolitical parties in Northern Ireland to engage indialogue to resolve disputes peacefully. The violencewitnessed does not represent the true face of NorthernIreland’s business and community sectors and widersociety. Although military operations in Northern Irelandceased in 2007, our Armed Forces continue to play animportant role supporting the Police Service of NorthernIreland. I assure the noble Lord that this will continue.

My noble friend Lord Palmer asked how manygenerals we will have in an Army of 82,000 and inFrance. I cannot today give my noble friend a specificanswer on the number of generals, but I assure himthat, proportionally, there will be a greater decrease inmajor generals and above compared to brigadier andbelow.

My noble friend also asked about Iron Dome. TheUK currently has no plans to develop or acquirenational ballistic missile defence capability. However,each SDSR provides an opportunity to review thisposition against projected threats. Iron Dome is not aballistic missile defence system, but is designed toprovide relatively short-range protection again rocketsand artillery shells. Its role is comparable to the maritimeclose-in weapons systems deployed by the UK inOperation Telic to protect UK forces in Basra.

I will respond to my noble friend on the issue ofgenerals and the other questions that he asked.

Trusts (Capital and Income) Bill [HL]Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons agreed to.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [HL]Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons agreed to.

House adjourned at 10.09 pm.

121 122[8 JANUARY 2013]Armed Forces: Future Size Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [HL]

Grand CommitteeTuesday, 8 January 2013.

3.30 pm

Public Bodies (Abolition of BritishShipbuilders) Order 2013

Considered in Grand Committee

Moved By Lord Gardiner of Kimble

That the Grand Committee do report to theHouse that it has considered the Public Bodies(Abolition of British Shipbuilders) Order 2013.

Relevant documents: 14th Report from the SecondaryLegislation Scrutiny Committee, 11th Report fromthe Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, I start byreassuring your Lordships that while this order willabolish British Shipbuilders as a public corporation,its liabilities will transfer to the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills. On this basis, therewill be no impact on the ability of British Shipbuilders’former employees to claim legal compensation forindustrial diseases suffered as a result of their employmentwith British Shipbuilders.

British Shipbuilders was constituted by the Aircraftand Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. British Shipbuildersowned and managed large parts of the UK shipbuildingindustry. British Shipbuilders privatised all its activeshipbuilding subsidiaries, initially through the privatisationof the war shipbuilding yards in 1985 and 1986, andsubsequently through the sale of the merchant yardsand the one remaining engine manufacturer.

British Shipbuilders is no longer a trading enterpriseand does not have any funds of its own. It existsmainly to meet residual liabilities to its former employees.This legal responsibility is funded in total by theDepartment for Business, Innovation and Skills. Fundingthese residual liabilities currently costs the departmentabout £7 million a year in health-related compensationpayments. These payments are mainly as a result ofasbestos-related diseases.

British Shipbuilders was considered as part of theGovernment’s public bodies reform programme andour commitment to reduce the number and cost ofquangos. British Shipbuilders does not perform thefunctions for which it was originally created and doesnot need to remain a public corporation. The Governmenttherefore put forward a proposal to abolish it using thepowers of the Public Bodies Act, which received RoyalAssent in December 2011.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skillslaunched a consultation in February last year on theproposal to wind up British Shipbuilders and transferits property, rights and liabilities to the Secretary ofState for Business, Innovation and Skills. The departmentreceived four responses to the consultation, none ofwhich objected to the proposal but two of which

wanted reassurance that the transfer would not impacton the ability of former employees to make legalcompensation claims for industrial diseases sufferedas a result of their employment with British Shipbuilders.The department confirmed that the transfer wouldhave no impact on the ability of former employees toclaim legal compensation for industrial diseases sufferedas a result of their employment with British Shipbuilders.An impact assessment in relation to the abolition ofBritish Shipbuilders was not carried out as the savingsfrom the abolition will amount to around £15,000 peryear. This saving will reflect the reduced need forcompany secretarial services post abolition.

A firm of solicitors is contracted to manage allindustrial disease compensation claims of BritishShipbuilders. A separate company is contracted todeal with pension services, which involves investigatingand handling unrecorded claims from former employees.These contracts will be transferred to the departmentimmediately prior to abolition.

As required by the Public Bodies Act, the Governmenthave obtained the consent of Welsh Ministers for thisorder. We are also in the process of seeking consentfrom the Northern Ireland Assembly and the ScottishParliament. We understand that the Northern IrelandAssembly and the Scottish Parliament will considerthis order over the coming weeks.

Following the abolition of British Shipbuilders, thedepartment will be responsible for the contracts thatdeal with the industrial disease claims and pensionqueries. Post abolition, future compensation claimswill be paid directly by the department and will beincluded in the department’s annual accounts. Forthese reasons, I beg to move that the Committee doconsider the order.

Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords, Iwelcome the Minister’s assurances on any outstandingcompensation or pension claims. I do not think I needto make any further comments in these circumstances.I am not establishing a precedent for any other debate,but we can start the new year on a happy note.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, I thank thenoble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, forconsidering the order so briefly, which is appropriatein these circumstances. British Shipbuilders is effectivelya shell company, with its main remaining function toact as a vehicle through which the long-term diseaseliabilities of former employees are managed. As BritishShipbuilders has no funds of its own for this purpose,it is completely dependent on the financial backing ofthe Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.As I have already mentioned, the abolition of BritishShipbuilders will not impact on the ability of formeremployees to claim legal compensation. After theconsideration against the criteria set out in the PublicBodies Act, the Government have concluded that BritishShipbuilders does not need to be a public corporationin order for the Government to meet its residualliabilities. Abolishing British Shipbuilders as a corporationwill avoid the need for it to function as a shell company,employ a company secretary and produce an annual

GC 1 GC 2[8 JANUARY 2013]Public Bodies Order 2013 Public Bodies Order 2013

[LORD GARDINER OF KIMBLE]report and financial accounts. I thank the noble Lordfor his contribution to the debate and commend theorder to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Public Bodies (Abolition of the Aircraftand Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration

Tribunal) Order 2013Considered in Grand Committee

3.36 pm

Moved By Lord Gardiner of Kimble

That the Grand Committee do report to theHouse that it has considered the Public Bodies(Abolition of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding IndustriesArbitration Tribunal) Order 2013.

Relevant documents: 14th Report from the SecondaryLegislation Scrutiny Committee, 11th Report fromthe Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, the Aircraftand Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal wasestablished by the Aircraft and Shipbuilding IndustriesAct 1977. It was created to determine any question ordispute which was expressly required by the Act to besubject to arbitration or any matter in respect ofwhich jurisdiction was specifically given to the tribunalby the Act. In practice this meant considering disputedvaluations of assets at the point of nationalisation.

The Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977nationalised three aircraft companies and most of themajor shipbuilding companies that were based in Englandand Scotland. The Act created British Aerospace andBritish Shipbuilders as public corporations. The tribunalwas established in 1978 and considered two applications,one from stockbrokers in respect of Cammell Lairdand the other on behalf of Vickers auditors. Thetribunal completed its determination of both casesby 1981 and has not met since. British Shipbuilderssubsequently sold its shipyards and British Aerospacewas privatised.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skillslaunched a public consultation on the abolition of thetribunal in February 2012. This was a six-week ratherthan a 12-week consultation as the tribunal had beendefunct for such a long time. The department sentcopies of the consultation to the relevant trade bodyand to the companies that had been part of thepublic corporations and continue to operate followingprivatisation. The department received two responsesto the consultation, both of which supported theproposal to abolish the tribunal. An impact assessmenthas not been produced because abolition of the tribunalwill not generate any savings. It is a tidying-up matter.

The Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries ArbitrationTribunal was considered as part of the Government’spublic bodies reform programme and the Government’s

commitment to reduce the number of quangos. Thetribunal has been defunct for 30 years and does nothave any further cases to consider. The Governmenttherefore put forward a proposal to abolish the tribunalusing the powers of the Public Bodies Act. TheGovernment are in the process of seeking consent forthis order from the Northern Ireland Assembly, and Iunderstand that the Assembly will consider this orderover the coming weeks. The Government have consultedScottish Ministers as required by the Public BodiesAct and, although it is not required under the law,have consulted Ministers in Wales. For these reasons, Ibeg to move that that the Committee consider this order.

Lord Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for hisconsidered and courteous introduction. I rise to supportnot to oppose what he proposes. I note that bothorders carry the date of 1977 as a start point. In anattempt to give brief context to these orders, I pointout to the Minister that the Aircraft and ShipbuildingIndustries Act was hugely controversial at the time ofits enactment. I was present in the other place as aMember of the then Administration, and I would bethe first to say that 35 years is a very long time. It isjust possible that the Minister, with his expertise andhis group of able advisers, will also remember whenthe legislation was enacted but, if not, perhaps a fewbrief remarks on whence the orders have sprung maynot be amiss.

The legislation engendered massive confrontationin the Chamber of the other place. It was hugelycontroversial. As the legislation made its way in theCommittee corridor, it was often almost impossible toenter the Committee Room because of the huge numberof interested parties—in shorthand you might saythey were lobbyists, of the most honourable kind—fromthe industries concerned. Also there were trade unionistswho knew that they had a problem concerning theirlong-term employment. In the Chamber itself, on thefateful night, the nature of the legislation was challenged.Was it a hybrid Bill or was it not? The consideration ofsuch proposals by the then Administration was hugelycontroversial. In the vote of that night, there was a tie,and it was for Mr Speaker Thomas, as he was thenknown, later Lord Tonypandy, to make the decision.In terms of tradition, he cast his vote where theGovernment’s proposals lay—a time-honoured practice.At that time, the then Secretary of State for Industrywas Mr Eric Varley, who subsequently entered yourLordships’ House, having had a distinguished politicalcareer. Mr George Thomas, as he then was, cameunder huge pressure on that night and in the monthsleading up to that fateful vote, because his decision inthe end on advice from his clerks would be crucial.I thought that your Lordships would need to know thecontent of this set of orders.

It was historic because, in the early 1970s, theUpper Clyde shipyard was occupied, and the occupation,which was very controversial and huge in Scotland, wasled by a legendary trade unionist, Mr Jimmy Reid. Heenunciated a famous principle in the thick of the fight,saying that a rat race was for rats. I pass hurriedly byon that. Following the occupation came the astoundingrequirement to nationalise the iconic Rolls-Royce factories.

GC 3 GC 4[LORDS]Public Bodies Order 2013 Public Bodies Order 2013

3.45 pmBy my mentioning those two industrial developments,

you can understand the nature of the challenges thatBritain was then facing. That Act was an attempt toshore up Britain’s manufacturing base—there wereother measures. Shipbuilding then was a huge industry;aerospace was a huge industry; coal was a huge industry;and steel was a huge industry. In relatively short years,those industries virtually disappeared and with themcame colossal redundancies and major unemploymentwhich ran on into the 1980s. The vote that eveningproved that the then Administration’s hold on powerwas tenuous and, by 1979, another, most famous,Premier took the reins of power.

Today, no airliner is manufactured in Great Britain.There is the magnificent making of wings in north-eastWales by Airbus, but there are no airliners of standardsize made now in this nation. We would be very hard-pressed to find a truly significant shipbuilding industryoutside one or two sites in the north.

Additional to Upper Clyde and Rolls-Royce therewas during the Heath Administration the OPEC nations’decision in November 1973 to increase the price of oilby four times. The consequence of that was massiveinflation and subsequent unemployment. The 1977Act and consequential subsidiary legislation were attemptsto cope with world-shaking eventualities.

The noble Lord, Lord Healey, who was at that timethe Chancellor of the Exchequer, had to face up alsoto the suggestions of the International Monetary Fund.The then Prime Minister, Mr James Callaghan, neededto get majorities for his legislation in that Parliament.Although he did not form a coalition, he seemed toreach some form of understanding with the then leaderof the Liberal Party, who is now a Member of yourLordships’ House.

I perceive that legislation as being part of a nation’sattempt to hold on to its manufacturing base. It doesnot appear to have been very successful, in so far asmanufacturing now accounts for perhaps 12% or alittle less of GDP. We now face massive challengesfrom the east. I was grateful for the Minister’s consideredintroduction and I hope that my remarks will enablehim and his very able advisers to have a better contextthereafter.

Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords, I, too,support the order. As usual, I am grateful to my noblefriend Lord Jones for a tour d’horizon and historylesson. Some of it I remembered well, and some not sowell—so I was exceedingly grateful. I hesitate to correcthim on one matter, and he can tell me whether I havegot it wrong, but I thought that, in relation to theUpper Clyde, it was not just an occupation but awork-in that Jimmy Reid organised, which was unusualat the time.

Lord Jones: Amendment accepted.

Lord Young of Norwood Green: I know that becauseit was not so long ago that there was a programme onRadio 4 relating to it. However, the noble Lord, LordJones, was right to give us that historical context andto set the scene.

I have read the report from the committee. Therewas some concern about the consultation, but I thinkthat in the end it was prepared to accept that it wassufficient, so I have no further comments to make.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, I thank thenoble Lords, Lord Jones and Lord Young of NorwoodGreen. I particularly thank the noble Lord, LordJones, because he put into a fine historical contextsome of the dilemmas of that part of our industrialhistory. I took on board the point about manufacturing.One of the challenges that we have had in this countryis that we have not thought as much as we should haveabout how we ensure that there is a British manufacturingbase. I particularly took on board the noble Lord’spoint about aircraft.

There is good news on motor vehicles, where we arenow beginning to see some very good statistics on theproduction of vehicles. In fact, if my memory servesme right from a briefing a few months ago, we are nowmanufacturing more cars than we are importing. It isa great accolade to the management and the workforce for working so well together that we have thesesuccesses.

However, returning to the job in hand in regard tothe Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries ArbitrationTribunal, as I have said, it has been defunct formore than 30 years and has no assets, employees orfurther cases to consider. After consideration againstthe conditions set out in the Public Bodies Act theGovernment have rightly concluded—and noble Lordson all sides of the Committee have agreed—that thetribunal no longer needs to exist and that abolishing itwould tidy up the regulatory landscape. It is for thosereasons that I commend the order to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Charging Orders (Orders for Sale:Financial Thresholds) Regulations 2012

Considered in Grand Committee

3.54 pm

Moved By Lord McNally

That the Grand Committee do report to theHouse that it has considered the Charging Orders(Orders for Sale: Financial Thresholds) Regulations2012.

Relevant document: 13th Report from the JointCommittee on Statutory Instruments

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordMcNally): My Lords, the purpose of this draft order isto introduce a financial threshold of £1,000 for theenforcement of charging orders by an order for salewhere the charging order was made to secure thepayment of money owed under an agreement regulatedunder the Consumer Credit Act 1974. A charging

GC 5 GC 6[8 JANUARY 2013]Public Bodies Order 2013 Charging Orders Regulations 2012

[LORD MCNALLY]order made in such cases may not be enforced by wayof an order for sale where the amount owing, includinginterest, is less than £1,000.

Before I go into greater detail about the order, letme briefly provide background on charging ordersand orders for sale. When a creditor has not receivedpayment for a court judgment, they may apply to thecourt to enforce that judgment. They have severalenforcement options open to them, including applyingfor a charging order on a debtor’s property or asset.While the majority of charging orders are made againstproperty, the provisions themselves also cover landand stocks and shares.

The purpose of the charging order is to securethe debt. It does not, in itself, lead to repayment of thedebt until the debtor sells their asset. The creditor mayalso choose to pursue other enforcement options ormake a further, separate application for an order forsale. This application seeks the court’s permission toenforce the existing charging order by ordering thesale of the property, or other asset, either immediatelyor at some point in the future if a suspended order ismade.

Both the application for a charging order and thefurther application for an order for sale are alwayslisted for hearing before a judge and so are subject tocase-by-case judicial discretion and case law. In eachcase the judge will consider, among other things, theproportionality of the debt as set against each of theparties’ assets and commitments; whether—if it is aproperty in question—it is the primary residence ofthe debtor or a secondary residence or a commercialproperty; who else may reside within the property,including children; the balance of rights between thecreditor and the debtor; and whether the debtor shouldbe granted additional time to pay, resulting in a suspendedorder.

Evidence shows that under the existing arrangementsonly a very small proportion of charging orders—some0.5%—result in an order for sale, and some of thesemay be suspended orders. This is in part due to thefact that the process of applying for, calculating potentialequity in and administrating the sale of a debtor’sproperty is economically risky for creditors. This, togetherwith case-by-case judicial discretion, means that it isvery rare for debtors to lose their homes as a result ofa charging order.

With that background, I turn to the reason for theregulations before us today. Although it is indeed veryrare for debtors to lose their homes as a result of acharging order, it is important that the Governmentensure that all appropriate safeguards are in place toensure that this does not happen as a result of whatmight have originally been relatively small, unsecuredborrowing. The coalition commitment to introduce athreshold for orders for sale applications reflects this.However, it is also essential that protection for debtorsis balanced against the rights of creditors. TheGovernment believe that responsible creditors whoare owed money and have gained a judgment in courthave the right to enforce that judgment. Without

effective enforcement we risk jeopardising the authorityof the courts and public confidence in our justicesystem, as well as there being a negative impact on theeconomy if lenders are not confident that they canrecoup money that is rightly owed to them.

Following extensive public consultation, we intendto introduce a £1,000 financial threshold, as set out inthe draft regulations. While this differs from the £25,000threshold set out in the coalition agreement, it wasconcluded to be the most appropriate level at whichthe necessary balance between the rights of debtorsand the rights of creditors could be most effectively struck.While stakeholder opinion was, perhaps predictably,split between creditors and debtors, there were othergroups who also held strong opinions—for example,the legal profession and the judiciary.

A number of arguments against a high financialthreshold, or even any threshold, were given. With ahigh threshold, such as £25,000, there is a risk thatcreditors may seek to recover their debt by initiatingbankruptcy proceedings as an alternative to enforcement.This would be a more draconian outcome for debtorsthan an order for sale. As many noble Lords will beaware, bankruptcy often results in debtors losing theirhomes, whereas the protections which are already inplace within the enforcement system—and which willcontinue to be in place if these draft regulationsare approved—protect most debtors from losing theirhomes.

4 pmA high threshold may mean that creditors may be

less likely to risk providing unsecured credit if it isseen to be more difficult to recover. This would reducethe availability and increase the cost of unsecuredlending, which can be a valuable and much neededsource of credit to some individuals. It is also importantto remember that when we talk about creditors, thisdoes not just mean large organisations. It alsomeans individuals and small businesses which may beseverely impacted by a high threshold, as debts below£25,000 may represent a significant proportion oftheir commitments and assets, making it importantthat they can recover this where possible.

This brings me back to judicial discretion. As Idescribed earlier, this already provides a great deal ofprotection to debtors, yet balances this against theneeds of creditors. Responses to the consultation indicatedthat there was significant danger that introducing athreshold, especially a very high one, would restrictsuch discretion in individual cases. We do not wantthis to be an unintended consequence of introducing athreshold, so a lower threshold of £1,000 was seen asa proportionate response. It maintains the flexibilityof discretion while ensuring that those with a lowerlevel of debt are protected from applications for ordersfor sale.

In conclusion, the Government’s commitment toprovide protection to debtors holds strong. We believethat the implementation of these regulations will deliverthis protection without a disproportionate effect onthe successful recovery of debt by responsible creditors.We have taken all stakeholders’opinions into consideration

GC 7 GC 8[LORDS]Charging Orders Regulations 2012 Charging Orders Regulations 2012

and have tailored our approach in the light of this toensure that we are introducing the most appropriatethreshold level. I therefore commend this draft orderto the Committee and I beg to move.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, the Minister has outlinedthe position in relation to charging orders and ordersfor sale but has omitted—with respect—a couple ofhighly relevant factors. The first is that we are heredealing with consumer credit arrangements and thelender has already priced in the possible risks of notrecovering his money. Therefore, we are seeing somethinglike double jeopardy, with the debtor having in anyevent to pay a higher rate of interest than wouldnormally be the case—and would certainly be the casein the event of a secured loan—and also having now toface the possibility of an order for sale based on acharging order.

I have to confess that I certainly had not taken noteof the regulation introduced last October which allowscharging orders to be made—not the order for sale,but the initial charging order—even before the debtorhas defaulted on the loan agreement. In other words,it is effectively at the option of the creditor to convertan unsecured loan into a secured loan, even before anydefault has been made. That is surely not a satisfactoryproceeding. The coalition is to be commended for itsoriginal agreement to establish a significant threshold.Moreover the last Labour Government, who I ambound to say facilitated some of these proceedings, areto be congratulated on not in fact proceeding withtheir original intention of making orders rather likethese and explicitly withdrawing from advancing suchorders in 2009.

The accompanying Explanatory Notes andevidence base for this order disclose quite clearly thatthere is a significant number of cases under £25,000,but there is not much in the way of detail. Indeed,paragraph 211 of the report openly admits that thedata set is very limited, meaning that any conclusiondrawn from it is not robust. What is significant is thatat the moment something like 10% of applications forcharging orders are below £1,000. That is not a largenumber; in fact, it is almost so insignificant as tomake one wonder why the Government are botheringat all to proceed with these regulations. The numberof charging orders made for loans above £25,000 isvery small indeed—some 6.7%—and there are not alarge number of cases altogether. However, what issignificant is that it would appear that in 2009-10ultimately 566 orders for sale were granted, which wasdouble the number of orders made as recently as2005. Therefore, on the face of it, there is a growingtrend to rely on these orders.

One reason advanced for not having a thresholdhigher than £1,000 is that it is open to a creditor topursue bankruptcy proceedings on any debt exceeding£750. However, that of course then raises the questionof whether that is a reasonable level in itself. Why havethe Government not addressed the level at whichbankruptcy proceedings might be instituted and alignedit properly with a reasonable level, particularly bearingin mind, as I said, that the risk has already been pricedinto the cost of the loans by these creditors? These are

not normally small concerns; they are consumer creditagreements and it is often large firms that lend moneyin this way.

It seems that the Government are missing anopportunity to carry out one of their more welcomepledges in the original coalition agreement and thatthey will achieve virtually nothing in the way thatthese regulations have been put forward. Furthermore,looking at the timing, it is rather surprising that theregulations referring to charging orders were put throughquite separately from these regulations. It seems to methat in principle they are linked and that it would havebeen better if the two had been considered alongsideeach other at the very least, because the former hasclearly paved the way for quicker action by creditors,who see an opportunity to collect their debt via thisprocess.

Citizens Advice has long campaigned on this issueand it produced a report called Out of Order somethree years ago. It raised some interesting points notonly on the matters that we are discussing today butalso by asking what the Government might do aboutnon-consumer credit agreements, for which theseprotections, such as they are, are not available. I ambound to admit that this is somewhat beyond thescope of these regulations but I ask the Ministerto indicate—if he can today but, if not, perhapssubsequently by letter—whether the Government arelooking at non-consumer credit agreements. Clearly,particularly in the present economic climate, there is arisk of many more debtors falling into greaterdifficulty and creditors pursuing them by these means.That might lead not only to difficulty for borrowersand their families but ultimately, in the event oforders for sale proceeding, to a greater charge on thepublic purse.

Of course, as the noble Lord pointed out and asthe Explanatory Memorandum and other documentsindicate, judicial discretion has to be considered,although it has to be said that, in the view of CitizensAdvice, it is by no means clear that that discretion willbe frequently exercised in the face of pressure fromcreditors. Citizens Advice takes the view that ordersfor sale should be permitted only where there is awilling default—that is, where it is not a question ofsomebody having a capacity to maintain thepayments but where they decline to do so. CitizensAdvice agrees that where a wilful default is made bypeople who can afford to meet the debt, a chargingorder and an order for sale will be an appropriate lastresort. The trouble is that, as matters have developed,it is more likely to come about much earlier thanas a last resort for people without the capacity to payand, equally, without any wilful component in theirbehaviour, thereby exposing vulnerable people towhat might well be regarded as predatory action byless than scrupulous creditors. That would be anunfortunate outcome which I am sure the Minister—because I remember some of his remarks when wediscussed this in debates on the Crime and CourtsBill—would have little sympathy with but it mayperhaps be an unanticipated consequence of theregulations before us.

GC 9 GC 10[8 JANUARY 2013]Charging Orders Regulations 2012 Charging Orders Regulations 2012

Lord McNally: My Lords, I am very grateful to thenoble Lord, Lord Beecham, for that constructive response.I know from our exchanges during the Crime andCourts Bill of his long-standing interest in this areaand I understand why he continues to probe on thematter. The Government remain committed to providingmore protection for debtors and we are taking appropriateaction to ensure that that happens. When we debatedthis on the Floor of the House, and again today, thenoble Lord pointed out that the coalition agreementtalked about a £25,000 limit and we now talk of£1,000. I suppose that the honest answer is that thatwas the outcome of the consultation. We now feelthat the balance of what we wanted to do is better metby the guideline of £1,000 rather than £25,000, not leastbecause we were advised that the higher limit could steercreditors more in the direction of bankruptcy solutions,with the impact that I indicated on house ownership,rather than a settlement under these regulations.

We were also very much influenced by the judiciary,which believes that a very low threshold, with a greatdeal of judicial discretion, provides a far more guaranteedprotection for the creditor than the protection affordedby a higher level—

Lord Beecham: For the debtor.

Lord McNally: For the debtor, yes; I am sorry.

With these things it is always a matter of judgment.The judgment that we have come to, and the level wehave set it at, is the result of consultation, with the aimof striking a right and proportionate balance that willgive power and flexibility to the judiciary and a degreeof protection for the lower levels of debt.

The noble Lord asked about early enforcement ofparts of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act2007. Following the Solving Disputes consultation paperwe implemented Section 93 of the TCE Act. It closesan existing loophole, providing a greater degree ofsecurity to creditors and encouraging debtors who arein financial trouble to make more reasonable yet affordableoffers to pay.

The Government consulted on introducing thissection in 2010 in their Solving Disputes in the CountyCourts paper. Some 74% of respondents supported itsintroduction, arguing that it offers protection both forcreditors, for whom a charging order is often the onlyeffective long-term solution to recovering a liability,and for the debtor. By commencing Section 93 of theAct we have given creditors a certain ability to convertunsecured loans to secured loans. I am sorry—I hadbetter clarify that. One of the criticisms that has beenmade is that we have given creditors the ability toconvert unsecured loans to secured loans byextending the use of charging orders in this way. Wedo not believe that that is true. Charging orders areused to secure an unpaid judgment debt, not a loan.Legitimate judgment creditors who have obtained avalid judgment through the courts should have theright to enforce the judgment by the most appropriatemeans available.

4.15 pmThe availability of charging orders is also likely to

dissuade frustrated creditors from opting to usebankruptcy law against debtors. A successful bankruptcydecision against a debtor would expose him, as I said,to his house and all his properties being repossessed. Ihave tried to be frank with the Committee, as has thenoble Lord, Lord Beecham, and I understand thecampaign waged by Citizens Advice on this matter—indeed, it may have influenced the original coalitionagreement. However, after consultation, and in tryingto get the balance right, we have come up with thissolution. We will of course keep the matter underreview. As to matters outside the credit regime, I waspassed a helpful note which tells me that we will writeto the noble Lord on the issue he raised.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, I would be grateful if theMinister could clarify a couple of matters. He referredto the order allowing charging orders to be applied for,but is he aware that under the regulations enacted lastOctober it would be possible to do that without thedebtor having at that stage defaulted? That wouldseem to convert an unsecured loan into a secured one.

My second question relates to responses. Am I rightin thinking that the balance of responses reflects thefact that most of those responding were creditorsrather than debtors, their representatives or organisationsinterested on behalf of debtors?

Lord McNally: My Lords, the balance reflected theinterests of the responders. The noble Lord is quiteright: the creditors had one set of priorities and thosespeaking out of concern for debtors had others. Thatis the nature of consultations, as the noble Lord willbe aware. I also pray in aid the strong view of thejudiciary that it wants to retain as much judicialdiscretion as possible. In my remarks I listed the clearconsiderations that a judge takes and the fact thatthese matters come before a judge.

On the issue of whether it is pre-emptive, as it were,under the measures that we took last October, as Iexplained, it gives debtors who are in financial troublethe opportunity to make more reasonable and affordableoffers to pay. The noble Lord appears to be saying thatadjustments can be made only after disaster has struck,but that is not my reading. If I am not right in myinterpretation I will write to the noble Lord. However,it seems to me that it provides an opportunity tointervene in a constructive way when people are runninginto difficulty.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, I am grateful to theMinister. However, as I understand it, the order doesnot require the debtor to be in any difficulty or to havemade any default at all before the charging order canbe applied for. That does not mean, of course, that theorder for sale would automatically follow, but it is aprecursor to that and can arise even before any defaulthas taken place. We are unable to take this muchfurther today, but I invite the Minister to look at thesituation in due course.

Motion agreed.

GC 11 GC 12[LORDS]Charging Orders Regulations 2012 Charging Orders Regulations 2012

Baroness Garden of Frognal: My Lords, the proceedingshave moved very quickly and we are missing somespeakers for the next debate. I therefore propose thatthe Committee adjourn for 10 minutes.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn):My Lords, I suggest that the Committee adjourn untilhalf-past four, which is 10 minutes.

4.20 pm

Sitting suspended.

Sri LankaQuestion for Short Debate

4.30 pm

Asked By Lord Naseby

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is theirassessment to date of the implementation of theindependent report from the Lessons Learnt andReconciliation Commission in Sri Lanka, and ofthe challenges facing Sri Lanka in implementingrecommendations still outstanding.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, first, I thank colleagueswho wish to say something about Sri Lanka thisafternoon. I appreciate that very much indeed. I wouldlike to place on record the fact that the noble Lords,Lord Bilimoria and Lord Sheikh, are in the sub-continentand send their apologies to the Committee for beingunable to be here this afternoon.

As I think the Committee well knows, I have nointerests to declare other than the fact that I have beeninterested in Sri Lanka for 50 years, since I firstworked there for the Reckitt and Colman group in1963. I had absolutely no political interests at all atthat time. I have paid two key visits among many. Onewas in January 2009 at the height of the war, whichseemed to me an appropriate time to go, if I may usethat phrase, to see exactly what was happening. Thesecond was earlier this year when the peace was firmlyestablished.

This debate is about the LLRC, as I will call it inshorthand. It is not about the Supreme Court andwhat has happened there, although I will allude to thatlater in my contribution. A war lasting 30 years orthereabouts is a very long war. A number of colleaguesin the House came through the Second World War,which lasted only five years. Change is inevitable whena war ends and Sri Lanka is no different from anywhereelse in that respect. However, one thing was differentin Sri Lanka. I remember the sheer joy of VE Day, as Iam sure do others. Initially, there was a sense of sheerjoy in Sri Lanka but it was very quickly clouded byallegations of war crimes and allegations that Sri Lankahad abused certain other international laws. My analysisleads me to the conclusion that one of the key reasonswhy this happened was that although the Tamil Tigerswere defeated on the ground in Sri Lanka, the networkthat they had set up across the world was still intact,many of the senior operatives were still in place,

certainly vast funding was still available, and thepropaganda machine was alive and well in the sensethat the propaganda was still being pumped out. Thataffected particularly the million or so members of theTamil diaspora who had left because of the conflict.They were clearly leant on—we know this from theevidence gathered in many countries—and as a resultwestern Governments understandably felt that theyhad to listen. Whether or not they felt that they had toact is another matter.

In my view, if today’s debate is to do any good, weneed to look impartially at what has happened. TheLLRC was set up on 15 May 2010, one year after thedefeat of the Tigers and the end of the war. The veryfact that it was set up deserves a tick as that was agood action. The more than 1,000 oral and more than5,000 written submissions indicate that an awful lot ofpeople responded to it. The key point is that the reportwas published in full, is extremely thorough and isbased on the key principles of restorative justice ratherthan retributive justice. Those of us who know southand south-east Asia well will appreciate that it verymuch reflects the philosophy of the five principles ofBuddhism and indeed the principles of Hinduism.People of real eminence in that society were appointedto the relevant body. Sri Lanka has been criticised fordoing that and for not inviting international observersto participate. However, we chose to have “good eminentpeople” from our own Civil Service, and people fromthat sort of background, on our Chilcot commission.The report we are discussing was produced just over ayear ago, whereas three years on we still do not havethe Chilcot report and none of us really knows when itwill come out.

The other people who were making noises at thattime were the human rights groups, the InternationalCrisis Group, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty.Sadly, each refused to give any evidence at all on thegrounds that they did not like the make-up and, intheir view, the independence of the eminent persons. Ithink that that is a great pity and shows non-objectivityon the behalf of those groups. I am astonished thatAmnesty in Canada has now accepted funds from theLTTE. I find it quite extraordinary that a humanrights group should receive funds from the LTTE.That is its right, I suppose, but it somewhat underminesits moral standing. Now those same three groups arechasing up the Sri Lankan Government and sayingthat they are acting far too slowly to implement therecommendations. And yet—I have done a little bit ofresearch on this—all over the world there are quite alot of investigations going on into former wars anddictatorships, and some of them are taking anextraordinary length of time. Some of them are taking11, 12, or 15 years. To take two that we might know abit more about, one is in Bangladesh, which is again insouth Asia, which set up in 2011 an inquiry into whathappened in the 1971 war of independence. That hasnot reported. And, dare I mention it having been PPSin Northern Ireland, the inquiry into Bloody Sundayhas now gone on for 40 years and still remains stilltotally unresolved.

So what has happened on the ground? That is by farand away the most important thing. First, when I gotthere in the end of March, all the way through to the

GC 13 GC 14[8 JANUARY 2013]Charging Orders Regulations 2012 Sri Lanka

[LORD NASEBY]middle of April, there was peace on the ground. Therewere no bombs; you can travel wherever you like in SriLanka, by day and by night, with no security checks. Ispoke to a Tamil cook of a friend of mine—my friendis also Tamil—just outside Bentota. He had comedown from Jaffna overnight, not requiring any specialpass or anything; he booked a ticket in a bus station,got off at Colombo, changed buses, and came alongthe corridor through to Bentota. Asked by me whetherhe had had any problems, he said that he had noproblems at all and that it was as easy as anything. Solife for ordinary people in Sri Lanka is good at themoment. Plus, one has to say, British tourists haveresponded en masse—in fact, almost too readily in thesense that there is obviously a shortage of hotelaccommodation, particularly in the east, where peoplewant to go, and in the north, although they are tryinghard to get on and build more hotels. So that is realpositive benefit on the ground.

I went to Menik farm, where the 297,000 rescuedfrom the war fled. First, I put on record that I saw thehead of ICRC with no one else present and asked himwhether ICRC was restricted from going into Menikfarm. The answer was no. It is true that certain otherUN bodies were restricted but, in my book—as onethat has done a number of these types of events—ICRC,or the Red Cross, are the key people. Secondly, mywife is a qualified retired doctor and we looked at thereports on malnutrition to see whether there wasmalnutrition in those coming into the camp, and therewas hardly any at all. I shall not go into the fooddimension but I do have data on that. That place isnow closed and those 297,000 are now all rehoused,which is pretty good in that time span: near enough300,000 rehoused in a relatively short period. On topof that, a number of the Muslims, who were ethnicallycleansed out of Jaffna by the Tamil Tigers, have alsobeen rehoused.

Demining is happening and I say a big thank youto the UK Government, both the former LabourGovernment and the coalition Government, for themoney given to Halo, which is doing a good job on theground. I spent a whole day with Halo: the team isvery good and I thank DfID and, in particular, theGovernment. I make a plea that when that work iscompleted somebody does an analysis on Jaffna’s needsand, in particular, the hospital, which I went to look atin some depth. I would be very happy to prepare adraft paper if that was found to be helpful.

The rehabilitation of combatants has been excellentand there is a good case history. Eleven thousand ofthem have been rehabilitated, with 260 judicially mandated.Child soldiers, of whom there were 595, are all nowback with their families. Land issues are being takenvery seriously but are proving very difficult to resolveafter 30 years. The situation is not unlike that inEngland, where if you own a bit of land for 12 yearsyou have legal rights to it; I think that it is 10 years inSri Lanka. The high-security zone, which I visited, isdown to 40% of what it was. It has to remain becauseof the problems in Tamil Nadu. The country’s massiveinfrastructure, housing and official language policyare all working well. A great issue has been made of

abductions. I have looked at the figures: in 2011 therewere 239, with 226 now traced; in 2012 there were 225,with 207 now traced.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: It is 11 minutes on theclock.

Lord Naseby: No, I have been speaking for 10 minutes.I am taking injury time. I am taking my time from theannunciator.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn):The debate started at exactly 4.30 pm, so you are nowin the 11th minute.

Lord Naseby: With great respect, Lord DeputyChairman, if a time is up there, it is the time that I amspeaking from. I cannot look down here.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: It is the time for theChamber. I am sorry, but that is what that is showing.

Lord Naseby: With the permission of the Committee,I should like two minutes to wind up.

On the numbers killed, four reports have come outrecently. One was produced by the UN Country Team,which was never published. My plea to Her Majesty’sGovernment is to ask for that to be published. Thatindicated that 7,000 were killed. A satellite analysis bythe Americans indicates that fewer than 2,000 werekilled within the graves that can be found. The recentcensus by Tamil teachers, again, indicates that justover 7,000 were killed. There were not 40,000 killed.

The second problem that the Government of SriLanka face is the ever-present threat of the LTTEoverseas and the propaganda that is put out. However,Sri Lanka is an excellent member of the Commonwealth.It helped the UK in its hour of need at the time of theFalklands. There are those who, I know, want todowngrade the conference, but what greater stimuluscan there be to Sri Lanka today to move forward onthe areas that still have to be dealt with than to holdthis conference? After all, the CPA held its conferenceback in September, attended by 700 parliamentariansfrom 54 countries. That went extremely well, as arepreparations for the forthcoming conference.

Here we are in the Moses Room. I suggest that weneed the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job,and let us not forget Kipling’s remarks that,

“A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East”.

4.43 pm

Lord Wills: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Naseby,has done your Lordships’ House a service by enablingthis important issue to be debated here today. The civilwar in Sri Lanka was a prolonged, brutal and bloodybusiness. Estimates of the numbers killed vary; mostof the estimates that I have seen are considerablyhigher than those put forward just now by the nobleLord—I have seen estimates of more than 100,000.Many thousands of people were killed; tens of thousandsmore were wounded, tortured and raped. The LTTE,the Tamil Tigers, was a brutal adversary. It was guilty

GC 15 GC 16[LORDS]Sri Lanka Sri Lanka

of terrible atrocities against civilians, including thewidespread use of suicide bombing and deployment ofchild soldiers and human shields. However, there werealso appalling atrocities committed by the opposingforces of the Sri Lanka Government. These have beenwell documented by the UN and by the Channel 4films, “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields”, which showed thedeliberate targeting of hospitals and civilians by heavyartillery, deliberate denial of food and medicine tocivilians in the no-fire zone, summary execution ofcivilians and Tamil Tiger fighters, and sexual violenceagainst women members of the LTTE.

The opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, thatthe report from the Lessons Learnt and ReconciliationCommission, set up by the Sri Lankan president, isindependent is not shared widely outside Sri Lanka.

In presenting the Government’s response to thatreport, the Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt MPsaid,

“we continue to believe it is important that an independent,credible and thorough mechanism is put in place to investigate allallegations of grave abuses”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/01/2012;col. 21WS]

The International Crisis Group—a distinguished groupof diplomats and politicians whose trustees include aMember of your Lordships’ House, a former SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations, former presidents,former prime ministers and former foreign ministers—saidthat the report,

“fails in a crucial task—providing the thorough and independentinvestigation of alleged violations of international humanitarianand human rights law that the UN and other partners of Sri Lankahave been asking for”.

Sri Lanka can never rebuild itself adequately afterits terrible civil war until there is full accountability forthe atrocities committed in its course. This is a moralimperative, but it is also a practical one. How can thesignificant Tamil minority ever be reconciled to aregime that treats war crimes and crimes against humanityinsouciantly? More important than implementing therecommendations still outstanding of the Lessons Learntand Reconciliation Commission is the establishmentof an independent investigation of these alleged atrocitiesand then a calling to account of everyone responsiblefor them.

I appreciate the efforts that Her Majesty’s Governmenthave made to persuade the Sri Lankan Government toset up such an independent and credible mechanism toinvestigate these human rights abuses. Sadly, however,the Government’s efforts so far have not worked. Todate, there has been no such investigation and noaccountability secured for any of the well documentedatrocities and other human rights violations committedby state forces. The International Crisis Group hasconcluded that,

“Sri Lanka is suffering from a crisis of institutionalised impunityfor human rights violations by state forces and those working incollaboration with the state”.

The longer this situation continues, the more likelyit is that those responsible for these atrocities willthink they have got away with them, to the shame ofthe international community.

We should never accept that those responsible forhorrendous war crimes and crimes against humanitycan escape responsibility for what they have done.Moreover, there are well-substantiated reports thathuman rights abuses continue in Sri Lanka to this day.For example, the Amnesty report documented,“numerous cases of disappearances which have taken place afterthe end of the conflict…there are reasonable grounds to believethat enforced disappearances have taken place in Sri Lanka aspart of widespread attacks on the civilian population and theyamount to crimes against humanity”.

Last month, the British Government expressed theirconcern about the current situation in Sri Lanka bysaying that they,“continue to have concerns about human rights in Sri Lanka,including the rule of law and individual freedoms”.

Now a critical decision is looming for our Government.In November, the Commonwealth Heads of GovernmentMeeting is due to be held in Sri Lanka. The CanadianPrime Minister has made it clear that he will notattend,“unless there is measurable progress in the human rights situationin Sri Lanka”.

The Government will soon need to decide whetherthey will adopt a similarly principled stand. There canbe no evasion here because there can be no doubtabout how attendance by the British Prime Ministerand Her Majesty the Queen will be construed by theregime in Sri Lanka.

When the then Culture Secretary decided to spendhis Christmas holiday in Sri Lanka just six monthsafter the end of this brutal war, the state-run broadcasterin Sri Lanka reported that,“his arrival, despite the accusations made the British Governmenton the human rights record of Sri Lanka, is an indication that thecharges have not been authenticated”.

What does the Minister think would be the reaction inSri Lanka of the Sri Lankan Government and thestate media when the visitor is not just a CultureSecretary but the British Prime Minister—and not justthe British Prime Minister, but Her Majesty the Queenas well? We cannot allow our Prime Minister and HerMajesty the Queen to be used to cleanse any regime ofwar crimes and crimes against humanity.

I recognise the strength of the arguments thatGovernments should not grandstand, that stridentpublic denunciations of other Governments could becounter-productive. I understand that; I understandthat they can strengthen such Governments domesticallyand can turn the issue into one not of human rightsabuses but of national sovereignty. There is always acase to be made for persistent, resolute, behind-the-scenesdiplomacy as being the best way of effecting changebut, so far, such diplomacy has produced no significantresults. In such circumstances, there is a strong case formore resolute diplomacy to demonstrate the limits ofimpunity for human rights abuses. Ronald Reaganunderstood that when he stood up to the Soviet Union;Margaret Thatcher understood that when she stoodup to Argentina over the Falklands; and this PrimeMinister understood it when he stood up to ColonelGaddafi. Do this Government now understand thatthey have to stand up to the Sri Lankan regime? Arethis Government prepared to follow the principledstand of the Canadian Prime Minister?

GC 17 GC 18[8 JANUARY 2013]Sri Lanka Sri Lanka

[LORD WILLS]As the Minister considers her answer to that question,

I should like to remind her what her colleague, theJustice Secretary, wrote in the Daily Telegraph justthree weeks ago about his vision of human rights. Hesaid:

“As Conservatives, we remain absolutely committed to theimportance of human rights around the world”.

He identified as fundamental principles of a democraticnation the right to life, the right not to be tortured andthe right to a fair trial. Those are all rights which havebeen denied to tens of thousands of Sri Lankans. Ihope that the Minister can tell your Lordships todaythat these fine words, written by her colleague, theJustice Secretary, were more than just words and thatthey will be translated into action in relation to Sri Lanka.

I am sure that in addressing that question theMinister will also be aware that human rights, forwhich the Government of Sri Lanka have not shownvery much respect, is one of the core values of theCommonwealth. Therefore, I should be grateful if, inreplying, the Minister could answer these questions.First, have the Government already made a decisionabout whether to attend the Commonwealth Heads ofGovernment Meeting in Sri Lanka and, if they havenot yet made it, why not? If they have not yet made it,when do they expect to be in a position to do so?Secondly, does the human rights situation and whatthe International Crisis Group calls a crisis of,“institutionalized impunity for human rights violations”,

in Sri Lanka have any bearing on the Government’sdecision on whether to attend the CommonwealthHeads of Government Meeting? If so, what action dothe Sri Lankan Government need to take before theGovernment will decide to attend the meeting? I recognisethat the Minister may not be able to answer all thesequestions today but, if she cannot, I should be gratefulif she could write to me with the answers.

4.52 pm

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank my noble friendLord Naseby for securing this debate. I have similarantecedents to those of my noble friend, having visitedSri Lanka a number of times. I was there first in 2009,when the civil war was raging, and I again visited thecountry when the war came to an end. My last visitwas undertaken as a member of the CPA bilateraldelegation, which gave me the opportunity to learnfirst-hand about the reconstruction, resettlement andreconciliation work in progress there.

Much has happened since then. We have the reportof the UN Secretary General’s review panel on UNaction in Sri Lanka, the report of the Lessons Learntand Reconciliation Commission, referred to in thisdebate by my noble friend Lord Naseby, and theInternational Crisis Group report, which spells outthe grievances of Tamil and Muslim leaders that stillneed to be resolved through the political process.

I am well aware that there are deeply held viewsabout the war and its aftermath in Sri Lanka. Thisdebate is not the place to confirm or deny what did ordid not take place during that time. Evidence and itsrejection have formed the basis of much publicity inrecent times, and I have no doubt that this will continue.

War may solve a few problems but it creates manyothers. History should not be forgotten but there mustbe a way forward towards building a stable and securedemocracy which all the country’s citizens can enjoy.

We should not underestimate the task facingthe Sri Lankan Government. To continue to sustainparliamentary democracy at this difficult time iscommendable. There are bound to be difficult timesahead. The political process must work towards unitingthe nation after 30 years of war.

During our visit to Sri Lanka, we were able to learnabout the transition from operating and sustainingdemocracy during the civil war to running a democracyduring peacetime. Politicians must be fully aware thatwinning the war does not mean that problems will goaway. For this reason, there is a need to ensure that therule of law applies to all citizens equally. It is apre-requisite condition of a successful and stabledemocracy.

During our visit we were impressed with the successthat Sri Lanka has in the education and healthcaresectors. It has a literacy rate of more than 90%.I ought here to single out the work of the BritishCouncil. Queues of students at the British Counciloffices provide clear evidence of the council’s successin assisting with the process of education. I plead withthe Minister to ensure that the visa system does notdiscriminate against Sri Lankan students as there isevidence that they are now looking at Australia ratherthan the UK for their advancement.

Sri Lanka has free and accessible healthcare availablethroughout the country.

Despite the concern about our safety, we wereallowed access across the north, east and west of thecountry: there was no constraint on our movement.Like the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, I met IDPs andthose in camps. We could see at first hand the post-conflictreconstruction. It will still take a great effort to ensurethat there is no disparity in the development andconstruction work in the north. To an extent, we wereaware that the demining process was actively pursuedbut it has a lot of bearing in preventing the north ofthe country from opening up.

We are all aware that terrorists have no mandateand that oppression perpetrated by terrorists and thosein power cannot achieve a peaceful society. The GoodFriday agreement in Northern Ireland and the TruthCommission in South Africa demonstrated that apeaceful transition is possible only through an acceptableprocess. It is for this reason that we should attachimportance to the report of the Lessons Learnt andReconciliation Commission, which was set up in May2010.

There is no dispute that excesses were committed bythe warring parties—the collateral damage has beensubstantial—but there is now a need to move forward.Terrorism and violence have ended but suspicions stillremain: the scars of the war will take a long time toheal. What is now required is an all-inclusive politicalprocess of dialogue and accommodation so that conflictby other means does not continue. This is one of thekey recommendations of the report.

GC 19 GC 20[LORDS]Sri Lanka Sri Lanka

The LLRC report sets out some clear recommendationson human rights issues arising out of the conflict. Itreceived a large number of representations alleging theviolation of fundamental rights and freedoms of peopleaffected by the conflict. The LLRC had no hesitationin stating that its recommendation on these humanrights issues were critically relevant to the process ofreconciliation.

This is not simply a job for the Government: it isalso a task for all state institutions, civil societies andcitizens to exert all possible efforts towards this end.The LLRC report and its recommendations requireclear action. For example, the report pulls no puncheswhen it states:

“There is an urgent need to assist the victims and their familiesto overcome the trauma they suffered due to the conflict and tobring the perpetrators of any human rights violation to justice”.

I, for one, welcome this report for its brevity. It isnot a whitewash and it is not easy to ignore. It is agood starting point towards the process of reconciliationand nation building. There is also a further importantrecognition that this process must reach out to theminorities and that the minorities must repositionthemselves in their role vis-à-vis the state and thecountry.

I have known Dr Chris Nonis, the High Commissionerfor Sri Lanka, for some years know. I know that he iskeen to build links with the large Sri Lankan TamilDiaspora in the United Kingdom. In turn, I hope thatthe British Tamil community will play its full part inrebuilding Sri Lanka. It is here that we can play animportant role and I hope that the Minister will seewhat help he can give to build this dialogue.

Sri Lanka is a nation that deserves to be at peacewith itself. It will take time to build the confidence ofall communities, who have suffered enough during thecivil war. It has the potential to eradicate poverty andto take its place among the democratic nations of theworld. It will require the will of all its people, inSri Lanka and in countries abroad, to make thispossible. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Wills, I believethat the 2013 CHOGM summit in Sri Lanka shouldoffer all of its experience towards building a peaceful,democratic Sri Lanka.

5 pm

Lord Bates: My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to mynoble friend Lord Naseby for securing this importantdebate. My interest is around the issue of conflict. Ihave never visited Sri Lanka and were it not for theopportunity provided by this debate and the outstandingbrief prepared by the House of Lords Library for it, Iwould have known a great deal less about the tragedythat has hit that country.

However, I have followed and witnessed what hashappened in a number of areas of the world whichhave been recovering from conflict and the hallmarksof that difficult path are all too evident in what ishappening in Sri Lanka at present. The question is:what are the solutions?

We have learnt lessons from other areas—I amthinking in particular of our own issues in the Balkansand in Northern Ireland—and we know how difficultit is. In debates on foreign affairs in this House there is

sometimes a level of arrogance where we pretend thatwe have got it all sorted and that we can lecture therest of the world on how to get it right. However, thefact that a country like ours—with our wealth and ourhistory of parliamentary democracy and justice—isstill wrestling to achieve a settlement and peace inNorthern Ireland should make us tread carefully andhumbly into other people’s conflicts.

The first thing we learn from these kinds of conflictsis that, in the long term, violence never succeeds. Thesecond thing we learn is that freezing-out never works:people need thawing out in conflict situations. In thatsense, peace needs to be given a chance to take hold. Inthis circumstance, the conflict went on for 26 yearsand the peace treaty was signed two or three years ago.I guarantee as a fact that the people of Sri Lanka willstill be wrestling with this issue in not five years’ timebut in 50 or 100 years’ time. We know from our ownexperience that that is the kind of timescale thatpeople need. History and the facts presented showthat what we have now is a moment of opportunity forthe international community to involve the parties tothe conflict because, inevitably, they must be the partiesto the peace.

I refer briefly to the report of the Lessons Learntand Reconciliation Commission. I have read the entirereport and it seems to me that the Sri Lankan Governmentare self-critical, which is an encouraging sign. I amdisappointed that all other parties did not take part init because ultimately, somewhere along the line, therewill have to be another try at this and outside bodieswill have to give their advice. I know that the IndianGovernment are trying to help. Potentially, SouthAfrica would be much better placed to offer insightand help to people in this process.

I refer particularly to page 382, paragraph 9.255, ofthe report which contains a series of interestingrecommendations. I say again that this conflict is nodifferent from any other: we are very familiar with it;we know what needs to happen; we know that it is along-term process; and we know that we have a momentof opportunity before us which we should seize. However,one hallmark of this Government, of which I am mostproud, is the way in which they have been working atconflict prevention rather than intervention, and theConflict Pool is an essential part of that.

There is one part of the report where it seems to methat we could make a big difference. The report identifiesthat a lot of work needs to be done in the area ofpeace education. It talks about a trilingual policy andthe need to ensure a much broader ethnic mix ofstudent populations, with a choice of courses offeredin all three languages. The commission is also of theview that sport builds up interpersonal contacts amongpeople of different communities, which is essential forthe process of reconciliation. Perhaps I may refer theMinister, who I know will take these matters seriously,to that particular section. I know that there has alreadybeen a tremendous amount of work on clearinglandmines—my noble friends have referred to it—butin the specific area of peace education and bringinginternational students together, I wonder whether the

GC 21 GC 22[8 JANUARY 2013]Sri Lanka Sri Lanka

[LORD BATES]sporting legacy of the Olympics and the legacy of theOlympic Truce are things that we might be able toseize and build upon.

If all the countries simply look at ways in whichthey can offer practical help and provide support forall the different parties in working through this tremendousdifficulty, I think that there will be a chance of long-termstability. The prize for that will come through economicgrowth. The worst catastrophe that comes from allconflict is that it impoverishes people not only morallybut financially. We see from the briefing note that thecost of the war in Sri Lanka over 26 years ran to some$200 billion, which is five times its annual output. It isan enormous cost. Therefore, it is very encouragingthat since the conflict has ended there has been significantprogress and growth. The proportion of people livingbelow the national poverty line has declined from26.1% at the height of the conflict to 8.9%. Withannualised growth in the region of 6%, 7% or 8%,getting into tourism, getting the economy going andgiving people jobs and hope, as well as a future, andallowing them to move forward are things that weought to be encouraging. Anything that Her Majesty’sGovernment can do to support and encourage theSri Lankan Government in that way would seem wise.

5.08 pm

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I join others in thankingthe noble Lord, Lord Naseby. I, too, have read thereport very carefully. It has real strength but it also hassignificant weaknesses, and I think that it is as well tolook at the balance. After all, it covers a war whichraged from 1983 to 2009, with pauses in it untilVelupillai Prabhakaran was killed. Whatever is saidabout the figures, an estimate of between 60,000 and100,000 deaths looks to be relatively credible in termsof the reports made by international bodies. I certainlyhave no reason to think that they are much in doubt.As my noble friend Lord Wills said—

Lord Naseby: I hate to intervene but there is nocredible report that mentions 60,000-plus deaths. Thereare reports of 40,000 deaths from the UN and thereare reports of between 7,000 and 8,000 from other UNbodies. If the noble Lord has a copy of any suchreport, I should be grateful if he would make it availableto me, as chairman of the all-party group.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I will go back throughthe UN figures and will provide the ones that I haveseen. I was going to go on to say, as my noble friendLord Wills did, that it appears that in the final stagesthe figure of up to 40,000 comes near to the death toll.The 18-month inquiry, which concluded in November2011, covers all 26 years.

One thing is absolutely plain to me: in any civil warof that duration and intensity, the pain between thecombatants and the communities from which theycome is going to be very great. Significant inter-communalviolence, which is very up-close, raw violence, has onthe occasions when it has occurred led to the divisionof countries—for example, India and Pakistan—ratherthan to an attempt to keep one country in one form.

It is certainly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby,said, that one sees a good deal more evidence of peace,which is very good news, but it is also true that thereare credible reports of civil rights abuses. I add myappreciation to that already expressed for the UnitedKingdom forces involved in the de-mining exercise.I had the great privilege of being with those forces inColombia in South America and saw just how amazingand dangerous their work was. I remember how relievedone felt to be able to go away at the end of a phasewhen they could not always do so.

Both sides have made credible claims; both haveeye-witness accounts; and both seek retribution. Oneside has sought prosecution of perpetrators, with greateremphasis focused, perhaps understandably, on theshelling of hospitals, which, by common consent, causedconsiderable civilian casualties. However, I also notethat the commission expressed findings even on thisissue, stating that it was impossible to say who hadbeen responsible for that shelling.

The report contains findings on many other issues.It apportions blame for the causes of the war prettyevenly between politicians on both sides. It makes itclear that there were no steps taken by the Sinhalesewhich could have placated the Tamil people. It makesit clear that Tamil politicians worked up passions formilitant separation which were impossible to accede to.

While there was support for the report, there hasalso been significant criticism. A lack of independencein the report has been alleged. Not even minimuminternational standards of protection of witnesses wasaccorded to many of those who might have givenevidence.

However, I share a view with the noble Lord, LordNaseby: that the decisions of Amnesty International,the International Crisis Group and Human RightsWatch not to take any part can scarcely have helpedthe process. It would have been better had they takenpart and I am not sure that their reasons for not doingso are sustainable.

Many of the commission’s recommendations couldbe detailed very extensively, but I highlight those todeal with long-term detainees individually, to publishfull lists, to ensure that freedom meant freedom—thatis, once people had been released, they should not bere-arrested—to overcome legal delays in process, todisarm illegal groups immediately as a priority, to ensurethat there is free movement in the country, to normalisecivil administration and to make sure that documentswere in languages that people could understand. Likethe noble Lord, Lord Bates, I often feel—maybe Iwould—that sport can play a significant role in givingpeople the opportunity to see each other in circumstancesthat are not quite so gruesome.

However, people plainly want more, and herein liesthe central dilemma. Reconciliation processes seldomsatisfy those who have suffered the sharpest distress orgrievances. No one in the United Kingdom wouldwillingly accept any process where there was impunity.I do not know that it would ever speak well in ourculture; nor do I think that it would speak well inanybody’s culture, because people want their mostserious grievances addressed. As we have seen elsewhere,retributive justice after a war of this kind is very

GC 23 GC 24[LORDS]Sri Lanka Sri Lanka

unlikely to achieve reconciliation—these are not easychoices to make—but that does not answer the questionof impunity. That is why it is an audacious route totake to seek reconciliation in this way and why it isseldom welcomed by all those who seek completejustice or even confirmation that the evidence thatthey have provided, and on which they rely, is the onlyaccepted truth that should be accounted for.

I am with the noble Lords, Lord Willis and LordDholakia, in believing that one has to be clear on bothsides about the conditions for success if this is theroute that one wants to take. The first condition is thatthere should be sufficient independence in the inquiryto command support—and I support what Her Majesty’sGovernment have said about that, which is useful andcorrect.

Secondly, reconciliation can work fully in my view,even against all the odds, only if substantive outcomescan be achieved in the programme of reconciliationthat is recommended. I make these points here notbecause the international groups have all written tome and urged that they should be made but because Ihope for the success of the country and want to thinkabout how that might be achieved. The outstandingevidence is clear; the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia,referred to the first and perhaps most important point,that political processes have to encapsulate the rightsfor all groups and the rule of law, and that is fundamental.The aid agencies must be able to reach those needingaid, especially with medicines and medical facilities. Ido not believe that there is evidence that that has fullyhappened, and I wonder whether the Minister has anobservation on that.

There are clear failings in the existing IHL regimein respect of internal conflicts in both state and non-statearmed groups. Does the Minister feel that there maybe progress there? A large number of allegations havebeen made of abduction, arbitrary detention anddisappearances—what is called a different kind ofwhite van syndrome. There do not seem to me to besuch clear outcomes as have been presented, and Iwonder whether the Minister has views on that. Iknow from the work that was done in Argentina andChile that, until those issues are fully nailed down, thefamilies do not go away—and you can understandwhy. It will never satisfy them. The independent policecommission has to function properly, and I am notabsolutely clear from what I have read that it doesfunction. I wonder whether the Minister has anyobservation.

I make one quick observation on Channel 4. JonSnow is, in my view, one of the outstanding journalistsof this generation. He has amazing standards andamazingly good personal, ethical values, which contrastwith some others in the media. Yet questions persistabout the authenticity of some of the footage of“Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields”. It is not for the Minister,but could Parliament perhaps encourage “Channel 4News” to consider whether it has been deceived in anyrespect?

Lord Wills: I am very curious about this, because Idid a lot of work researching all this, including reviewingthose particular films. I looked at an Ofcom judgment;there were a lot of complaints about those films—

hundreds, I think. Channel 4 was found not to be inbreach at all by Ofcom, so I wonder whether my noblefriend could specify what doubt there is. I am sure thathe is aware that much of the footage in those films wasfilmed by Sri Lankan soldiers on their mobile phones.What possible doubt is there about the veracity of thatfootage?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, if my noble friend hadallowed me just one more sentence, I was going to goon to say that I personally had no doubt about theauthenticity of the films—that is my view. But whenpeople, particularly in the current media climate, believethat it is important to be absolutely certain of thesethings, an excellent news programme such as I believe“Channel 4 News” is would do itself no harm if itrepeated the exercise if it gave greater confidence. Ipersonally have no doubt about the veracity, but myview may not be significant.

Finally, steps could be taken before the conformationof the final arrangements for the state visit, which isalso very important—it is not just CHOGM. This is areal opportunity, in the spirit of Commonwealth standardsand reputation, not least because the Commonwealthhas an outstanding Secretary-General in KamaleshSharma, to ask questions, discuss progress and articulatea possible programme and means of verification ofthe programme. I know that that kind of Commonwealthrole appealed enormously—it did in its time to me,and certainly it has done to the noble Lord, LordHowell of Guildford, and I know that it does to thenoble Baroness, Lady Warsi. For those reasons, Ialways attach great importance to what can be achievedby that kind of process. If it is done properly, it maywell be that the value of the Commonwealth and ofCHOGM in this instance will be very well demonstrated.

5.19 pm

TheSeniorMinisterof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesand Local Government & Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Baroness Warsi): My Lords, I thank my noblefriend Lord Naseby for securing this debate. I knowthat he and others within both Houses of Parliamenthave taken a close interest in Sri Lanka. The timing ismost apt, a year after the publication of the LessonsLearnt and Reconciliation Commission, or LLRC,report, that has been referred to today.

Let me first note that the United Kingdom andSri Lanka have a long-standing historical connection,and present-day ties include business, family, tourismand education. I assure my noble friend Lord Dholakiathat large numbers of bright, talented Sri Lankanstudents continue to come to study in the UnitedKingdom and the diaspora community of around400,000 people contributes significantly to our economyand rich cultural diversity. We are friends and it is afriendship that we value, even on the cricket pitch,despite being knocked out in the World Twenty20 inOctober by the host, Sri Lanka.

The 2009 defeat of the Liberation Tigers of TamilEelam, or LTTE, brought an end to decades of conflictin the country, but a military victory alone cannotdeliver the stable, lasting peace which all Sri Lankansdeserve. It is for this reason that the UK supports the

GC 25 GC 26[8 JANUARY 2013]Sri Lanka Sri Lanka

[BARONESS WARSI]view, widely held within Sri Lanka and outside, thatlong-term peace can best be achieved through aninclusive political settlement that addresses the underlyingcauses of the conflict. Such a settlement must alsotake into account the legitimate grievances and aspirationsof all Sri Lanka’s communities. The Government ofSri Lanka recognised this in appointing the LLRC,which submitted its report in December 2011. Thereport made more than 200 recommendations.

In January 2012, following the publication of theLLRC report, my right honourable friend Alistair BurtissuedaWrittenMinisterialStatementinwhichhewelcomedpublication of the report and urged the implementationof its recommendations. The recommendations, ifimplemented in full, would go a long way to achievingthe reconciliation which we believe will achieve lastingpeace. Those recommendations included calls forcredible investigations of alleged extrajudicial killingsand disappearances, demilitarisation of the north,implementation of impartial land dispute resolutionmechanisms and the protection of freedom of expression.However, as Alistair Burt said at the time, and to whichthe noble Lord, Lord Wills, referred, in the view of thisGovernmentthereport leftgapsandunansweredquestionson alleged violations of international humanitarianlaw and human rights law, and we were disappointedby the report’s conclusions and recommendations onaccountability.

Sri Lanka has made some progress against theLLRC recommendations. The UK recognises andwelcomes the progress that has been made in a numberof areas. UK officials have visited all nine provinces inthe past 12 months and have seen much to welcome.Most importantly, the absence of conflict has broughtgreater security and opened up economic development.Demining, which has been referred to in today’s debate,including with UK financial support, is freeing upmore and more land for resettlement and agriculture.Rehabilitation of thousands of ex-combatants, includingchild soldiers, has allowed many individuals to integrateback into society. The majority of internally displacedpersons have now moved out of camps, although thereis still work to be done in ensuring that all havepermanent homes and are, where possible, able toreturn to their places of origin.

Despite a visible military presence, troop numbersin many areas are now well below 2009 levels.Infrastructure development is opening up the country,creating conditions for economic growth and enablingeasier travel. All these are positive developments. However,the picture is not all positive. Much remains to bedone in order to tackle the roots of conflict andensure lasting peace and prosperity. The need forprogress was highlighted in a March 2012 HumanRights Council resolution, supported by a majority ofmember states from around the world. It called on theGovernment of Sri Lanka to implement the LLRCreport recommendations and to address alleged violationsof international law. In July 2012, the Sri LankanGovernment published an LLRC action plan, withdeadlines from early this year for the implementationof the LLRC recommendations. However, it is notablethat the action plan covers around only half the LLRC

recommendations. We hope that the Government ofSri Lanka will reconsider and look at implementingthe LLRC report in full.

This is not a case of unrealistic expectations. TheUK has never suggested or expected that resolutionfollowing a long-running conflict can be instantaneous.We realise that the LLRC recommendations cannot allbe implemented immediately. We have our own experienceof reconciliation from Northern Ireland, and we knowwell that such a process is complex and can take time. Ithank my noble friend Lord Bates for outlining possibleand potential pathways. He is right: this process willtake time. I will take back his suggestions regardingbuilding on the Olympic legacy and, indeed, the OlympicTruce. He is also right that we must look to a future forall, but in the case of Sri Lanka true reconciliation isunlikely to be possible without a brave, open andcomprehensive review of the painful past, and addressingthe deep-seated issues in the LLRC report requires along-term approach, tenacity and co-operation.

There are, of course, inevitable barriers to swiftprogress in some areas—for example, the need tobroker agreements between various parties, undertakechanges to legislation and devise equitable solutionsto complicated issues such as land rights. However, tomake this long-term progress requires a sense of urgencyand it has to be on a positive trajectory.

I regret that a number of the recommendationshave not been tackled at all or have been tackled inname only. The military presence in many areas is lessinvasive than at the end of the conflict but armedforces continue to occupy large areas of civilian land,now classified as high-security zones or militarycantonments. Military involvement in civil and commercialactivities has been reduced in some areas but stillremains widespread and a source of tension. Not onlyhas there been no agreement on political settlementbut a recent Bill seeks to further centralise currentlydevolved powers. Moreover, almost four years sincethe end of the conflict, there have been no prosecutionsfor alleged misconduct during the conflict.

The Government of Sri Lanka face considerablechallenges but they face them with the support of aninternational community eager to see lasting peace inthe country. With this support comes scrutiny, and in2013 this is set to be particularly intense. In March wehave the anniversary of the Human Rights Councilresolution, and the noble Lord, Lord Wills, spokeabout the Commonwealth Heads of GovernmentMeeting, which Sri Lanka is due to host in November.The CHOGM is an opportunity either for Sri Lanka’sprogress to be showcased around the world or for badnews to be amplified. The UK believes that the host ofCHOGM should uphold the Commonwealth valuesof good governance and respect for human rights. Wewill look to Sri Lanka to demonstrate its commitmentto these values both now and in the run-up to CHOGM.A key part of this will be addressing long-standingissues around accountability and reconciliation afterthe war. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, will be awarethat Sri Lanka was scheduled to host CHOGM in 2011but, given ongoing concerns about the humanitarianand human rights situation, the UK and otherCommonwealth members did not support its bid.

GC 27 GC 28[LORDS]Sri Lanka Sri Lanka

Commonwealth members decided that Sri Lanka wouldhost it in 2013, but at this stage it is too soon to talkabout the UK’s attendance plans. I cannot give furtherdetails today, but we will be looking to Sri Lanka todemonstrate the Commonwealth values expected ofany CHOGM host.

The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, raised current,ongoing concerns about the human rights situation.International concerns about human rights violationsin Sri Lanka are not limited to the years of the war butremain since the end of the war as well. The UK hasbeen candid in private and public about our concerns.In the 1 November UN Universal Periodic Review ofSri Lanka, the UK raised concerns about the attackson and intimidation of journalists, human rights defendersand the legal professions. We recommended that theSri Lankan Government investigate alleged gravebreaches of humanitarian law during the conflict.This recommendation was accepted, along with 110 ofthe 210 recommendations made in that review. Wealso recommended that the Sri Lankan Governmentensure a climate in which all citizens can express theiropinions freely. This recommendation was rejected,along with recommendations to invite the UN specialrapporteurs to visit and recommendations to ensureindependence of the judiciary. We continue to haveconcerns about human rights in Sri Lanka, includingdisappearances—to which the noble Lord referred—political violence, reports of torture in custody andrestrictions on free speech. We raised our concernsdirectly with the Government of Sri Lanka and calledupon them to investigate reports of human rightsabuses whenever they occur.

The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, also raised theissue of missing persons. A legacy of decades ofconflict is that large numbers of missing people remainan understandable cause of considerable distress formany families. The LLRC report is committed toestablishing a decentralised database of the missing byFebruary of this year and we look forward to progressin this regard.

Events as recently as the last eight to 10 weeks are asource of concern for us as well as for other states andinternational organisations. These include impeachmentproceedings against the Chief Justice, which coincidentallyfollowed a number of rulings against the Government;violent disruption of student remembrance events inJaffna and the detention of students; and the violent

suppression of a riot at Welikada prison in which27 inmates lost their lives. On 5 December, our highcommissioner joined other EU heads of mission in apublic statement expressing concerns about the rule oflaw and individual freedoms in Sri Lanka.

Following the end of the conflict, we want to seeSri Lanka win a peace that can be enjoyed by all itscitizens. Progress has been made but is lacking in anumber of areas necessary to ensure long-term peaceand stability. We remain committed to helping thereconciliation process, recognising the Sri LankanGovernment’s legitimate authority and looking to theGovernment to implement the LLRC recommendationsin full.

Lord Wills: My Lords, I am very grateful to theMinister for giving way but I intervene as I suspectthat she is about to conclude her remarks. I asked anumber of specific questions. I quite understand thatshe cannot answer them today but will she confirmthat she will write to me with specific answers to thosespecific questions?

Baroness Warsi: I will certainly do that. UK supportincludes funding activities on rehabilitation, access tolanguage rights, community policing support and positivedialogue within and between communities in Sri Lankaand, indeed, engaging the UK diaspora. We recognisethe need for a long-term approach but firmly believethat this must include some early evidence of progress.It is right that Sri Lanka’s friends should raise suchconcerns alongside more immediate human rights issues.As Alistair Burt said in his Written Ministerial Statementlast January:

“Our long-term interest is in a stable, peaceful Sri Lanka, freefrom the scourge of terrorism, and as a fellow member of theCommonwealth, conforming to the standards and values whichCommonwealth membership requires”.—[Official Report, Commons,12/1/12; col. 21WS.]

That position remains unchanged.I close by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Naseby,

for his continued interest in Sri Lanka and for securingthis debate today.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (BaronessGibson of Market Rasen): My Lords, that completesthe business before the Grand Committee this afternoon.Therefore, the Committee stands adjourned.

Committee adjourned at 5.31 pm.

GC 29 GC 30[8 JANUARY 2013]Sri Lanka Sri Lanka

Written StatementsTuesday 8 January 2013

Banks: Business BankStatement

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Business, Innovation and Skills (Lord Marland): Myright honourable friend the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills has made the followingStatement.

The impact of the financial crisis on the cost andavailability of credit is seriously affecting the economy.The Government have already taken action to ease theflow of credit to small and medium-sized businessesincluding by working with the Bank of England tolaunch the Funding for Lending Scheme, by putting inplace access to finance schemes such as the £1.2 billionBusiness Finance Partnership and the Seed EnterpriseInvestment Scheme, and providing additional fundingfor the Enterprise Finance Guarantee.

However, many good small and medium-sizedbusinesses (SMEs) still struggle to raise finance fromtheir banks. Furthermore, well before the financialcrisis Britain suffered from structural failings in finance,in long term credit in particular. Now as the economyrecovers, there is a risk that UK businesses lack thesupport they need to grow.

As set out in the Autumn Statement 2012, theGovernment therefore plan to deploy an extra £1 billionto create a business bank. We will maximise the bank’simpact and reach by exploring joint investment withthe private sector and the use of government guarantees.The bank will make wholesale interventions in thebusiness finance market to facilitate the developmentof a greater diversity of non-bank business financesources and to tackle other long-standing market gaps.We will also take steps to bring together governmentfinance schemes for small and medium-sized businessesso that they are managed as a single portfolio and ensurebusinesses are aware of and can access government-backedbusiness advice.

I wish to outline to the House how we will achievethis and what are the key milestones along the way.

We envisage the business bank operating on acommercial basis within a strategic framework set byMinisters. It will be charged with finding ways to fillgaps in the business finance market, based on economicanalysis. A number of options are being consideredincluding capital investments and guarantees for longterm finance products, as well as a wider range ofwholesale funding activities which could become relevantover time. Detailed design of the activities will need toreflect the requirement to ensure our proposals arefully consistent with state aid rules. We plan to start adialogue with the Commission about our proposals inJanuary.

At the same time, and in order to start actingswiftly, we propose to use £300 million of the newfunding to co-invest alongside the private sector insources of finance that help diversify the business

finance market. These investments will be made underSection 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982.Further detail of how this funding will be made availablewill be provided at Budget 2013 after engagement withmarket participants in the new year.

I am also creating an advisory group, which willcomprise independent business and finance expertsand advise the Government on the setting up andstrategic direction of the new institution. Sir Peter Burthas very kindly agreed to chair this advisory groupand additional members will be appointed very shortly.I can also announce today that Keith Morgan hasjoined the Government to lead the design work for thefuture business bank. The group will provide adviceon:

The activities and specific segments of the marketon which different activities of the business bankshould focus;The design of existing interventions and how theycould best be improved;The detailed design of the new interventions, howto make them most effective, and how to attractprivate sector capital if desirable;How to ensure better joining up of wider government-funded business advice and support as well as enhancedawareness of and access by businesses to this support;The role of Government in such an organisation,and at what level;The overall implementation plan;The marketing plan for these activities; andThe key roles in terms of design and execution riskfor the implementation phase.We will use their expertise to develop proposals for

the bank’s interventions and discuss and where relevantagree these interventions with HMT, the Bank ofEngland, UK regulators and the European Commission.

I will present more detailed proposals on thesematters to the House next year.

CopyrightStatement

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Business, Innovation and Skills (Lord Marland): Myright honourable friend the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills has made the followingStatement.

Today the Government are publishing the final partof their response to their copyright consultation:“Modernising Copyright: a modern, robust and flexibleframework”.

The response sets out government decisions onchanges to “copyright exceptions”: freedoms in copyrightlaw that allow third parties to use copyright works fora variety of economically and/or socially valuablepurposes without permission from copyright owners.

The Government are committed to achieving strong,sustainable and balanced growth that is shared acrossthe country and between industries. Following theHargreaves review of intellectual property and growth,and an extensive consultation process, the Government

WS 1 WS 2[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Statements Written Statements

believe that the copyright framework can be improvedto make the UK a better place for consumers and forfirms to innovate, in markets which are vital for futuregrowth, without harming the UK’s valuable creativeindustries.

The Government have considered the responses tothe consultation carefully, alongside the views of theBusiness, Innovation and Skills Select Committee andothers. They intend to make changes to widen existingor introduce new exceptions for private copying; parody;education; quotation and news reporting; text & datamining; research & private study; preservation; disabilities;public administration and reporting. These measurestake account of what the Government have heardfrom creative industries about the need to minimisepotential adverse impacts of any change.

The Government intend to make these changes viasecondary legislation in autumn 2013. Prior to this,the Government will publish the draft regulations fortechnical review.

The response document will be published on theBusiness, Innovation and Skills, and Intellectual PropertyOffice websites and a copy will be placed in the HouseLibraries.

Correction to Commons Written AnswerStatement

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): My honourable friend theParliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Daniel Poulter)has made the following Statement.

I regret that the Written Answers given to thehonourable Member for Hartlepool (Iain Wright) on6 November 2012, Official Report column 584w, theright honourable Member for Warley (John Spellar)on 22 October 2012, Official Report column 711w, theright honourable Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham)on 20 February 2012, Official Report column 713wand to the honourable Member for Stalybridge andHyde (Jonathan Reynolds) on 10 January 2012, OfficialReport column 120w, contained some incorrectinformation.

The Written Answers pertained to the cost of exitpackages incurred by primary care trusts (PCTs) andthe information provided in the original Answersincorrectly included a negative figure for one PCT, dueto an error in compiling the figures for the annualreport and accounts within the department.

In respect of the Answer given to the honourableMember for Hartlepool (Iain Wright), a table showingthe corrected figures is given below.

Category 2010-11 2011-12£000s £000s

Compulsoryredundancies

87,911 83,106

Other departures 134,982 91,589

Notes:1. “Other departures” include early retirements (except those

due to ill health), voluntary redundancies, Mutually AgreedResignation Scheme, pay in lieu of notice etc.

2. Voluntary redundancies are not separately identifiable fromother departures; therefore, an overall figure for redundancies isnot available.

In respect of the Written Answer given to the righthonourable Member for Warley (John Spellar), a tableshowing the corrected figures is given below.

Category 2009-10 2010-11£000s £000s

Compulsoryredundancies

4,457 60,367

Other departures 1,737 111,749

Notes:1. “Other departures” include early retirements (except those

due to ill health), voluntary redundancies, Mutually AgreedResignation Scheme, pay in lieu of notice etc.

2. Voluntary redundancies are not separately identifiable fromother departures; therefore, an overall figure for redundancies isnot available.

In respect of the Written Answer given to the righthonourable Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), thecorrected information is as follows.

The total resource cost of exit packages for primarycare trust (PCT) staff leaving their organisation in2010-11 was £172.1 million. A table breaking downthis cost for each PCT has been placed in the Library.The total value of £172.1 million includes £60.4 millionfor compulsory redundancies and £111.7 million forother departures. The figure for other departures includesthe cost of both early retirements (excluding thoserelating to ill-health) and voluntary redundancies.However, it is not possible to separately identify thevalue of either of these costs from the data collected.

In respect of the Written Answer given to thehonourable Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (JonathanReynolds) on 10 January 2012, Official Report col 120w,the corrected part of the reply is given below.

Information from the Audited NHS (England)Summarised Accounts for the financial year 2010-11shows that the total resource cost of staff exit packagesfor strategic health authorities, primary care trustsand National Health Service trusts in the 2010-11financial year was £223 million. This figure includes£88 million for compulsory redundancies and £135 millionfor other departures. The figure for other departuresincludes early retirements (excluding those because ofill-health). It is not possible to separately identify thiscost, or the cost of voluntary redundancies from thedata collected.

Crime: Domestic ViolenceStatement

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordMcNally): My right honourable friend the LordChancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (ChrisGrayling) has made the following Written MinisterialStatement.

On 21 December 2012, I announced that BaronessHelenNewlovehasbeenappointedasthenewCommissionerfor Victims and Witnesses (“Victims’ Commissioner”).

WS 3 WS 4[LORDS]Written Statements Written Statements

The role of the Victims’ Commissioner, as set out inthe Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004,is to promote the interests of victims and witnesses,encourage good practice in their treatment and keepunder review the operation of the statutory Victims’Code.

We are committed to strengthening the voice ofvictims who too often feel like they are treated asan afterthought in the criminal justice system. Theappointment of Baroness Newlove as the new Victims’Commissioner will ensure that as our strategy to improveservices and support for victims and witnesses isimplemented, the views of victims are represented.

Department for Communities and LocalGovernment

Statement

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesandLocalGovernment(BaronessHanham):My right honourable friend the Secretary of State forCommunities and Local Government (Eric Pickles)made the following Written Ministerial Statement on7 January 2013.

I would like to update honourable Members on themain items of business undertaken by my departmentsince the House rose on 20 December 2012.

Helping hard-working families with council taxOn 1 January, my department highlighted new

legislation that takes effect in April 2013 which allowslocal taxpayers to choose to pay their bill over 12 monthsrather than 10, if they wish. This new right will make iteasier for those on fixed incomes to manage their bills,and would lower the average band D council taxinstalment by an average of £24 per month for 10 months.

This builds on the support that the CoalitionGovernment have already announced for local authoritiesand police and crime commissioners in England tohelp them freeze council tax for a third year and assistin keeping the cost of living down. The Governmenthave set aside £450 million in the Autumn Statement.Taxpayers living in an average band D home in Englandcould save up to £72 compared to a 5% increase, whilethe cumulative effect of the three years’ worth offreezes is potentially worth over £200 to band D residents.I hope honourable Members will encourage their localauthorities to take up this year’s freeze offer.

Tackling council tax fraud helps reduce bills forlaw-abiding citizens. I intend to lay and publish thisweek draft affirmative regulations, including settingout the powers which local authorities will have tocombat fraud in the council tax system and to prosecutethose who commit criminal acts. These regulationswill ensure that local authorities continue to be ableto tackle fraud when council tax benefit is replacedby local council tax reduction schemes in April,and are consistent with those that prevent fraud in thewelfare benefit system. Reflecting the CoalitionGovernment’s commitment to civil liberties, we havescaled back existing state powers which we believe tobe disproportionate.

A fairer and simpler planning systemThe Coalition Government believe in fair play, with

everyone abiding by the same rules. On 21 December,we launched a consultation on proposals to give councilsgreater freedom to prevent unauthorised traveller sitesand the small minority who abuse planning rules.Under proposals, councils would be given greater freedomto determine whether to use temporary stop notices inrelation to caravans that are in breach of planningcontrol, and are used as a person’s main residence.This would be backed up with the potential for fines ofup to £20,000 on a summary conviction or an unlimitedfine on indictment. Subject to the outcome of theconsultation, proposals will allow councils to act quicklyto stop unauthorised sites before they become established,saving on the costs of enforcement and preventinglong-term harm to the environment and local amenity.

The Coalition Government are committed to makingthe planning system simpler, more efficient and moreeffective. On 21 December, my department launched aconsultation to consider the recommendations of theexternal review group on planning practice guidanceled by Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, to rationalise thevolumes of unwieldy and contradictory advice. Thegoal is to make practice guidance easier to understandfor both practitioners and the public. This does notinvolve any change to planning policy, which is laidout in the National Planning Policy Framework.

On 27 December, my department outlined our responseto the consultation paper on streamlining informationrequirements for planning applications. This will encouragea more proportionate approach to the informationthat applicants are required to provide with outlineplanning applications, reducing administrative coststo both applicants and councils, while ensuring that allinterested parties continue to be well informed of thedetails of any proposed application.

A fairer deal for taxpayers on local governmentpensions

On 21 December, my department published aconsultation seeking responses from interested partieson draft regulations for the new Local GovernmentPension Scheme to come into force in April 2014relating to membership, contributions and benefits.This represents a key step in the process of reform thatbegan with the commitment given in the CoalitionGovernment’s programme to review the long termaffordability and sustainability of public service pensionschemes.

Figures for the last financial year show that theLocal Government Pensions Scheme costs £7.5 billion.Employers—i.e. taxpayers—contributed £5.9 billiontowards maintaining staff pensions. The cost to thepublic is equivalent to £320 a year for average band Dcouncil tax. Yet, for the first year, the cost of localauthority pension taxpayer-funded contributions hasactually fallen, and these further reforms will protecttaxpayers’ interests while protecting those on low andmoderate incomes.

Cutting intrusive red tape

On 21 December, my department wrote to localauthorities to make clear that equality impact assessmentsare not a legal requirement. Indeed, they can be resource

WS 5 WS 6[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Statements Written Statements

intensive and take staff away from planning and deliveringimportant public services. We also reminded councilsthat statutory guidance makes clear that councils donot need to undertake unnecessary lifestyle or “diversity”questionnaires of their local residents and suppliers. Iwill shortly be giving guidance to my department’sarm’s-length bodies on the same issue.

On Boxing Day, the media reported how residentsin Stockport, Cheshire East and Manchester werebeing asked about their sexual preferences when theyresponded to a consultation on a proposed roadimprovement. This is a typical example of how thepublic sector wastes money on pointless and intrusivebureaucracy.

A helping hand on housing

On 20 December, my department launched the new£200 million Build to Rent fund which will boost theconstruction of new homes specifically for privaterent. By financing the construction of rental homesuntil they are built, let out and managed, the fund willgive developers the freedom to build homes specificallyfor that market with confidence. An expert taskforcewill also work to boost investor awareness of the fundand offer practical support to those interested in thisnew market. The prospectus for the fund has beenpublished on the Homes and Communities Agency’swebsite.

Over Christmas, Ministers highlighted the help availableto those sleeping rough through the new StreetLinkhotline and website. StreetLink, run by charities HomelessLink and Broadway with funding from my department,offers a valuable alternative to a cash handout forpeople sleeping rough. This will support the No SecondNight Out initiative as it is extended across the country.In London, where No Second Night Out has beenadopted, already 70% of rough sleepers have not spentmore than one night on the streets.

On 2 January, my department highlighted newderegulation that will cut red tape and costs forhomeowners and businesses alike. Changes are beingmade to the building regulations regime in England todeliver an even better and more cost-effective way ofensuring our buildings remain safe and sustainable.The changes will deliver savings of around £50 millionper year to business and will come into force fromApril 2013. Changes to remove the requirement tonotify simple and low risk electrical works will meanthat householders keen to improve their home nolonger need to pay £240, or more, to their local councilto have simple electrical jobs checked.

New Year’s Honours

I wish to congratulate to all those working in thelocal government, housing, fire and voluntary andcommunity sector that were recognised in the NewYear’s Honours List acknowledging their valuedcontribution to society.

I have placed in the Library a copy of the associateddocuments and press notices relating to theseannouncements.

EU: European CouncilStatement

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord DeMauley): My right honourable friend the Secretary ofState for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs hastoday made the following Statement.

My noble friend Lord De Mauley, ParliamentaryUnder-Secretary for Resource Management, the LocalEnvironment and Environmental Science, representedthe UK at the EU Environment Council in Brussels on17 December 2012. Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish Ministerfor Environment and Climate Change) and John Griffiths(Welsh Minister for Environment and SustainableDevelopment) also attended.

After adopting the list of legislative and non-legislativeA items, Environment Ministers adopted councilconclusions on “A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’sWaters”. The UK welcomed the blueprint, praising itsfocus on implementation rather than new legislation,which is in line with principles of better regulation.Several other member states similarly supported theblueprint’s focus on implementation and greaterintegration.

Next, the presidency led an exchange of views on“Greening the European Semester”, based on theannual growth survey 2013. Discussion at EnvironmentCouncil focused on the bottlenecks to achieving Europe2020 resource efficiency objectives, and member stateswere asked to give their views as to which measures inthe field of resource efficiency and climate action hadthe biggest potential to contribute to growth and jobcreation. A broad range of opinions were put forward.The UK made clear that actions needed to reflect thespecificities of each member state; that any additionaltargets would need to be clearly justified; and highlightedour domestic actions to support resource efficiency.The Commission (Hedegaard) summarised the discussionby stating that the debate was timely, as the annualgrowth survey was increasingly becoming the key toolfor setting economic priorities for the year to come.Discussions on the annual growth survey 2013 willtake place at various EU level councils, and will informdebate at the spring European Council in March 2013.

Lord de Mauley attended a ministerial lunch, duringwhich the outcomes of the COP18 climate changenegotiations which recently took place in Doha werediscussed. Member states recognised that overall agood outcome had been achieved at COP18 but, movingforwards, there is still much work to be done.

In the afternoon, an orientation debate on the7th EU Environment Action Programme (7th EAP)was held. The Commission said that it had been a“difficult birth”, but that the 7th EAP should offer aclear-cut programme and a solid and pragmatic frameworkfor years to come. The Commission said that therewere only a few legislative gaps to be filled, and themain focus was on implementation. The tone of thediscussion was generally positive. Many member states,including the UK, welcomed the focus on implementation.The UK said that they believed the environmentalacquis was largely complete, and that any new proposalsfor legislation must be based on evidence and supported

WS 7 WS 8[LORDS]Written Statements Written Statements

by a robust impact assessment. In that vein, the UKfelt that the 7th EAP impact assessment was not quitefit for purpose, and stated that the UK would carryout further work to assess more accurately theramifications of the programme. The specific concernsof other member states were wide-ranging, but severalmember states voiced a particular concern about proposedtargets to reduce landfill.

Under environmental AOB items, a progress reportwas offered on the Programme for the Environmentand Climate Action (LIFE), and the presidency providedinformation on environmental quality standards inthe field of water policy (priority substances). Thepresidency also gave information on the assessment ofthe effects of certain public and private projects on theenvironment (the EIA Directive). Belgium, Spain andthe Czech Republic all intervened to air their concernsabout the proposed measures, after which the presidencycurtailed the discussion, highlighting that there wouldbe further opportunities to discuss the proposal duringthe Irish presidency.

In the afternoon, several climate change items werediscussed under “any other business”. The EmissionsTrading Scheme appeared on the agenda in the contextof aviation, the recently published carbon marketreport and the Commission’s proposed measure forchanging the auctioning profile for ETS allowances(known as “backloading”). With regards to backloading,Poland presented a paper, based on Commission data,which appeared to show the negative financial impactthat backloading would have for certain member states.The Commission responded by questioning the validityof their analysis and was supported by the Netherlands.A proposal to define the modalities for reaching the2020 targets to reduce CO2 emissions from cars andvans was also presented. Most member states whointervened supported the proposal’s ambition in termsof target levels, and most supported looking at longer-termtargets post-2020. The presidency also presentedinformation on proposals for accounting rules andaction plans on greenhouse gas emissions and removalsrelating from activities related to land use, land usechange and forestry (LULUCF). Finally, the Irishpresented their priorities for the forthcoming IrishPresidency.

The UK also held short bilateral meetings withCroatia, France, the Netherlands and Lithuania.

EU: Transport CouncilStatement

Earl Attlee: My honourable friend the ParliamentaryUnder-Secretary of State for Transport (StephenHammond) has made the following Ministerial Statement.

I attended the last Transport Council of the CypriotPresidency in Brussels on Thursday 20 December.

The Council agreed a general approach on theproposal for a directive of the European Parliamentand the council on periodic road worthiness tests formotor vehicles and their trailers and repealing directive2009/40/EC. Following widespread criticism of theCommission’s proposal at the October Transport Council,the UK has been an active and leading negotiator at

the working group meetings chaired by the presidency.The presidency subsequently presented a compromisetext that reflected the reality of member states’ roadsafety testing practices. We supported the change ofthe legal form of the proposal from a (directly applicable)regulation to a directive (which gives member statessome flexibility in transposition).

I welcomed the many improvements in the presidency’stext which had substantially reduced the cost implicationsto a manageable level and indicated that the UK couldaccept the presidency’s text. I made clear that asnegotiations begin with the European Parliament, wewould seek to provide Members of the EuropeanParliament with as much information as possible toexplain why the changes to the original proposal wereboth justified and necessary.

The presidency provided progress reports on twoproposals.

The first was the proposal for a regulation of theEuropean Parliament and of the council establishingthe Connecting Europe Facility. This regulation willprovide the legal basis for funding of trans-Europeantransport, energy and telecoms networks for 2014-2020.The text will not be finalised until the budget figuresfor 2014-2020 have been agreed in discussions on themulti-annual financial framework (MFF).

The second was the proposal for a regulation ofthe European Parliament and of the council on theimplementation and exploitation of European satellitenavigation systems. The council’s position on thisregulation, which will provide the legal basis for takingforward the Galileo satellite navigation programmefrom 2014, was agreed earlier in the year. However,technical discussions with the European Parliamentsince then have not led to much progress. The dossierwill be passed to the Irish Presidency to concludenegotiations with the European Parliament once thebudget for Galileo under the MFF has been confirmed.

The council adopted conclusions on thecommunication on “EU’s External Aviation Policy—Addressing Future Challenges”. The Commissionwelcomed the conclusions, highlighting in particularthe worsening aviation relationship with Russia, especiallyRussia’s ongoing refusal to implement its commitmentson Siberian overflight charges. The Commissionercalled for collective action at EU level and said hewould be producing a road map in the new year with aview to pursuing an EU/Russia comprehensive agreementin due course.

The council also adopted a proposal for a decisionon the comprehensive aviation agreement between theEU and its member states and Israel. The originalplan had been for the agreement to be signed in themargins of the council, but due to internal politicalreasons, Israel was not able to sign at this time. TheCommission hoped that Israel would be in a positionto sign this agreement shortly after national electionsin the Spring 2013.

A high level co-operation agreement with Eurocontrol(European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation)was signed in the margins of the council.

Under any other business, the Commission providedan update on recent discussions at the InternationalCivil Aviation Organisation to agree a global approach

WS 9 WS 10[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Statements Written Statements

to tackling emissions from aviation. The Commissionclarified that it was proposing a temporary derogationon enforcement of the Aviation Emissions TradingSystem (ETS) relating to international flights andhoped the European Parliament and the council wouldapprove this through a decision in the first quarter ofnext year.

Also under any other business, France tabled aroom document which called for a discussion to beheld in the International Maritime Organization onthe 2015 deadline for implementing the new requirementson the sulphur content of marine fuels. A number ofmember states intervened and stressed that they wouldbe keen to discuss practical issues, such as the cost oflow sulphur fuels to businesses.

The Cleaner Power for Transport Package whichwas due to be discussed as an AOB item was taken offthe agenda.

Keith Brown MSP, Scottish Minister for Transportand Veterans also attended.

FloodingStatement

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord DeMauley): My right honourable friend the Secretary ofState for Environment Food and Rural Affairs hastoday made the following Statement.

The period leading up to Christmas and in to thenew year has again seen flooding across the country.This was particularly unfortunate in that it impactedon people and families during the festive season and Iwould like to offer my sincere sympathies to those whowere affected.

The recent floods which began mid way throughDecember affected much of the country. Following onfrom previous flooding in November and a very wetsummer, the December rainfall quickly led to furtherflooding. Although rain is not unusual at this time ofyear we have experienced a prolonged period of heavierthan usual rainfall during the year. 2012 was thewettest on record in England with some areas experiencingover 131% of average levels. This heavy rain led toflooding from rivers, groundwaters and surface water.

The December floods affected many parts of thecountry with 532 properties flooded, most notably inthe south-west with 379 properties impacted. Nearly22,000 properties were protected from flooding andover 135,000 properties were sent a warning about thepotential risk of flooding giving people essential timeto protect their homes and possessions. In total over1.1 million people are signed up to receive EnvironmentAgency flood warnings.

I would like to pay tribute to the work of theEnvironment Agency, fire, ambulance, police and otherrescue services, local authorities, the voluntary sectorand local communities who contributed to the floodresponse. This is particularly relevant for those whoput aside their traditional Christmas and new yearcelebrations to help others and to them I offer mysincere thanks.

I saw for myself some of the magnificent work thatresults from this multi-agency response when I visitedUpton-upon-Severn to see new flood defence schemessuccessfully keeping high river flows at bay. I also metsome of the people who managed the response at thelocal incident room in Tewkesbury. Last Thursday theUnder-Secretary of State, my honourable friend RichardBenyon visited Dorset and Wiltshire to gain a betterunderstanding of the continuing groundwater floodingchallenges and to meet some of the people whocontributed to our operational response in the region.

As river levels fall, saturated ground continues tolead to potential groundwater flooding problems. TheEnvironment Agency’s teams will be monitoringgroundwater levels across England and Wales for manyweeks to come and advising local authorities whichlead on groundwater flooding. As the rain eases overthe coming days slower responding rivers such as theThames, Severn, Nene and the Ouse in Yorkshire, willcontinue to rise in their lower reaches. The EnvironmentAgency will be monitoring these closely.

The recent heavy rain caused major disruption tothe rail network in different parts of the UK, particularlyin the south-west of England. Major flooding resultedin certain sections of the network being closed andthis was compounded by landslips resulting in severedamage to tracks and signalling equipment. Wherepossible train operating companies either re-routedservices or provided alternative means of transport,although this was not always possible due to localroad conditions.

On the roads there was some initial minor disruptionto the strategic road network but the major impactwas on local roads under the responsibility of localauthorities.

In addition to the impacts on homes and businessesaround the country, the current floods have beenkeenly felt among farmers. The Somerset levels andmoors have been inundated for a large proportion ofthe year and continue to be under water. The LowerHampshire Avon has been at flood risk since earlyJuly. In the north-east, there has been extensive andprolonged flooding of agricultural land in the Vale ofYork. I recognise the difficulties that this situationpresents to farmers and offer my sincere sympathies tothose who have been affected. It is important to notethat investment in flood defence schemes has protectedagricultural land. For example, 59 projects completedduring 2011-12 provided an improved level of floodprotection to more than 74,000 hectares of agriculturalland. We recognise that concerns have been raisedabout clearance of water channels in rural areas andthat the department is working with the EnvironmentAgency to examine the issue. My department and itsagencies will continue to do all that we can to issuewarnings and to moderate the impacts of floods. Wewill assess the long term impact of the recent saturationof agricultural land.

The Government recognise the adverse impactsthat flooding has had on communities, both urbanand rural, across the country throughout 2012. Continuedgovernment investment means that during 2012 we havebeen able to protect a total of over 200,000 propertiesfrom flooding. We now expect to exceed our goal to

WS 11 WS 12[LORDS]Written Statements Written Statements

better protect 145,000 homes from flooding and coastalerosion by March 2015. The Autumn Statementannounced an extra £120 million for flood defences inEngland during this spending period allowing us toprotect up to a further 60,000 properties.

We remain committed to ongoing discussions withthe ABI, on behalf of its members, and others aboutwhat replaces the statement of principles agreement.It would not be appropriate to comment in detail ontheir progress. A range of options are on the table anddiscussions have been very constructive. No final decisionshave been taken.

We are keen to improve on the statement of principles.We need a solution that ensures affordable insurancebills for those at flood risk but does not place unsustainablecosts on wider policyholders and the taxpayer. TheSecretary of State for Communities and LocalGovernment is responsible for the Bellwin scheme ofemergency financial assistance to help local authoritieswith the immediate costs associated with protectinglife and properties in their areas. His departmentstands ready to support all councils that have sufferedfrom the devastating floods including financial supportthrough the Bellwin Scheme and we are monitoringthe situation carefully.

High river levels, groundwater flooding, standingwater and surface water run-off continue to makeconditions difficult in different parts of England. Iencourage people to continue to take care and thinkabout their own safety and that of friends, relativesand neighbours.

These floods, coming as they have after a longseries of previous floods, have been a tragedy for thoseaffected, and I want to conclude by paying tribute tothe wonderful community spirit that I, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and RuralAffairs, my honourable friend the Member for Newbury,and Members across the House have seen around thecountry in their local communities. I shall, of course,keep the House informed of any further significantdevelopments.

Government Car and Dispatch AgencyStatement

Earl Attlee: My Honourable friend the ParliamentaryUnder-Secretary of State for Transport (StephenHammond) has made the following Ministerial Statement.

I am publishing today details of the charges incurredby departments for the use of official government carsprovided to Ministers by the Government Car andDespatch Agency (GCDA) during the year 1 April 2011to 31 March 2012. This is in line with previous annualstatements.

The charges recorded in the Statement show acontinuing reduction in the amount spent on officialcars for Ministers. Costs to departments have seen a49 per cent reduction in the latest figures when comparedto those of the previous year and a 72 per centreduction when compared to the figures for April 2009to March 2010:

2009-10 April 2010May 2010–

March 2011 2011-12

£6.7m £0.8m £2.9m £1.9m

Official cars are an essential service for Ministers inorder that they can carry out their work effectively butwe are committed to continuing our focus on the costof this service.

The charges recorded in the Statement also reflectthe progress made on restructuring the service tomaximise value for money while improving standardsof service delivery. This programme of reform includesthe development of a new service model which willoffer up further cost savings on the provision of theservice. The new service model was announced inFebruary 2012 and introduced in April 2012. Theassociated charges will be reflected in next years’ WMS.

The figures for 2011-2012 are:

DepartmentAllocated

Cars1Allocated

CostMinisterial

Car Pool Total Cost

AttorneyGeneral’sOffice

1 £76,645.29 £15,495.00 £92,140.29

CabinetOffice

1 £58,097.77 £24,456.90 £82,554.67

DepartmentforBusiness,InnovationandSkills

1 £71,075.32 £3,270.71 £74,346.03

DepartmentforEducation

1 £71,912.21 £91,270.73 £163,182.94

DepartmentforCommunitiesandLocalGovernment

1 £83,689.50 £119,130.47 £202,819.97

DepartmentforCulture,MediaandSport

0 £0.00 £1,740.81 £1,740.81

DepartmentforEnergyandClimateChange

0 £0.00 £36,687.79 £36,687.79

DepartmentforEnvironment,FoodandRuralAffairs

1 £74,013.16 £5,691.82 £79,704.98

DepartmentforInternationalDevelopment

0 £31,649.41 £48,434.94 £80,084.35

DepartmentforTransport

1 £84,818.65 £56,221.79 £141,040.44

WS 13 WS 14[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Statements Written Statements

DepartmentAllocated

Cars1Allocated

CostMinisterial

Car Pool Total Cost

Departmentfor WorkandPensions

1 £87,388.17 £57,117.69 £144,505.86

DepartmentofHealth

1 £7,885.11 £119,966.86 £127,851.97

Foreign&CommonwealthOffice

0 £0.00 £23,020.77 £23,020.77

HMTreasury

1 £105,640.88 £47,802.27 £153,443.15

HomeOffice

1 £75,922.71 £60,919.17 £136,841.88

MinistryofDefence

0 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00

MinistryofJustice

1 £91,509.03 £103,405.45 £194,914.48

NorthernIrelandOffice

0 £0.00 £34,289.71 £34,289.71

ScotlandOffice

0 £0.00 £60.00 £60.00

WalesOffice

1 £78,067.12 £6,380.00 £84,447.12

13 £998,314.33 £855,362.88 £1,853,677.21

1 Number of Allocated cars as of the 31st of March 2012.One allocated car service terminated mid-year

Where Ministers were provided with a protectedservice because of their need for greater security, thecosts related to this service are not included as this isnot paid for directly by departments but centrally bythe Home Office.

Ministers may use other means of transport orother secure providers of car services, so the officialfigures provided by GCDA for the Statement may notreflect the total spend by departments on cars used forministerial travel.

These figures do not cover the full costs of deliveringthe car service. These are set out annually in theGCDA annual report and accounts.

Government: Coalition GovernmentStatement

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My right honourablefriend the Minister for Government Policy (OliverLetwin) made the following Written Ministerial Statementon Monday 7 January.

Today, at the halfway point in the Parliament, theGovernment are publishing a mid-term document.

Two and a half years ago, the coalition came togetherand formed a Government at a time of significanteconomic danger. The programme for government,which was published in May 2010, described the decisionsand policies that the Government believed were requiredto address the fiscal deficit, to rebalance the economy,to improve the public services, to build a better societyand to reinforce Britain’s position in the world.

This mid-term review highlights the key actions ofthe coalition to date and illustrates the progress thathas been made in taking forward the principal policiescontained within the programme for government.

On all of their key aims the coalition Governmentremain steadfast and united.

As well as describing what has been done since thestart of the Parliament, the review document also setsout the coalition’s priorities for the remainder of theParliament—with the twin aims of enabling the UKto compete in the global race at a time of increasinginternational competition and of enabling all of ourcitizens to fulfil their aspirations.

The Government will, above all, prioritise reducingthe deficit, rebalancing the economy, and reformingwelfare and education. But the review identifies a largenumber of policies in other areas that will be implementedduring the second half of the Parliament—includingsetting out some future policy directions.

I am placing a copy of the review document in theLibraries of both Houses.

Licensing: EntertainmentStatement

Viscount Younger of Leckie: On Monday 7 January2013, my right honourable friend the Minister forSport and Tourism (Hugh Robertson MP) made thefollowing Statement.

In late 2011, the Department for Culture, Mediaand Sport launched a consultation into reforming theregime that regulates many public and charitableentertainment activities.

The consultation was launched after many years ofcalls to reduce unnecessary regulation arising from the2003 Licensing Act for low risk activities that hampercultural and community creativity, restrict charitiesand prevent small businesses from diversifying.

These activities, and the many of the organisationsand institutions that host them, play a pivotal role inour communities. We are determined to ensure thatneedless bureaucracy does not restrict these kinds ofpositive contribution to society. This is why we announcedour intention to act in the coalition programme forgovernment, the Growth Review, the Red Tape Challenge,and in the departmental business plan for the Departmentfor Culture, Media and Sport. The consultation receiveda very full response—around 1350 responses—and thedepartment has examined every comment carefully.We are extremely grateful to everyone who responded.

This consultation has played a full part in shapingfuture policy. Its key findings were that there wasconsiderable support for deregulation, but that certainprotections needed to be retained, including an 11 pmend time for deregulated performance, and, in mostcircumstances, a lower audience cap than was originallyproposed.

The new policy for entertainment is outlined below:Performance of plays: no longer requires a licence

between 08:00-23:00 for audiences of up to 500 people

WS 15 WS 16[LORDS]Written Statements Written Statements

Performance of dance: no longer requires a licencebetween 08:00-23:00 for audiences of up to 500 people

Indoor sport: no longer requires a licence from08:00-23:00 for audiences of up to 1,000 people.

Live music has already been partially deregulatedunder the Live Music Act 2012, which came into forceon 1 October 2012, with the following effect:

unamplified live music deregulated between 08:00-23:00 with no restrictions on audiences size; andamplified live music deregulated between 08:00-23:00 in premises licensed for sale and supply ofalcohol, and in certain workplaces.We will, additionally, retain the key protections of

the Live Music Act 2012, but raise the permittedaudience ceiling from 200 to 500, in on-licensed premisesand workplaces in line with the most other deregulatedactivities

Recorded music: in line with live music deregulation,regulation for recorded music (mainly discos and DJs)will be suspended between 08:00-23:00 in premiseslicensed for the sale and supply of alcohol. This measure,like live music deregulation, is subject to controls fromthe local licence review process.

We also intend to exempt from most forms ofentertainment licensing:

Community venues (including local authority)SchoolsNurseriesHospitalsCircusesFilm exhibition: we will consult in the coming

months on detailed proposals to partially deregulatecommunity film exhibition while maintaining importantage restriction protections for children.

We will bring the measures into effect as theparliamentary timetable allows.

I am arranging for a summary of responses, and theGovernment’s full response, to be made available onthe DCMS website and be deposited in the Librariesof both Houses.

I will also place the impact assessment on thewebsite and in the Libraries of both Houses in duecourse.

NHS: South London Healthcare NHSTrust

Statement

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): My right honourable friend theSecretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt) hasmade the following Written Ministerial Statement.

I wish to inform the House that the trust specialadministrator appointed to South London HealthcareNHS Trust provided me with his final report on 7 January2013. It makes recommendations to me in relation tosecuring a sustainable future for services provided bythat organisation.

Details about the appointment of the administrator,Matthew Kershaw, were given in a Written MinisterialStatement issued on 12 July 2012, Official Report,cols 47-48ws.

The report was provided to me in accordance withChapter 5A of the National Health Service Act 2006,as introduced by the Health Act 2009, and has todaybeen laid before Parliament and made publicly availableat:

www.dh.gov.uk/health/2013/01/south-london-healthcare/

Copies are available to honourable Members fromthe Vote Office and to noble Lords from the PrintedPaper Office.

I would like to thank Matthew Kershaw for thework he has carried out in producing his report. Thisis the first time the trust special administrator’s regimehas been used since the last Government introducedthe provisions which were enacted in the Health Act2009. In accordance with the legislation, in addition toproducing his recommendations on the future of thetrust, Mr Kershaw has also been responsible for managingSouth London Healthcare NHS Trust and maintainingservices for patients while the board is suspendedpending the outcome of the regime. I do not underestimatethe demands this has placed on him.

In triggering this regime, the Government’s prioritywas to ensure that patients continue to receive high-quality,sustainable NHS services. At the time Mr Kershawwas appointed last July, South London HealthcareNHS Trust was overspending by £1 million a week. Inthe last financial year, the trust had a deficit at over£65 million, the largest in the country. Left to itself,the trust’s very severe financial position would havecontinued in a downward spiral of continuing deficitsand ultimately threaten the quality of care for patientsacross south-east London.

The challenges facing South London HealthcareNHS Trust are complex and long standing. To date, ithas not proved possible to ensure that South LondonHealthcare NHS Trust is able to secure a sustainablefuture for its services within its existing configurationand organisational form. The Government’s priority isto ensure the delivery of a long-term, viable solutionfor services provided by the trust if it cannot be madesustainable. All responses to my predecessor’s statutoryconsultation on whether to trigger the regime, includingfrom South London Healthcare NHS Trust itself,stated that a solution for the trust cannot be viewed inisolation from broader service provision within south-eastLondon.

In accordance with my statutory duty, I will considerthe trust special administrator’s recommendations carefullyand make a final decision that can secure sustainableservices for the people of south-east London by1 February. In considering the recommendations, Iwill examine particularly:

whether the recommendations are likely to providea sustainable long term financial position whichwill secure high quality services in the local area forthe future; and

WS 17 WS 18[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Statements Written Statements

whether the recommendations have regard to theGovernment’sfourkeytestsforlocalservicereconfiguration.ThesearesupportfromGPcommissioners,strengthenedpublic and patient engagement, clarity on the clinicalevidence base and support for patient choice.Ultimately, my priority is to ensure that all NHS

hospitals live within their budgets and achieve the bestquality care, best patient outcomes and best patientexperience for all their NHS patients.

I will inform the House of my decision as soon asreasonably possible afterwards.

PortsStatement

Earl Attlee: My right honourable friend the Ministerof State for Transport (Simon Burns) has made thefollowing Ministerial Statement.

In January 2010 Dover Harbour Board (DHB)submitted a voluntary transfer scheme in accordancewith Section 9 of the Ports Act 1991, which allows arelevant port authority to voluntarily submit a transferscheme, which, if confirmed by the Secretary of Statefor Transport, would allow the port to be privatised.This was followed by a statutory consultation periodon Dover’s transfer scheme that ended on 25 March 2010.

On 16 May 2011 the then Secretary of State forTransport, the right honourable Member for Runnymedeand Weybridge (Philip Hammond), launched aconsultation on the criteria that the Government considerrelevant when considering the appropriateness of thesale of a major trust port. The revised criteria—Secretaryof State for Transport’s Guidance Note concerningprocedure for the sale of trust ports—was published on3 August 2011.

In response to the revised criteria, DHB submittedmore information in June 2012, and there was a furthersix-week period for representations which ended on27 July 2012.

I took over as decision Minister from the righthonourable Member for Chipping Barnet (TheresaVilliers) in September 2012 and wish to announcethe decision, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to theHouse today.

I have decided not to confirm DHB’s transfer scheme.I reached my conclusion taking into account the publishedpolicy. I concluded that the transfer scheme proposedwould not ensure a sufficient level of enduring communityparticipation in the port. I also concluded that so faras the board made the application in order to be ableto obtain the additional finance necessary to undertakethe proposed redevelopment of the Western Docks,there were other options available to secure thatredevelopment.

The full decision letter will be available on thedepartment’s website shortly after this statement.

MyhonourablefriendtheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State, thehonourableMember forWimbledon(StephenHammond) as Minister for Maritime, will now discusswith DHB their plans for the future of the port.

Railways: FranchisesStatement

Earl Attlee: My right honourable friend the Secretaryof State for Transport (Patrick McLoughlin) has madethe following Ministerial Statement.

I would today like to give an update on the situationin relation to franchised train operator London Midland(LM).

Passengers who use LM trains may be aware thatthe operator has been experiencing difficulties recently,with a number of services being cancelled due to ashortage of driving staff.

This situation has caused inconvenience and disruption,particularly to passengers in the West Midlands, manyof whom have expressed their dissatisfaction to me. Ivery much share their disappointment that they havenot had the reliable service that they rightly expect.

However, although the recent levels of performancehave been extremely disappointing, I am pleased tosay that the measures that LM has put in place arebeginning to work.

LM has implemented increases to driver efficiencyto enable drivers to operate an increased number ofroutes during existing shifts, improved driver trainingprocesses, provided additional incentives for drivers towork overtime and put in place new measures thatallow for drivers to cover shifts on other parts of thenetwork where there are shortages.

This is in addition to the ongoing training programmethat LM is undertaking to ensure that new driversenter productive service as quickly as possible.

However, LM’s performance has been of such alevel that it is now in breach of its contractual obligations.We have made London Midland aware that it mustnow take action to compensate passengers for thedisruption caused. We have, therefore, agreed withLM that it will provide a substantial package of passengerbenefits by way of compensation for the inconveniencethat has been caused.

LM has agreed to spend an additional £4 millionover the remainder of the franchise to put in placemeasures to ensure that these problems do not happenagain. In addition, the package of passenger benefitsincludes the issue of five free rail day passes to LondonMidland season ticket holders, with an expected valueof up to £3.5 million. We have also agreed that LondonMidland will invest a further £2.25 million in infrastructureimprovement projects. We have required London Midlandto discuss with Centro, the West Midlands PassengerTransport Executive, how the majority of this moneywill be invested for the benefit of those passengerswho have experienced the worst disruption.

As a result of this consultation, LM has agreed thatmost of this money should be directed towards measuressuch as improvements to safety and security at stationsand improving the reliability and efficiency of LM trains.

Lastly, we have also agreed with LM that it mustmake available an additional 500,000 advance ticketson key routes on the LM network, giving a net benefit

WS 19 WS 20[LORDS]Written Statements Written Statements

of around £1.9 million to passengers who will be ableto take advantage of these cheaper fares over the nexttwo years of the franchise.

I hope that LM will be able to remain the operatorof this franchise for the remainder of its contract—toSeptember 2015. But London Midland will continueto work to challenging performance benchmarks forthe remainder of the franchise, and we will take furtheraction (including ending the franchise early andretendering it if appropriate) in the event of anyrecurrence of performance problems.

In addition to the package of passenger benefits,we have agreed to revise the profile of performancebenchmarks for the next year to include additionalmeasures that can penalise LM financially in the eventof further poor performance. We have also agreedfinancial measures to ensure that the reduction inrevenue as a result of the free and discounted tickets isborne by LM, and not by the taxpayer.

I am confident that this package, on balance, representsa good deal for passengers and taxpayers, and sends amessage to the industry that this level of cancellationsis unsatisfactory. I hope that LM can now put thisperiod behind it, and continue to operate a good servicefor its passengers for the remainder of its franchise.

Youth Justice BoardStatement

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordMcNally): My honourable friend the ParliamentaryUnder-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

In March 2011 the Government responded to thePublic Administration Select Committee report SmallerGovernment: Shrinking the Quango state setting outthe coalition’s plans for reforming the public bodiessector. It includes the requirement to undertake triennialreviews of executive and advisory non-departmentalpublic bodies (NDPBs).

The Youth Justice Board is an executive non-departmental public body of the Ministry of Justiceestablished in 2000 by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

Its principal aims are: monitoring the operation of theyouth justice system in England and Wales; advisingthe Secretary of State for Justice on the operation ofthe youth justice system, national standards, and onhow to prevent offending by children and young people;making grants to youth offending teams and otherorganisations to support development and delivery ofgood practice; placing young people in custody; andproviding secure accommodation for both remandedand sentenced children and young persons.

To deliver the coalition Government’s commitmentto transparency and accountability, the Youth JusticeBoard will be subject to a triennial review. As part ofthe triennial review process, the Ministry of Justice, asthe sponsoring department, has today launched aconsultation which will last until 15 February 2013inviting views. The review will be conducted fully inline with Cabinet Office guidance Guidance on Reviewsof Non Departmental Public Bodies and will considerthe following:

the continuing need for the Youth Justice Board tocarry out each of its functions in their current form;and

where it is agreed that the individual functions shouldremain,toreviewthecontrolandgovernancearrangementsin place to ensure that the public body is complyingwithrecognisedprinciplesof goodcorporategovernance.

In conducting the triennial review, officials will beengaging with a range of stakeholders of the YouthJustice Board. In addition, the triennial review willtake into account evidence collated during previousreviews where still relevant.

In 2011, the Government decided not to pursueabolition of the Youth Justice Board as part of thePublic Bodies Act 2011, restating their commitment tomaintaining a distinct focus on the needs of childrenand young people in the youth justice system. It isagainst this backdrop that this triennial review is takingplace.

The final report and findings will be laid in thisHouse.

WS 21 WS 22[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Statements Written Statements

Written AnswersTuesday 8 January 2013

AbortionQuestions

Asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by Earl Howe on 22 October(WA 1), what is the legal basis on which the duty toprovide abortion services for women living in NorthernIreland has been delegated to primary care trusts;whether primary care trusts are able to dischargethat duty for all such women patients or only specifiedcategories of women patients; and, if so, for whatcategories. [HL4097]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): The Secretary of State has aduty under Section 3 of the National Health ServiceAct 2006 to provide a variety of secondary care servicesto such extent as he considers necessary to meet allreasonable requirements. This duty is delegated toprimary care trusts (PCTs) in Regulation 3(2) of, andPart 2 of Schedule 1 to, the National Health Service(Functions of strategic health authorities and primarycare trusts and administration arrangements) (England)Regulations 2002 (“the Regulations”).

Regulation 3(7) of the regulations sets out who aPCT is responsible for exercising functions (includingthe Section 3 duty) in respect of. Under Regulation3(7), there are two sets of limited circumstances inwhich PCTs would be able to exercise their delegatedfunctions to provide abortion services to women residentin Northern Ireland. The first is set out in Regulation3(7)(a)(iii), which provides that a PCT shall exercise itsdelegated functions in so far as those functions consistof the provision (or securing the provision) of certainservices to “qualifying patients” resident in Scotland,Wales or Northern Ireland who are present in its areaand do not fall under the responsibility of anotherPCT. This essentially covers persons resident in theabove countries with serious mental illness who arepresent in a PCT’s area. The second is set out inRegulation 3(7)(b)(i), which provides that a PCT mustexercise its delegated functions in so far as thosefunctions consist of the provision (or securing theprovision) of accident and emergency services for thebenefit of all persons resident in its area.

A PCT’s functions under Regulation 3(7)(a)(iii) willclearly be exercisable only in respect of the limitednumber of women who fall within that provision. APCT’s functions under Regulation 3(7)(b)(i) will beexercisable in respect of any person present in thePCT’s area.

There is no absolute right for a patient to receiveparticular treatment under the NHS. A PCT has delegatedpowers to provide abortion services to a woman who isordinarily resident in Northern Ireland but present in

the PCT’s area in so far as that provision falls withinRegulation 3(7)(a)(iii) or (b)(i) and is considered by thePCT to be necessary to meet all reasonable requirements.The PCT can take into account all relevant factors indeciding what is necessary to meet all reasonablerequirements. Each PCT, in exercising the delegatedduty in relation to abortion services, will make its ownjudgment whether to provide treatment to a womanresident in Northern Ireland, based on the circumstancesof each case.

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by Earl Howe on 17 December(WA 268), whether they will collect data on the sexof unborn babies aborted after 10 weeks gestation;and why they do not collect that data already.

[HL4256]

Earl Howe: Work is in progress to monitor genderratios at birth following a recent report by the Councilof Europe Parliamentary Assembly. While the overallUnited Kingdom birth ratio is within normal limits,analysis of birth data for the calendar years from 2007to 2011 has found the gender ratios at birth vary bymothers’ country of birth. For the majority of groups,this variation is the result of small numbers of birthsand does not persist between years.

However, for a very small number of countries ofbirth there are indications that birth ratios may differfrom the UK as a whole and potentially fall outside ofthe range considered possible without intervention.However, it is possible that this is also the product ofnatural variation. Monitoring of this issue will continue.

Identifying the gender of aborted foetuses over10 weeks’ gestation raises ethical and clinical issues.We have no plans to introduce such a practice.

AdoptionQuestion

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how manynewborn babies were available for adoption duringthe past 12 months for which figures are available.

[HL4259]

Baroness Garden of Frognal: Information on thenumber of newborn babies available for adoption isnot collected by the department. Information is collectedon the number of looked-after children for whom thedecision has been made by the local authority that itwould be in the child’s best interests to be placed foradoption. The number of looked-after children agedunder 1 at 31 March 2012 and with such an adoptiondecision in place was 3,670. A further 50 children agedunder 1 at 31 March 2012 were placed for adoptionwith the consent of parents or guardians.

Of the 3,670 looked-after children with an adoptiondecision in place, 560 had also become the subject of aplacement order in the year ending 31 March 2012.

WA 1 WA 2[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

AfghanistanQuestions

Asked by The Earl of Sandwich

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussionsthey are having with the Government of Afghanistanregarding the protection that is currently given toUnited Kingdom-managed or United Kingdom-supported official aid and development programmesby British or NATO and International SecurityAssistance Force armed forces which are due to bewithdrawn after 2014. [HL4356]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether anyUK-supported Afghan aid projects in the voluntarysector currently receive protection from British orNATO and International Security Assistance ForceArmed Forces; and what provision has been madefor their future protection after 2014. [HL4357]

Baroness Northover: One UK-supported developmentprogramme is protected by International SecurityAssistance Force (ISAF) troops. The FCO-fundedinfrastructure project “Route 611” is scheduled forcompletion before ISAF forces redeploy at the end of2014 whereupon ownership will transfer to the AfghanGovernment. The UK Government are in regularcontact with the Afghan Government, in Helmandand Kabul, to ensure that adequate funding is providedfor future operation and maintenance of all current UKdevelopment projects transferring to Afghan ownership.

Agriculture: Soil ManagementQuestions

Asked by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how theycontributed to the World Soil Day on 5 Decemberorganised by the Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations and the subsequent 3-daytechnical workshop on Sustainable Soil Management;and whether anyone from the United Kingdom tookpart. [HL4107]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord DeMauley): The Government did not take any specificaction to contribute to World Soil Day 2012. Nevertheless,theGovernmentcontinuetoraiseawarenessandknowledgeof soils issues through, for example, close workingwith farming stakeholders and research councils.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation’s (FAO)technical workshop on sustainable soil managementwas attended by the President of the British Society ofSoil Science (BSSS). Defra is continuing to liaise withthe BSSS on the development of the Global SoilsPartnership, which is being taken forward under theauspices of the FAO.

Asked by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is theirdefinition of a healthy soil; and whether they intendto develop that definition further for the purposesof the common agricultural policy reform.[HL4108]

Lord De Mauley: There is presently no agreed definitionof a healthy soil and we do not intend to develop onefor the purposes of common agricultural policy reform.However, research has been carried out to definequantitatively the properties of soils that support differentecosystem services and we are continuing to fundfurther research in this area. The Government’s visionfor soils is set out in the Natural Environment WhitePaper 2011, The Natural Choice. This states that by2030 we want all of England’s soils to be managedsustainably and degradation threats tackled successfullyin order to safeguard their ability to provide essentialecosystem services and functions for future generations.

Airports: Gatwick and HeathrowQuestion

Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the Institute of Directors’ reportinto airport expansion at Gatwick and Heathrow.

[HL4305]

Earl Attlee: The Government’s position on expansionat Heathrow and Gatwick airports remains unchangedand as set out in our coalition agreement.

We have, however, appointed Sir Howard Davies tochair an independent commission to identify andrecommend to Government options for maintainingthe UK’s status as a leading global aviation hub.

I would encourage the Institute of Directors tosubmit any relevant evidence on such matters to theAirports Commission.

Airports: SecurityQuestions

Asked by Lord Laird

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what regulatorysystem applies in respect of security for passengersat airports; and what are the risks which any suchsystem is intended to mitigate. [HL4299]

Earl Attlee: The European Union has competencein the field of aviation security. Accordingly, UKairports are subject to European regulations that setcommon rules for safeguarding civil aviation.

In addition, the UK has a number of requirementsin place over and above those common rules (knownas more stringent measures); these are regulated underpowers contained in the Aviation Security Act 1982.

The regime is designed to mitigate the risk of actsof unlawful interference with civil aviation, primarilyarising from the terrorist threat.

Asked by Lord Laird

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how theydetermine the adequacy of security arrangements atforeign airports; and on what risks their determinationis based. [HL4300]

WA 3 WA 4[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

Earl Attlee: Internationally, civil aviation is overseenby ICAO (the International Civil Aviation Organisation),a specialist body of the UN. Under the ICAO treatythe responsibility for aviation security lies with hoststates. In order to validate this, ICAO carries out aprogramme to audit aviation security in each state.The results of these audits are confidential to the stateand ICAO.

The Department for Transport maintains a smallnetwork of overseas liaison officers who work withstates in Africa, the Middle East and Asia to shareUK experience and improve aviation security. Theirviews, along with information from other sources andadvice from the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, enablethe department to establish a view of risk and consequentlyto provide appropriate advice to UK air carriers onsecurity measures at the foreign airports that theyoperate to.

Armed Forces: AfghanistanQuestion

Asked by The Earl of Sandwich

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how manyprojects currently supported by the Ministry ofDefence in Afghanistan will qualify or be proposedfor funding from the Department for InternationalDevelopment after 2014; and whether new defenceprojects such as the officers’ academy will qualifyfor Department for International Developmentfunding. [HL4358]

Baroness Northover: There are no plans to transferexisting Ministry of Defence (MoD) projects to theDepartment for International Development ownership.MoD funding arrangements for the Officer Academyare still to be confirmed but we expect these to bediscussed as part of next year’s Comprehensive SpendingReview.

Arms Trade TreatyQuestion

Asked by The Lord Bishop of Wakefield

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how theyintend to build international support for the drafttext of an arms trade treaty following negotiationsat the United Nations in July 2012. [HL3952]

TheSeniorMinisterof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesand Local Government & Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Baroness Warsi): The UK played a leading rolein securing a resolution at the UN 1st Committee lastmonth. The resolution calls for the convening of adiplomatic conference from 18-28 March 2013 to finalisework on the treaty. An overwhelming majority ofstates (157) voted for the resolution, including the US,China and India, with only 18 countries abstainingand none voting against.

We have begun to discuss the draft text from theJuly conference with stakeholders in the non-governmentalorganisations community, industry and key allies. Witha clear set of priorities established, we will then workintensively to build the necessary consensus aroundthem in advance of the March conference.

Arts: FundingQuestion

Asked by Lord Beecham

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportionof central funding for the arts in the financial years2011–12 and 2012–13 was (1) for capital programmes,and (2) for revenue support. [HL3892]

Viscount Younger of Leckie: The Department forCulture, Media and Sport (DCMS) is unable to providedetails of potential funding provided for the arts acrossall of government, as this information is not heldcentrally and could only be provided at disproportionatecost. However, the funding DCMS provided to ArtsCouncil England (ACE) in the financial years 2011-12and 2012-13 can be found in the following table.

CapitalProgrammes

and % of totalfunding

RevenueSupport and %

of totalfunding Total

2011-12(outturn)

£13.032m(3%)

£376.669m(97%)

£389.701m

2012-13(budget)

£21.271m(6%)

£346.408m(94%)

£367.679m

These figures exclude funding from the Departmentfor Education for cultural education programmes,museums capital and revenue funding and restructuringcosts in 2012-13. Revenue support includes administrationcosts.

In addition to the funding provided to ACE, DCMSprovided the following funding to support the arts.

CapitalProgrammes

and % of totalfunding

RevenueSupport and %

of totalfunding Total

2011-12(outturn)

£0.761m(35%)

£1.437m(65%)

£2.198m

2012-13(budget)

£0m £1.025m(100%)

£1.025m

Asylum SeekersQuestions

Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how manyasylum applications had been outstanding for morethan 12 months in each year from 2008 to 2011; andhow many have currently been outstanding for morethan 12 months. [HL4131]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, HomeOffice (Lord Taylor of Holbeach): The numbers ofasylum applications made between 2008 and 2011 thathad been outstanding for more than 12 months beforean initial decision, by year, are shown in the attachedtable. The applications referred to in the data are notnecessarily still outstanding.

WA 5 WA 6[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

Asylum applications made 2008 to 7 May 2011 from main applicantsoutstanding for more than 12 months

Year in whichapplication made

Number ofapplications

outstanding formore than12 months

Total mainapplicants

2008 5,101 25,9322009 2,772 24,4872010 526 17,9161 Jan to 7 May 2011 295 6,722

Notes: Information on the length of time cases have beenoutstanding has to be derived from existing data on the systemsas follows:

1. The asylum applications made 2008 to 7 May 2011 by mainapplicants outstanding for more than 12 months have beenderived from data published as National Statistics in Table as.06.They have been derived by taking the number of applicants whoapplied that year and then checking whether they had an initialdecision within 365 days of their application. If they did not havean initial decision at this point, we considered their application asoutstanding. The 2011 data relate only to applications betweenJanuary and 7 May 2011 as the previously published data wereextracted from CID on 7 May 2012, so applications after thispoint would all have been outstanding for less than a year.

Data from 2011 onwards are provisional figures.Source: Table as.06 (extracted 7 May 2012) - Immigration

Statistics July - September 2012

These figures are a subset of published data on theoutcome analysis of asylum applications, based onthe year of application in the release “ImmigrationStatistics, July to September 2012”, which is availablefrom the Library of the House and from the HomeOffice science website at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/immigration-asylum-research/immigration-q3-2012/

The number of asylum applications currentlyoutstanding for more than 12 months is 2,135. Thisfigure is a subset of published data in the abovepublication and has been derived by looking at asylumclaims that were pending an initial decision on the30th September 2012, as published in Table as.01.q,and calculating for how many the application date wasprior to 30th September 2011.

Asked by Lord Hylton

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what methodsthey are using to improve the quality of first decisionsin asylum applications by women. [HL4236]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The UK Border Agencyis committed to improving the management of asylumclaims from women and this includes improving thequality of decisions in these cases. In October 2010 theagency published revised guidance to decision-makerson gender-based claims and, recently, the agency hasimplemented a programme of mandatory training ongender issues to those decision-makers.

Both guidance and training were developed inconjunction with corporate partners, including theUnited Nations High Commissioner for Refugees andAsylum Aid. The agency has also carried out a thematicreview of decisions in gender-based cases and isusing the outcomes from the review to plan further

improvements, working with corporate partners to dothis. In addition, the agency has embarked on a majorreview of the way in which information and advice isprovided to asylum applicants throughout the process.This includes specifically looking at the journey ofwomen through the process.

The agency continues to measure quality by auditing10% of first-instance asylum decisions but it is in theprocess of developing its “next generation” qualityframework, which will broaden the scope of what ismeasured to ensure compliance across the system.

Bank of EnglandQuestion

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theywill introduce a nominal gross domestic producttarget for the Monetary Policy Committee of theBank of England. [HL4168]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): The Chancellor set the Monetary PolicyCommittee its remit, at Budget 2012, to target inflationof 2%, as measured by the 12-month increase in theconsumer prices index. The Government have no plansto change the inflation targeting framework.

BankingQuestion

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether retaildeposits with a bank within the proposed regulatoryring-fence will continue to be subject to a maximumlimit on claims under the Financial ServicesCompensation Scheme. [HL4084]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): The Financial Services Compensation Schemewill continue to provide protection for up to £85,000 perdepositor, per authorised institution.

The level of protection is set out in the EU DepositGuarantee Schemes Directive, which sets a maximumharmonised limit of ¤100,000. In line with this, theUK limit is £85,000.

Banking: European Central BankQuestions

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is theirassessment of the impact on the United Kingdombanking industry of the establishment of a newsupervisory role for the European Central Bankover large banks in the eurozone. [HL4170]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): The Prime Minister’s Statement to the Houseof Commons on 17 December 20121 on the outcomeof the December European Council and the Government’s

WA 7 WA 8[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

Explanatory Memorandum on European UnionDocuments No. 13682/12, 13683/12 and 12854/12, onthe Commission’s proposal for a Single SupervisoryMechanism (SSM), set out the following key points:

the current allocation of competencies between homeand host supervisor and the member state of thebanking group would not change;in terms of its regulatory impact, the new supervisorystructure may result in additional costs for entitieswhichhaveoperationsinparticipatingmemberstates—suchas complying with additional requests for informationfrom the European Central Bank (ECB), as well asrelevant national competent authorities. However,these costs are anticipated to be small, relative tothe benefits to be derived from the establishment ofthe SSM, in terms of strengthened supervision withinthe eurozone; andin terms of its financial impact, credit institutionsubsidiaries of UK firms established in participatingmemberstateswouldfundthenewsupervisoryfunctionof the ECB through payment of a levy. At leastsome of the cost could be offset by a reduction inthe levy charged to finance national regulators.1 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/

cmhansrd/cm121217/debtext/121217-0001.htm#1212174000003

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether UnitedKingdom banks will be free to opt to be regulatedby the European Central Bank (ECB) rather thanthe Bank of England or its Prudential RegulatoryAuthority; and whether they have considered theimplications for the competitiveness of UnitedKingdom banks if the ECB sets lower requirementsfor capital and liquidity. [HL4260]

Lord Newby: United Kingdom banks will not befree to opt to be regulated by the European CentralBank (ECB) rather than the Bank of England or itsPrudential Regulatory Authority. The Governmenthave taken into consideration the implications for thecompetitiveness of the United Kingdom banks andwill keep the position under review.

Banks: IcelandQuestion

Asked by Lord Laird

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how muchhas been repaid to the United Kingdom by or inrespect of each of the failed Icelandic banks; howmuch is still owed by each bank; and what stepsthey are taking to ensure repayment. [HL4253]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): The Government expect full recovery of theamount that Iceland is liable for, regarding failedbanks. Information on payments in respect of Icelandicbanks can be found in Sections 30, 31 and 33 of theTreasury annual reports and accounts 2011-121.

During 2011-12, the administrator for Icesave paidout dividends to HM Treasury and the FSCS of£1.3 billion. Of this, £0.4 billion was used by the

Financial Service Compensation Scheme to repay partof the loan with HM Treasury, £0.7 billion was allocatedto the Depositors’ and Investors’ Guarantee Fundshare of the loan and the remaining £0.2 billion wasused to reimburse HM Treasury for its statutory debtpayments for deposit balances in excess of £50,000.

Negotiations with Iceland over the terms of a loanagreement in respect of the compensation paid to UKdepositors of Icesave, the UK branch of Landsbankihf, are ongoing. Progress is currently suspended pendingthe outcome of proceedings by the European FreeTrade Association (EFTA) Surveillance Authority againstIceland in the EFTA Court in respect of Iceland’salleged failure to meet its legal obligations to UK andDutch depositors under the EU deposit guaranteedirective.

1 www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/hmt_annual_report_2012.pdf

Banks: LendingQuestion

Asked by Lord Barnett

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what rate ofinterest is paid by banks for funds under the fundingfor loans scheme; and to what extent interest ratereductions have been passed on to consumers throughlower interest rates. [HL4093]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): The amount that banks participating in theFunding for Lending Scheme can borrow from theBank of England and the fee they pay for it are linkedto their lending performance to UK households andbusinesses. Banks that maintain or increase their netlending pay a fee of 0.25% per year. Banks thatdecrease lending pay an additional 0.25% for eachpercentage point reduction in net lending, up to amaximum of 1.5%, in the case where lending falls bymore than 5%.

It is still too early to judge the impact of the schemeon lending rates. However, mortgage rates quoted bybanks have reduced by up to 0.4 percentage pointssince June 2012.

BenefitsQuestions

Asked by Lord Greaves

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whichDepartment for Work and Pensions benefit centreshandle appeals against decisions to place recipientsof the employment and support allowance in thework-related activity group, and related matters;and, in each case, (1) how many appeals areoutstanding, and (2) how long they expect to taketo deal with the current backlog. [HL4125]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): There are currently39 centres handling employment and support allowanceappeals within the network of benefit centres.

WA 9 WA 10[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

The work position is managed across the networkand therefore the individual position of benefit centrescan be misleading as the work can be moved to siteswith more capacity.

Additional resource has recently been moved intothe benefit centre network to assist with the highvolumes of appeals that have been received and it iscurrently expected that work volumes outstanding willreturn to normal levels by the end of July 2013 on anational basis.

This position is constantly being reviewed with anaim to reducing the outstanding work at the earliestopportunity.

Asked by Lord Beecham

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how manychildren under 16 live in households with workingand non-working parents respectively who will beaffected by the proposed 1% cap in benefit increases.

[HL4167]

Lord Freud: Assessments of impacts will accompanythe uprating order for 2013 and the forthcoming upratingBill.

Asked by Lord Laird

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by Lord Sassoon on 17 December(WA 270), why the information on the EuropeanUnion nationality of recipients of child benefits isnot available; how they assess and record a claimant’sstatus as ordinarily resident and having a right toreside in the United Kingdom; and whether suchdetails can be accumulated and extrapolated.

[HL4298]

Lord Deighton: Nationality is not a condition ofentitlement to child benefit, so it is not recorded orretained in the relevant computer system.

The factors which HMRC take into account whenit assesses whether a claimant is ordinarily residentand has a right to reside in the United Kingdom aresummarised in public guidance which is published onthe departmental website1.

The criteria for being ordinarily resident in the UKto receive child benefit are to:

have the main home in the UK;have chosen to live and settle here; andonly go abroad for short periods, for example, onholiday.The criteria for having the right to reside in the UK

to receive child benefit are for a person to be:a UK national;from the Channel Islands;from the Isle of Man; orfrom the Republic of Ireland.More detailed information about ordinary residence

and the right to reside is contained in the HMRCChild Benefit Technical Manual, which is also publishedon HMRC’s website2.

However, details of ordinary residence and theright to reside in individual cases are not retained in aformat that can be accumulated and extrapolated.

1 http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefit/start/who-qualifies/new-arrivals-uk.htm

2 http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cbtmanual/CBTM10020.htmand http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cbtmanual/CBTM10070.htm

Asked by Baroness Sherlock

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is theaverage time taken to process applications for disabilityliving allowance; whether there is a target timewithin which those applications should be processed;and, if so, what proportion of applications meetthat target. [HL4323]

Lord Freud: The latest Average Actual ClearanceTime for processing DLA claims is 28.4 days at Novemberyear to date (April to November 2012). However, thereis no set target for this measure.

When reporting clearance times, the departmentuses a timeband measure of 79% of claims cleared in40 days. Against this target we are currently reporting79.3% in the month for November and 76.8% year todate (April to November 2012).

BurmaQuestions

Asked by Baroness Uddin

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whatrepresentations they have made to the Governmentof Burma regarding the allegations of rape of womenby Burmese military forces in Rohingya. [HL4147]

TheSeniorMinisterof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesand Local Government & Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Baroness Warsi): We have received many reportsof human rights abuses in Rakhine State since theoutbreak of violence in June, including reports thatallege the involvement of government security forcesin the rape of Rohingya women and girls.

During his recent visit to Burma, the Minister ofState for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, myright honourable friend the Member for East Devon(Mr Swire), raised our concerns with the BurmeseForeign Minister, U Wunna Maung Lwin, and requestedsupport for the Foreign Secretary’s preventing sexualviolence initiative. During his visit to Rakhine State,Mr Swire met local government officials and deliveredstrong messages on human rights including on ensuringthat those accused of human rights abuses are held toaccount.

The publication of the report by the investigativecommission that was set up to probe the causes of theviolence in Rakhine State has been delayed so that thecommission can incorporate its findings on the violenceof late October. It will be important for investigationsinto alleged atrocities, including rape, to be transparentand thorough, ensuring that those who have committedcrimes are held to account for their actions.

WA 11 WA 12[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

Asked by Baroness Uddin

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussionsthey have had with the Government of Bangladeshregarding provision of assistance to Rohingyanrefugees. [HL4148]

Baroness Warsi: The Government raise regularlythe issue of Rohingya refugees and the importance ofcontinuing humanitarian aid with the Governmentof Bangladesh. Our high commissioner in Dhakaraised the issue on 11 November with senior interlocutorsin the Bangladesh Government and wrote on the issueto the Bangladesh Prime Minister’s office on 15 August.Officials from our high commission have previouslyvisited the camps for displaced Rohingyas. The Secretaryof State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, myright honourable friend the Member for Richmond(Yorks) (Mr Hague), raised this issue during a meetingwith the Bangladesh Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina,on 28 July and the then Secretary of State for theDepartment for International Development (DfID),my right honourable friend the Member for SuttonColdfield (Mr Mitchell), raised it in a meeting with thePrime Minister on 12 August. I also discussed ourconcerns with Dipu Moni, the Foreign Minister ofBangladesh, earlier this month.

We have also raised the issue of Rohingya refugeeswith the Government of Bangladesh as part of arecent EU demarche. DfID continues to provide corecontributions to the European Commission HumanitarianAid Department and UN agencies that directly supportthe Rohingya community. In October DfID allocated£2 million in humanitarian funding to communitiesaffected by the unrest in Rakhine.

We also continue to seek every opportunity to raiseour concerns about the treatment of the Rohingyadirectly with the Burmese Government not only inBurma but also in international fora such as the UN inNew York, the EU and at the recent Asia-Europesummit in Laos.

The Minister of State for Foreign and CommonwealthAffairs, my right honourable friend the Memberfor East Devon (Mr Swire), visited Burma from12-15 December. In meetings with the BurmeseGovernment, both at national and local level, he pressedfor increased humanitarian aid access to all communitiesin need, for those responsible for the violence to bebrought to account, and for a long-term solution tothe issues affecting the Rohingya. He visited RakhineState to see for himself the situation on the ground,speaking to victims of the violence in three camps forinternally displaced people and to local political andreligious leaders.

Asked by Baroness Uddin

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the most recent violence inArakan State in Burma. [HL4149]

Baroness Warsi: The Minister of State for Foreignand Commonwealth Affairs, my right honourable friendthe Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), visited Burma,

including Rakhine State, between 12 and 15 December.He was able to see conditions in five camps andsettlements for internally displaced persons in Rakhine,including camps at Myebon and Pauktaw.

Our assessment is that the violence in RakhineState has been driven primarily by decades-long inter-communal tensions between communities in westernBurma. The estimate from the UN Office for theCo-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs on 12 Decemberwas that 115,000 people have been displaced by violenceduring 2012; 36,000 of these from the incidents inOctober. An unverified number of people have beenkilled, with official figures from the Burmese Governmentin the region of 80 people, but it is not possible toconfirm numbers precisely. The majority of killed anddisplaced were from the Rohingya community, thoughthe Rakhine community has also been affected. Effortsto establish dialogue between community leaders haveso far met with little success.

In meetings with the Burmese Government, both atnational and local level, Hugo Swire pressed for increasedhumanitarian aid access to all communities in need,for those responsible for the violence to be brought toaccount, including where security forces had beenimplicated, and for a long-term solution to the issuesaffecting the Rohingya to include consideration of theissue of citizenship.

Asked by Baroness Uddin

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whatrepresentations they have made to the Governmentof Burma regarding the ongoing violence in Rakhine/Arakan State. [HL4180]

Baroness Warsi: From 12 to 15 December the Ministerof State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, myright honourable friend the Member for East Devon(Mr Swire), visited Burma. In meetings with the BurmeseGovernment, both at a national level and in RakhineState itself, he pressed for increased humanitarian aidaccess to all communities in need, for those responsiblefor the violence to be brought to account, includingwhere security forces had been implicated, and for along-term solution to the issues affecting the Rohingyato include consideration of the issue of citizenship.

The UK remains one of the most vocal members ofthe international community on the issues in RakhineState. We continue to seek every opportunity to raiseour concerns directly with the Burmese Governmentnot only in Burma—including during the visits of theSecretary of State for Foreign and CommonwealthAffairs, my right honourable friend the Member forRichmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) and the Prime Minister,my right honourable friend the Member for Witney(Mr Cameron), earlier this year—but also throughinternational fora such as the UN in New York, theEU and at the Asia-Europe summit in Laos.

Asked by Baroness Uddin

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the case for an InternationalPeace Mission to Burma. [HL4181]

WA 13 WA 14[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

Baroness Warsi: The Minister of State for Foreignand Commonwealth Affairs, my right honourable friendthe Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), visited Rakhineon 14 and 15 December, where he met communitiesaffected by the violence and urged the Burmese authoritiesto ensure both security and humanitarian access acrossRakhine State. The Burmese Government have, todate, allowed 19 separate visits by independent observersfrom foreign Governments and international organisationsto visit the areas affected by the violence. Officialsfrom our embassy, including our ambassador, led thefirst independent diplomatic mission to Rakhine Statein early October, and visited again in early November.

Given the levels of international access to the area,and the Burmese Government’s establishment of aninvestigative commission to look into the events inRakhine State, the British Government will await theCommission’s recommendations, and will work withthe Burmese authorities accordingly. We judge that tocall for an International Peace Mission at this timewould pre-empt the Burmese Government’s owncommission.

Asked by Baroness UddinTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment

they have made of the case for the establishment ofa United Nations Commission of Enquiry in Burmato consider the ongoing violence in Rakhine/ArakanState; and whether they have taken steps to promotethe establishment of such a body. [HL4182]

Baroness Warsi: During his recent visit to RakhineState the Minister of State for Foreign andCommonwealth Affairs, my right honourable friendthe Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), discussed indetail the drivers of the recent violence in RakhineState with the Burmese authorities and leaders ofaffected Rohingya and Rakhine communities. In thecourse of his visit the Minister welcomed the formationof an independent investigative commission by theBurmese Government into the causes of the violence.The Minister of State for Foreign and CommonwealthAffairs, my right honourable friend the Member forEast Devon (Mr Swire), also made clear that, for thecommission to be credible, it needed to involve aconsultative process with all the affected communities,including the Rohingya, and that any investigationsinto alleged atrocities should be transparent and thorough,ensuring that those who have committed crimes areheld to account for their actions. We are awaiting theinitial findings of the Commission’s report, due inMarch 2013.

In a statement on 17 November, the UN SecretaryGeneral welcomed the positive steps made by PresidentThein Sein, including the Burmese Government’s intentionto ensure that the perpetrators of violence are held toaccount. UN Under-Secretary General for HumanitarianAffairs, Baroness Amos, has recently returned from avisit to Rakhine State. The UN has not made the casefor a commission of inquiry at this time. The UN isplanning a roundtable discussion in Burma in early2013, in order to address the issues in Rakhine Stateand the plight of the Rohingya community specifically.The UK will continue take an active role in thisdiscussion and any further UN initiatives.

Asked by Baroness Cox

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the humanitarian needs of thosedisplaced by conflict in Kachin State, Burma.

[HL4333]

Baroness Northover: I refer the noble Baroness tothe Answer that my honourable friend the Minister ofState, Alan Duncan, gave to the honourable Memberfor Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) on 22 November (OfficialReport, col. 607W). Negotiations between the BurmeseGovernment and Kachin representatives for fullinternational access to areas controlled by the KachinIndependence Army have continued since then, butremain difficult.

Asked by Baroness Cox

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whatrepresentations they have made to the governmentof Burma about the cessation of conflict in KachinState and ensuring humanitarian access to all internallydisplaced people. [HL4334]

Baroness Warsi: The Government are concerned bythe ongoing conflict between the Kachin IndependenceArmy (KIA) and the Burmese military. The Ministerof State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, myright honourable friend the Member for East Devon(Mr Swire), visited Burma from 12 to 15 December2012. He raised the UK’s concerns with the BurmeseMinister of Defence, Lt General Wai Lwin, and MinisterAung Min, the lead government negotiator for thepeace process. Mr Swire urged the Burmese Governmentto push for a ceasefire and begin constructive dialoguewith the KIA. He also pressed the Burmese Governmentto ensure humanitarian access to all conflict-affectedpopulations in Kachin State.

The Department for International Developmenthas allocated £3.5 million to support humanitarianneeds in Kachin, helping to meet the needs of internallydisplaced people, primarily in border camps not controlledby the Government. The aid will help meet their foodsecurity, shelter, water, sanitation, health and beddingneeds.

Asked by Baroness Cox

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theywill consider funding established local non-governmental organisations to provide aid to areasin Shan, Kachin, and Rakhine states in Burmawhich international non-governmental organisationscannot reach due to government restrictions.

[HL4335]

Baroness Northover: The Department for InternationalDevelopment (DfID) selects delivery partners on acase-by-case basis according to whom we judge is bestable to deliver what is required. The additional supportfor Kachin, agreed this month by my right honourablefriend the Secretary of State, will be implemented byan international non-governmental organisation (NGO),Trocaire, working closely with a local organisation,Karuna Myanmar Social Services (KMSS). In Rakhine

WA 15 WA 16[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

State, DfID’s humanitarian assistance will be deliveredby a consortium of international NGOs, but we willcontinue to monitor the situation, in case opportunitiesto work with local NGOs arise. DfID also supportsthe Shan Women’s Action Network who work in Thailandto support the needs of people displaced by conflict inShan State.

Carbon Monoxide PoisoningQuestion

Asked by Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what approachthey have taken to help local councils tackle therisks of carbon monoxide poisoning when usingWarm Homes Healthy People funding. [HL4080]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): The Cold Weather Plan forEngland 2012, published on 26 October 2012, recognisesthat carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning is a potentialkiller and urges individuals to consider fitting an audibleCO alarm that is EN 50291-compliant, but that fittingan alarm should not replace regular maintenance ofappliances.

The Warm Homes Healthy People 2012 fund supportsthe Cold Weather Plan, and local authorities wereinvited to submit innovative proposals to make homeswarmer and reduce levels of death and morbidity.Installation of CO monitors is in line with the aims ofthe Cold Weather Plan in helping to protect vulnerablepeople during the coming winter.

Information on the installation of carbon monoxidedetectors in vulnerable households by local authoritieshas not been routinely collected as part of the WarmHomes Healthy People £20 million funding for 2012-13.However, an analysis of the successful proposals showsthat at least 14 local authority proposals (covering16 local authorities) have included the installation ofcarbon monoxide detectors as part of their projects.We know that there were some other local authoritiesthat included CO monitors as an element of theirwider proposals.

The department has also awarded national grantsto the value of £1.5 million to Age UK and theFoundations Independent Living Trust to complementthe work carried out by local authorities.

As part of the Age UK proposals, local and nationalhandyperson services will check if households have aworking carbon monoxide detector and, where needed,will install a new one, with the aim of a rollout of theinstallation of free CO detectors nationwide.

Children: Data SharingQuestion

Asked by Lord Rooker

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by Lord Hill of Oareford on23 July (WA 92–3), what was the outcome of theworking group dealing with information regardingchildren; and what action they plan to take inresponse. [HL4331]

Baroness Garden of Frognal: The work of theinformation-sharing group is now complete. The focusof the work has been on information sharing betweenearly years practitioners (for example, staff in children’scentres or nurseries) and health professionals. Thegroup’s discussions and scrutiny covered the use ofboth information sharing of population data (such asnew birth data) and individual data about a particularchild or their family.

We expect the final report of the group, entitled“Information sharing in the Foundation Years”, to besubmitted to Ministers at both the Department forEducation and the Department of Health shortly.

Dentistry: Dental HygienistsQuestion

Asked by Lord Lea of Crondall

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what actionthey plan to take on patients’ access to dentalhygienists following the recommendations of theOffice of Fair Trading report on dentistry publishedin May 2012. [HL4210]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): Access to dental care professionals(DCPs), including dental hygienists, is a matter for theGeneralDentalCouncil (GDC).Followingthepublicationof the Office of Fair Treading report on dentistry, theGDC has initiated a review of direct access to DCPs.The review is expected to report in early 2013.

DronesQuestion

Asked by Lord Hylton

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the impact of frequent droneflights on the civilian populations of parts of Pakistanand Afghanistan, and in particular on children.

[HL4235]

TheSeniorMinisterof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesand Local Government & Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Baroness Warsi): The UK operates remotelypiloted aircraft systems in support of the North AtlanticTreaty Organisation’s International Security AssistanceForces in Afghanistan. The rules of engagement arethe same as those for manned aircraft. Drone strikesagainst terrorist targets in Pakistan are a matter for thestates involved. We expect all states concerned to act inaccordance with international law and take all feasibleprecautions to avoid civilian casualties when conductingmilitary operations.

DrugsQuestion

Asked by Lord Taylor of Warwick

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the lightof the remarks on 13 December by the DeputyPrime Minister regarding drugs policy, whetherthey have any plans to amend their existing policyon illegal drugs. [HL4230]

WA 17 WA 18[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, HomeOffice (Lord Taylor of Holbeach): We are confidentour ambitious approach to tackling drugs is the rightone. Drug usage remains at one of the lowest levelsince records began and people going into treatmenttoday are far more likely to free themselves fromdependency than ever before.

But we are not complacent. We are continuallylooking at new ways of reducing demand, restrictingsupply and promoting recovery. We will be consideringthe recommendations from the Home Affairs SelectCommittee’s Drug Inquiry report and will respond indue course.

Drugs: Orphan MedicinesQuestion

Asked by Baroness Masham of Ilton

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what safeguardsare in place to ensure that interim National Institutefor Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) appraisalprocesses for orphan medicines are appropriate,while NICE develops its permanent appraisal processfor such medicines. [HL4268]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): The National Institute forHealth and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is workingclosely with stakeholders to prepare to take on its newresponsibilities forassessinghighlyspecialisedtechnologiesfor people with rare conditions from 1 April 2013.

As an independent organisation, it will be for NICEto ensure that it has appropriate procedures in place.

EconomyQuestions

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the impact of monetary policyon economic demand. [HL4218]

Lord Deighton: The Bank of England’s MonetaryPolicy Committee’s (MPC) macroeconomic policy tools,including bank rate and quantitative easing (QE), viathe asset purchase facility (APE), are designed toaffect the economy as a whole in order to meet the 2%inflation target over the medium term.

The Bank of England has estimated that the firstround of QE, between March 2009 and January 2010,raised spending and activity in the UK economy.Analysis set out in the Bank’s December 2012 QuarterlyBulletin finds that the impact of the second round ofasset purchases between October 2011 and May 2012looks to have been similar to the first round in termsof its proportionate effect on broad money and thewider economy.

The MPC stated, in the minutes of its meeting inNovember 2012, that “demand and output wouldhave been significantly weaker” in the absence of assetpurchases.

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyhave assessed the impact on finance costs for themand for business of the United Kingdom losing itsAAA credit rating. [HL4220]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): The Government’s actions, taken to reducethe deficit and rebuild the economy, have securedstability and positioned the UK as a relative safehaven. Interest rates are near historic lows, benefitingfamilies, businesses and the tax payer. Returning theUK to sustainable, balanced economic growth is theGovernment’s overriding priority.

Economy: Cost of LivingQuestion

Asked by Lord Taylor of Warwick

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what stepsthey will take to reduce the cost of living. [HL4362]

Lord Newby: The Government continue to takesteps to support households.

The personal allowance will increase further to£9,440 in April 2013 to support hard-working individuals.This cash increase of £1,335 in 2013-14 is the largestever. The 3p fuel duty increase planned for January2013 has been cancelled. The Government have alsoannounced a third council tax freeze.

Education: English LanguageQuestion

Asked by Lord Taylor of Warwick

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what stepsthey will take to improve English language teachingfor immigrants. [HL4229]

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: Where English languagetraining is publicly funded through further educationcolleges and training providers, they are responsiblefor the quality of their provision. They are held toaccount for the quality of teaching and the outcomesof this provision by the Skills Funding Agency andOfsted. Government and Ofsted have placed a newemphasis on the importance of the quality of teaching,learning and assessment in further education and skillsprovision. When provision is identified as inadequate,there are now clear intervention procedures. TheGovernment fund through partner agencies qualityimprovement support for the sector, which includessupport to improve the quality of English provisionfor adults.

WA 19 WA 20[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

Elections: Devolved AdministrationsQuestion

Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what stepsthe Cabinet Office is taking to co-operate with thedevolved Administrations in (1) Wales, (2) Scotland,and (3) Northern Ireland, to ensure that the maximumnumber of young people qualify to vote in each ofthose nations. [HL4272]

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Government, politicians,political parties, electoral administrators and others insociety all have a role to play in encouraging people toregister to vote.

The Government are committed to doing all theycan to maximise registration, including among youngpeople, and are looking to make it as easy and convenientas possible for people to register to vote as well asmove to IER. This includes looking at the work donein Northern Ireland to get young people registered.We are also piloting different approaches across thecountry to encourage young people to register to vote.

To maximise levels of voter registration amongyoung people, the Government are piloting differentapproaches to encourage them to register to vote. Thisincludes: holding 20 events in schools, runningparticipatory sessions to inform attainers about thereasons to register to vote and encourage them to doso; making available an online registration event toolkitaimed at teachers and community leaders so that theycan deliver their own events targeted at young people;and commissioning digital work so that young peoplewho register can share this fact on Facebook, encouragingother young people in their social networks also toregister. We are also running data-mining pilots whichintend to assess whether data matching with data fromother government departments and bodies such as theStudent Loans Company can assist in getting moreyoung people on to the register.

Elections: Voting AgeQuestion

Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theywill monitor the experience in lowering of the votingage to 16 in the Scottish referendum with a view toinforming future decisions about lowering the votingage throughout the rest of the country. [HL4274]

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The UK and ScottishGovernments have agreed that the power to legislatefor a referendum on Scotland’s independence shouldbe devolved to the Scottish Parliament. As a result itwill be for the Scottish Parliament to determine thefranchise of the referendum—just as it is responsiblefor determining the franchise for any other referendumor election within its devolved competence.

However, this sets no precedent for the franchise forthe UK Parliament, Scottish Parliament or localauthorities, which remain the responsibility of the UKGovernment and Parliament.

There is no consensus within government for loweringthe voting age to 16 and we therefore have no currentplans to do so.

EmbryologyQuestions

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by Earl Howe on 7 February2011 (WA 12) regarding the number of cycles inwhich a risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome(OHSS) was reported as the reason for abandoninga cycle of licensed treatment, what considerationthe Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority(HFEA) has given to the impact of (1) financialpayment structures, (2) lack of appropriate cyclemonitoring, and (3) competition due to the HFEA’spublication of clinic success rates, on the incidenceof OHSS and the under-reporting of complications.

[HL4152]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government on what datadirectly held by the Human Fertilisation andEmbryology Authority (HFEA) the HFEA basetheir assertion that the single biggest risk of fertilitytreatment is multiple pregnancy; whether it is directlyinformed by data from the Confidential Enquiryinto Maternal and Child Health; what data is heldby the HFEA regarding the frequency of latemiscarriage, high blood pressure and pre-eclampsiain mothers; what efforts were made by the HFEAto ensure that any additional data relating to therisks associated with multiple pregnancy were madeavailable to them; what other risks of fertility treatmentare known to the HFEA; and what data is held bythe HFEA regarding the frequency and severity ofany other such risks. [HL4153]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Public Health, Anne Milton, on 19 June(Official Report, cols. 941–942W) regarding the activityof the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority(HFEA) in monitoring research on the safety oftreatment techniques, the Written Statement by EarlHowe on 24 November 2010 (WS 101–2) and theWritten Answer by Earl Howe on 9 July (WA 202–3),why the HFEA has not made an assessment of thefigures described in the journal Human Fertility(volume 10, issue 3, pages 183–7).

[HL4154]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): The Human Fertilisation andEmbryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that itreviewed its policies regarding egg, sperm and embryodonation in 2011, including donor compensation andbenefits in kind, details of which can be found on theHFEA website at: www.hfea.gov.uk/5605.html.

The HFEA has also advised that it has limitedpowers around ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome(OHSS) and does not collect data about the overallincidence of OHSS or produce requirements aroundmonitoring of patients. Clinics are, however, asked to

WA 21 WA 22[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

report treatment cycles to the HFEA where a cycle hasbeen abandoned due to there being a risk of thepatient developing OHSS. Severe cases of OHSS aretreated as incidents and the HFEA expects an incidentreport from a clinic whenever a clinic is made aware ofa severe case of OHSS. The HFEA also asks to see aclinic’s OHSS management protocols before a licencerenewal inspection.

The success rates that the HFEA publishes aredesigned to give patients information to enable themto decide on the best clinic for them, taking intoaccount a number of factors including success rates.

The HFEA has advised that its statement that thesingle biggest risk of fertility treatment is multiplepregnancy was based on the outcome of a series ofdiscussions the Expert Group on Multiple Births afterIn Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) had between the autumnof 2005 and October 2006. The HFEA set up anindependent expert group in response to rising concernsabout the incidence of multiple births after IVF/ICSI(intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection). The group reviewedthe available international and national data on multiplebirths after IVF/ICSI, health and psychosocial outcomesfor twins and their families, and the experience withsingle embryo transfer gathered in some Europeancountries. It made recommendations to the HFEAand other organisations that have a role to play inreducing the high incidence of multiple births afterIVF. The work to reduce multiple births has been acollaborative effort with other professional organisations.

Data held by the HFEA regarding the frequency oflate miscarriage, following IVF/ICSI, are set out in thefollowing tables:

YearIncidence ofmiscarriages

Rate of miscarriagesagainst all

pregnancies %

2006 1,346 122007 1,594 132008 1,763 132009 1,978 132010 1,963 12

A count of the number of outcomes that listed both a live birth and amiscarriage. These are included in the previous totals.Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Outcomes 252 334 412 415 404

Note: These data concern cases where more than onegestational sac was reported, so reflects instances of a multiplepregnancy where both a miscarriage and a live birth occurred.

The HFEA does not hold data on high bloodpressure and pre-eclampsia in mothers. Other risks offertility treatment are set out on the HFEA’s websiteat: www.hfea.gov.uk/fertility-treatment-risks.html.

These risks, along with the risk of multiple births,are considered through the HFEA’s regulatory regime.The data that the HFEA holds on such risks varydepending on the particular risk.

With regard to the information in Human Fertility,the HFEA has advised that it has nothing to add tothe Answer I gave the noble Lord on 9 July 2012(Official Report, cols. WA 202-3).

Asked by Lord Alton of LiverpoolTo ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority(HFEA) held discussions with Susan Bewley, LinFoo and Peter Braude regarding concerns raisedin their editorial for the British Medical Journal inJanuary 2011; whether actions were proposed bythe HFEA in response, and if so, what; and whenany such discussions or actions took place.[HL4174]

Earl Howe: The Human Fertilisation and EmbryologyAuthority (HFEA) has advised that the authority’shorizon-scanning process is an early warning systemthat identifies new scientific and clinical developmentsthat may impact on the field of assisted reproductionor embryo research. Horizon scanning allows the HFEAto consider the legal, ethical and scientific implicationsof any new technique that scientists or clinicians maywish to use in HFEA-licensed research or treatment.Research and developments are presented to the HFEA’sScientific and Clinical Advances Advisory Committee(SCAAC) in order for it to provide recommendations.The HFEA has also advised that Bewley et al (2011)was included in its summary of follow-up research forSCAAC. This can be found on the HFEA’s website at:www.hfea.gov.uk/7089.html.

Asked by Lord Alton of LiverpoolTo ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to

the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 20 July 2011(WA 305–6), how many cybrid embryos have beengenerated with eggs from non-human species intotal according to records held by the HumanFertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA);and how many other classes of “admixed human”embryos have been generated. [HL4175]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answers by Earl Howe on 20 July 2011(WA 306) and by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on7 November 2002 (WA 145), whether they nowcollect data on how many human embryos havebeen (1) created, (2) frozen, (3) destroyed, (4) implanted,and (5) experimented upon, since the passage of theHuman Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990; ifso, what are those figures; and, if not, whether theywill instruct the Human Fertilisation and EmbryologyAuthority to refine their collection of data so thatit provides full disclosure under each of thosecategories. [HL4176]

Earl Howe: The Human Fertilisation and EmbryologyAuthority (HFEA) has advised that it has no furtherinformation to add to that provided in the Answer Igave the noble Lord about human admixed embryoson 20 July 2011 (Official Report, cols. WA 305-6).

The HFEA has also advised that the data it holds inrelation to human embryos that have been created,frozen, destroyed and implanted are set out in thefollowing table. It does not hold data in relation toembryos experimented upon.

The HFEA has an obligation to collect informationas required by the Human Fertilisation and EmbryologyAct 1990. It is for the authority itself to determinewhat further information it considers appropriate tocollect.

WA 23 WA 24[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

HFEA Human Embryo Data—Cycles from 1 August 1991 to 31 December 2011EmbryosFrozen

EmbryosDiscarded

Implanted

Embryoscreated

Embryosstored for the

patients use

Embryosstored fordonation

Embryosstored for

research

Embryosreported on the

Treatment formas being

discarded

Embryosreported on the

GameteMovement

form as beingremoved from

storage anddiscarded

Embryostransferred

Gestational sacsobserved

3,546,818 839,325 2,071 5,876 1,691,090 23,480 1,388,443 235,480

Source: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

Energy: BiofuelsQuestion

Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmenthave they made of the value of adding a recycledbiofuels category to the Renewable Transport FuelsObligation to recognise the position of biofuelsmade from locally sourced waste products. [HL4306]

Earl Attlee: The Renewable Transport Fuels Obligationalready provides additional support to biofuels madefrom waste by awarding two renewable transport fuelcertificates for each litre supplied. We are committedto reviewing the double-counting system in 2013.

Energy: Green DealQuestion

Asked by Lord Avebury

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theywill extend the Green Deal and reduction of valueadded tax to include voltage optimisation. [HL4114]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): The Government have recently commissionedthe independent Scientific Integrity Group to reviewevidence from industry and other sources on the efficacyof voltage optimisation as an energy efficiency measure.The views from this expert group will help with anassessment of the benefits of this technology and itspotential for its inclusion within the standard assessmentprocedure and, in turn, the Green Deal.

There are currently no plans to introduce a reducedrate of VAT for voltage optimisation.

Energy: PricesQuestion

Asked by Lord Donoughue

To ask Her Majesty’s Government by how muchenergy prices have risen for the average family in theUnited Kingdom since 2010, (1) as an absoluteamount and (2) as a percentage; and how much ofthat amount and percentage is due to environmentaltaxes. [HL4247]

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: DECC publishes data ongas and electricity prices in its Quarterly Energy Pricespublication in tables 2.2.3 and 2.3.3. Based on thelatest available data from this, over the period 2010 to2012, average gas (Great Britain) and standard electricity(UK) retail prices for the residential sector increasedby:

0.77p/kWh and 1.83p/kWh respectively (in currentprices);

21% and 14% respectively (in current prices); and15% and 9% respectively (in real terms).These changes are based on an assumed, fixed

consumption of 18.000kWh per year for gas and3.300kWh per year for electricity. They therefore donot take into account year-to-year differences in weatherand improvements in energy efficiency, both of whichhelp determine energy consumption.

The only environmental tax (based on the definitionused by HM Treasury1) that had an impact on residentialenergy prices over this period is the EU EmissionsTrading System (EU ETS) which adds a cost per unitof carbon emitted from electricity generation. Theimpact of the EU ETS on retail electricity prices isestimated to have fallen over the period, consistentwith the fall in the price of EU allowances, andtherefore is not estimated to have contributed to therise in retail electricity prices since 2010. The majorityof the rise in residential energy prices has been drivenby rises in wholesale energy costs as a result of increasesin fossil fuel prices on international markets and risingnetwork costs as ageing infrastructure has been replaced.

1 Available online at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press_60_12.htm

Energy: Smart MetersQuestion

Asked by Baroness Byford

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what willhappen to data stored in utility smart meters at theend of 13 months; and to whom that data willbelong.

[HL4294]

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: Smart metering equipmenthas the capability to store a minimum of’ the past15 months of half hourly consumption data on arolling basis: once the meter’s data storage is full, the

WA 25 WA 26[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

oldest data will be overwritten with newer data. Asthe oldest data are overwritten, they will effectivelybe deleted and therefore not owned by anyone.

A recently published consultation on implementingthe provisions of the energy efficiency directive hasproposed the option that smart meters actually store aminimum of 24 months of data.

EU: BankingQuestion

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is theirassessment of the impact on United Kingdom bankingand bank regulation of fewer than five EuropeanUnion member states remaining outside the bankingunion; and what measures exist to prevent mandatorysupervision of United Kingdom banks by theEuropean Banking Authority in that circumstance.

[HL4217]

Lord Deighton: I refer to Lord Sassoon’s Answer of21 December 2012 (HL4170), which set out the PrimeMinister’s Statement to the House of Commons on17 December 20121 regarding the outcome of theDecember European Council and the Commission’sproposal for a single supervisory mechanism.

There are no proposals to confer responsibility forsupervising banks on the European Banking Authority.

1 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa.cm201213/cmhansrd/cm121217/debtext/121217-0001.htm#1212174000003

EU: CompetenceQuestion

Asked by Lord Pearson of Rannoch

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by Baroness Warsi on 14 December(WA 262), what estimate they have made of the costinvolved in the use of existing resources to compilethe review of European Union competences.

[HL4308]

TheSeniorMinisterof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesand Local Government & Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Baroness Warsi): There has been no centralestimation of the overall cost. Each department isresponsible for allocating its own resources to meet itspriorities, including delivering the reports on which itleads or to which it has an interest in contributing.

EU: Justice and Home Affairs PowersQuestion

Asked by Baroness Whitaker

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they havenot implemented the European Supervision Orderset out in Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA.

[HL4265]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordMcNally): Under the terms of the Lisbon treaty, theGovernment are required to decide by 31 May 2014whether we opt out of, or remain bound by, all thoseEU police and criminal justice measures adopted priorto the entry into force of the treaty, which includes this

measure. As my right honourable friend the HomeSecretary announced in the other place on 15 October2012 (Official Report, col. 35), which I informed thisHouse about through a Statement on the same day,this wider decision is still being considered and anyimplementation of this measure will await the outcomeof that process.

EU: Prisoner VotingQuestion

Asked by Lord LairdTo ask Her Majesty’s Government whether

they consulted the Governments of (1) Armenia,(2) Andorra, (3) Bulgaria, (4) Estonia, (5) Georgia,(6) Hungary, (7) Liechtenstein, and (8) Russia, abouthow to address the issue of prisoner voting with theEuropean Court of Human Rights. [HL4251]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordMcNally): The Government have not consulted thesecountries. We are aware of the different approaches toprisoner voting in these and other states, and thesevarious approaches have formed part of the Government’swider consideration of this issue.

EU: Trade AgreementsQuestion

Asked by Lord Stoddart of SwindonTo ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to

the Written Answer by Lord Green of Hurstpierpointon 14 December (WA 263), given that Singaporedoes not impose tariffs on imports, what benefits toBritish exporters the forthcoming European Union-Singapore fair trade agreement will bring. [HL4314]

The Minister of State, Department for Business,Innovation and Skills & Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint): Following therecent conclusion of negotiations, work is ongoing toassess the outcome. However, we do not yet have a fullpicture of what has been agreed (since the negotiationsare conducted by the Commission on behalf of themember states) and the full benefits to UK businesswill only become clear when we see the full deal. Whatwe do know is that there will be new opportunities forBritish businesses to bid for public procurement contractsin Singapore. The FTA grants EU bidders significantlymore guaranteed opportunities in public tenders comparedto any other country, including for the first time inmany utilities sectors in which the EU has manyleading suppliers.

We also expect to see new opportunities in theservices sector, where we expect Singapore to extendits market access commitments, to agree new regulatorydisciplines in certain service sectors and to offer paritywith other major trading partners in most servicesectors, thus offering a more level playing field for UKsuppliers.

Additionally, Singapore has agreed to tackle technicalbarriers in key sectors such as cars, pharmaceuticals,electronics and renewable energy equipment. These ruleswill make it easier for goods produced and tested toEuropean standards to be sold in Singapore withouttechnical changes or additional testing.

WA 27 WA 28[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

The FTA also includes a high level of intellectualproperty rights protection. This will, for example, offerbetter remuneration rights for certain creative activities.

European CommissionQuestion

Asked by Baroness Coussins

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what actionthey are taking to improve (1) the number ofapplications, and (2) the success rate, of Britishcitizens competing for positions in the EuropeanCommission. [HL4346]

TheSeniorMinisterof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesand Local Government & Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Baroness Warsi): The Government have takensteps to improve both the number of applications andthe success rates of British citizens applying to the EUinstitutions, where UK experience and insight can addreal value.

This Government relaunched the European FastStream (EFS) in 2009 and included significantcommunications activity, led by the Foreign andCommonwealth Office (FCO), aimed at better publicisingand improving the attractiveness of careers with theEU institutions to both graduates and professionals.This has resulted in a 30% increase in British applicantsto the main EU graduate recruitment.

The EFS prepares UK civil servants for the entryexams to the EU institutions, and includes tuition inrelevant languages. The EFS also serves to create acadre of EU expertise within the UK Civil Service.The UK’s Permanent Representation to the EU (UKRep) provides support for UK applicants, both insideand outside of the UK Civil Service, who are applyingfor posts within the institutions.

The FCO is also engaged with the European PersonnelSelection Office (EPSO) to encourage a greater numberof UK applicants and improve the success rate amongthose applying for positions in the European Commission.Next year we will have the results of the 2012 graduaterecruitment and a clearer picture of our success rate.

This is a very long-term project. The UK stillremains under-represented at the European Commission—representing only 4.7% of total staff according tothe latest figures, while the UK accounts for 12.4% ofthe EU population. We continue to monitor and promotevarious career options, including opportunities forpermanent and temporary staff, and seconded UKcivil servants.

Falklands War VeteransQuestion

Asked by Lord Touhig

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe answer by Earl Howe on 17 December (OfficialReport, col. 1339), whether veterans whose hearingwas damaged during the Falklands War are receivingpriority treatment from the National Health Service.

[HL4290]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): All veterans are entitled topriority treatment, subject to the clinical needs ofothers, for conditions relating to their time in service.

When referring a veteran to secondary care for acondition that (in their clinical opinion) may be relatedto military service, general practitioners (GPs) areasked to make this clear in their referral—as long asthe patient is happy with this. Secondary care cliniciansare asked to prioritise all veterans (for conditions thatthey judge likely to be related to military service) overother patients with the same level of clinical need.Veterans are not given priority over patients withmore urgent clinical needs.

The importance of priority treatment for veterans,and how it should be applied, has been outlined to theNational Health Service through a number of letterssent out over recent years from the department. Theseinclude correspondence sent from the chief executiveof the NHS in 2007 to all senior management of theNHS, which was then reiterated by the Chief MedicalOfficer in a letter to all GPs in 2010. The earlier lettermade a particular point of highlighting the needs ofveterans with service-related noise-induced hearingloss. The priority treatment requirement has alsobeen emphasised in past NHS Operating Frameworkdocuments.

The department has ensured that senior managersand clinicians within the NHS are kept informed ofthe healthcare needs of the Armed Forces community,with a series of leaflets and correspondence being sentover recent years that clearly outline the guidelines inplace around the treatment of service personnel, veteransand their families. Most recently, the departmentcollaborated with the Royal College of GeneralPractitioners (RCGP) to create an e-learning packageaimed at raising GPs’awareness of the needs of veterans,including priority treatment and the relevant healthservices available to them. This package is available forGPs to access through the RCGP’s website.

Finance: Isle of Man and Channel IslandsQuestion

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the steps taken by (1) the Isleof Man, (2) Jersey, and (3) Guernsey, to stop thoseislands and institutions operating from them frombeing used to support (a) money-laundering,(b) terrorist finance, and (c) tax evasion; and whetherthose islands have responded positively to all requestsmade of them by the Government in that connection.

[HL4221]

Lord Deighton: The anti-money-laundering andcounterterrorist financing regimes of the Isle of Man,Jersey and Guernsey (the Crown Dependencies) havebeen evaluated against the Financial Action Task Force(FATF) standards by the International Monetary Fundwithin the past four years, with all three territoriesachieving favourable assessments.

WA 29 WA 30[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

In 2012, the UK facilitated the entry of the CrownDependencies into MONEYVAL (which conducts self-assessment and mutual assessment exercises of theanti-money-laundering measures in place in Councilof Europe member states, which are not members ofthe FATF)1. These dependencies are, therefore, nowconsidered part of the global network of FATF regionalbodies.

The Government are fully committed to tacklingoffshore tax evasion. On 7 December 2012, theGovernment announced that they would be enteringinto an agreement with the Isle of Man to move toautomatic information exchange. They also confirmedthat they are in discussions with the other CrownDependencies, Jersey and Guernsey, about enhancedinformation exchange as part of their commoncommitment to combat tax evasion. The reviews ofthe Crown Dependencies carried out by the GlobalForum show that they meet international standardson tax transparency.

1 http://www.fatf-gafi.org/pages/moneyval.html

Financial Services AuthorityQuestion

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theywill review the period that must elapse before seniorregulators from the Financial Services Authoritycan join businesses which they have been responsiblefor regulating, or where they have regulated directcompetitors of a prospective employer; and whatcurrent guidance is in effect. [HL4364]

Lord Newby: This matter is for the Financial ServicesAuthority (FSA), which is independent from governmentcontrol. It has, therefore, been passed on to the FSA,which will reply directly by letter. A copy of theresponse will be placed in the Library of the House.

Fire and Rescue ServiceQuestions

Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what resourcesthey will make available to Sir Ken Knight toundertake his review of fire and rescue services.

[HL4354]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesandLocalGovernment(BaronessHanham):In undertaking his review, Sir Ken Knight will besupported by civil servants from the Department forCommunities and Local Government.

Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how theyassess the level of protection offered by fire andrescue services. [HL4355]

Baroness Hanham: All fire and rescue authorities inEngland are required by the Fire and Rescue NationalFramework to have in place and maintain an integratedrisk management plan, which identifies local need andsets out plans to tackle effectively both existing and

potential risks to communities. The integrated riskmanagement plan, which is subject to consultationwith the local community, enables each fire and rescueauthority to tailor the allocation of its resources tolocal circumstances—evaluating where risk is greatestand determining its policies and standards for preventionand intervention accordingly.

Food: Climate ChangeQuestion

Asked by Lord Judd

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is theirassessment of the effect of climate change on small-scale farming in the developing world and itsimplications for world food supply. [HL4205]

Baroness Northover: Smallholder farmers areparticularly vulnerable to climate change. They ofteninhabit marginal landscapes such as hillsides, aridlands and floodplains. They rely directly on climate-affected natural resources for their livelihoods. Theyhave fewer assets to rely on, are less able to diversifytheir incomes and are more reliant on growing foodstaples that may be most adversely affected by climatechange such as maize, rice and wheat.

Climate modelling predictions are uncertain aboutfuture food production, given that some regions arelikely to benefit while others are likely to be adverselyaffected and all projections are subject to significantuncertainty. Higher temperatures and changes in rainfallare predicted to reduce global harvests by 7% by 2050,and in some part of the world by as much as 20% by2030.

Forced MarriageQuestions

Asked by Baroness Uddin

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theywill consider holding a wider consultation withwomen’s groups about their proposed forced marriagelegislation. [HL4178]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, HomeOffice (Lord Taylor of Holbeach): A public consultationon whether we should make forced marriage a criminaloffence was held between December 2011 and March2012. We received responses from a number of women’sgroups, which set out their views on whether forcedmarriage should become a criminal offence. We arecurrently developing the legislation, which will beintroduced when parliamentary time allows.

Asked by Baroness Uddin

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyhave considered upgrading the forced marriageprotection order to a criminal offence as an alternativeto introducing new legislation. [HL4179]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordMcNally): The Government intend to make the breachof a forced marriage protection order a criminal offence.This is in addition to a new offence of forcing a person

WA 31 WA 32[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

to marry against that person’s will. We will bringforward legislation on both measures as soon asparliamentary time allows.

GambiaQuestions

Asked by Lord Avebury

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theywill propose that the Gambia be added to the list ofcountries under the scrutiny of the CommonwealthMinisterial Action Group. [HL4201]

TheSeniorMinisterof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesand Local Government & Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Baroness Warsi): We regularly raise our concernsabout human rights, good governance and democracywith the Gambian Government, and will continue towork with and through international partners andinstitutions, including the Commonwealth, to improvestandards.

However, the UK has no current plans to proposethat the Gambia is added to the CommonwealthMinisterial Action Group (CMAG) agenda.

Asked by Lord Avebury

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyhave plans to legislate to remove the Gambia fromthe list of safe countries in Section 94(4) of theNationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

[HL4202]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, HomeOffice (Lord Taylor of Holbeach): There are no currentplans to remove the Gambia from the list of countriesdesignated under Section 94(4) of the Nationality,Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

Asked by Lord Avebury

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whetherthey have plans to update the Country of OriginInformation Report on the Gambia. [HL4203]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The UK Border Agencyplans to publish an update of its Country of OriginInformation report on the Gambia in the first half of2013.

Asked by Lord Avebury

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whatrepresentations they have made to the Governmentof the Gambia about the closure of independentnewspapers and a radio station, the expulsion of aBBC journalist, and other attacks on freedom ofexpression in that country. [HL4204]

Baroness Warsi: Freedom of expression is an ongoingconcern in the Gambia. The sudden closures of TarangaFM Radio Station in August and of the Daily Newsand the Standard newspapers in September are worryingdevelopments. Our high commissioner in Banjul raisedthe respective closures with the Foreign Minister. However,

we understand that the BBC correspondent was notexpelled but following intervention by the high commissionwas granted a 48-hour visa which was not subsequentlyrenewed.

Support for freedom of expression and the protectionof journalists is included in the EU human rightsstrategy for the Gambia. Our high commissioner inBanjul regularly raises human rights issues with theGambian Government—when specific incidents occurand twice-yearly through formal discussions underArticle 8 of the EU/ACP Cotonou agreement. Thenext discussions are due to be held in January.

GazaQuestions

Asked by Baroness Tonge

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is thecost to United Kingdom public funds of the UnitedKingdom contribution to reconstruction in Gazafollowing Operation Pillar of Cloud. [HL4186]

Baroness Northover: The Minister of State forInternational Development, the right honourable AlanDuncan MP, recently announced on his visit to Gazathat the UK will provide £1.25 million to the work ofthe International Committee of the Red Cross inprotecting civilians and providing emergency servicesin Gaza and the West Bank. This will include helpingat least 85,000 people inside Gaza who have beeninjured, had their homes destroyed or were otherwiseaffected by the recent conflict. The funding will providetemporary shelter and medical assistance, as well ashelp with rebuilding homes and delivering fuel to keepgenerators running.

Asked by Baroness Tonge

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whatrepresentations they have made to the Governmentof Israel about their treatment of Gazan fishermen.

[HL4189]

TheSeniorMinisterof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesand Local Government & Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Baroness Warsi): The UK regularly makesrepresentations at both ministerial and official level totheIsraeliauthoritiesontheurgentneedtoeaserestrictionson Gaza, including fishing limits.

In this regard, we welcome the newly introduced sixnautical mile fishing limit. We have urged Israel to easethis restriction further, in line with the limit of 20 nauticalmiles stipulated in the Oslo accords.

GibraltarQuestion

Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to theWritten Statement by Baroness Warsi on 10 December(WS 98), whether the assertion that “we will continueto take whatever action we consider necessary toprotect British sovereignty and the interest of Gibraltarand its people” includes the use of military force.

[HL4313]

WA 33 WA 34[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

TheSeniorMinisterof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesand Local Government & Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Baroness Warsi): The Royal Navy challengesall unlawful incursions into British Gibraltar TerritorialWaters by Spanish state vessels by issuing appropriatewarnings to the vessels concerned. The military thereforealready has an important role in upholding the UK’ssovereignty over those waters.

We will continue to uphold our sovereignty againstunlawful incursions with a range of proportionatenaval, police and diplomatic responses.

Government Departments: BudgetsQuestion

Asked by Baroness Sharp of Guildford

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in relationto Table 2.2 and the statement about schools inparagraph 1.32 of the Autumn Statement 2012(Cm 8480), which areas of the Department forEducation budget will be reduced and by how muchbetween 2013–14 and 2014–15. [HL4198]

Baroness Garden of Frognal: The Chancellor’s AutumnStatement applied a percentage reduction to thedepartment’s unprotected resource budget (RDEL)over the next two years. The reduction will be 1%(£153 million) in 2013-14 and 2% (£306 million) in2014-15.

The department will be working out the exact detailof how it meets these reductions over the comingmonths as it goes through its annual business planningprocess to set budgets for the next year.

Front-line funding for schools will continue to beprotected in line with the policy set out at SpendingReview 2010. In addition the Government are providingan extra £1 billion of capital funding to build new freeschools and academies and expand existing good schoolsin those areas with the most pressure on pupil places.

Government Departments: LegislationQuestion

Asked by Lord Laird

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assistancein the preparation of Private Members’ Bills wasprovided by the Department for Environment, Foodand Rural Affairs in (1) the 2010-12 Session, and(2) this Session. [HL3961]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord DeMauley): Core Defra officials provided some assistancein the preparation of the Scrap Metal Dealers Billintroduced this Session, which has completed its passagethrough the House of Commons and is currently awaitingLords Committee stage. This included discussing therole of the Environment Agency in the regime forregistering scrap metal dealers proposed under theBill, advisingonthepotential interfacewithenvironmentallegislation and reviewing and commenting on draftinstructions to Parliamentary Counsel.

Government Departments: PublicationsQuestions

Asked by Lord Laird

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how manycopies of (1) Who’s Who, (2) Dod’s ParliamentaryCompanion, (3) Dod’s Guide to the General Election2010, and (4) Whitaker’s Almanac, were purchasedby the Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs, broken down by directorate in eachof the past two years for which figures are available.

[HL4001]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how manycopies of (1) Who’s Who, (2) Dod’s ParliamentaryCompanion, (3) Dod’s Guide to the General Election2010, and (4) Whitaker’s Almanack, were purchasedby the Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs for use by Ministers in that departmentin each of the past two years for which figures areavailable. [HL4055]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord DeMauley):CoreDefrahaspurchasedthe followingnumbersof hard copies of each publication since April 2010. Abreakdown by year cannot be provided.

Who’s Who—one copy;Dod’s Parliamentary Companion—seven copies;andWhitaker’s Almanack—one copy.Of these, five copies of Dod’s Parliamentary Companion

were purchased directly by Minister’s Private Offices.Dod’s Guide to the General Election was published

only in 2010 and provided free alongside purchasedcopies of Dod’s Parliamentary Companion.

Asked by Lord Bradshaw

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyissue guidance about the use of acronyms andjargon in Government publications. [HL4094]

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The Cabinet Office doesnot provide such guidance, nor do we keep records ofwhether other departments or agencies do so.

Asked by Lord Laird

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theywill make it their policy to publish as an annex tothe annual report produced by the Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) a listof all publications published by Defra in the precedingyear. [HL4120]

Lord De Mauley: HM Treasury’s Financial ReportingManual sets out requirements for the format andcontent of the department’s annual report and accounts.There is no requirement and therefore no plan toinclude a list of publications. This information ishowever publicly available on the Defra website http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/.

WA 35 WA 36[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

Government Departments: StaffQuestion

Asked by Lord Tebbit

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by Lord Wallace of Saltaire on14 March (WA 73), when they now expect thefindings of the review of Promoting Equality, ValuingDiversity—A Strategy for the Civil Service 2008–13to be made public. [HL4053]

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: A date has not yet beenset but publication will follow that of the Civil Service’sCapabilities Plan.

Government: Ministerial GuidanceQuestion

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether LordGreen of Hurstpierpoint continues to advise theChancellor of Exchequer on banking matters.

[HL4219]

Lord Deighton: Treasury Ministers liaise closelywith counterparts in the Department of Business,Innovation and Skills on various banking and businessmatters.

Guernsey Financial Services CommissionQuestion

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyplan to pursue the Guernsey Financial ServicesCommission to make good losses suffered by UKinvestors in the CF Arch Cru Funds; what is theirassessment of the level of investor protection providedby the Commission in comparison to that availablein the United Kingdom; and whether they willplace restrictions on the marketing in the UnitedKingdom of banking and financial services by firmsand individuals based in Guernsey on the basis ofthat assessment. [HL4006]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): The Financial Services Authority (FSA) isresponsible for the regulation of financial servicesfirms under the powers in the Financial Services andMarkets Act (FSMA) 2000. HM Treasury sets thelegal framework for the regulation of financial services.

The CF Arch Cru matter is complex, involving anumber of entities, some regulated by the FSA andsome regulated by the Guernsey Financial ServicesCommission (GFSC). UK investors have sufferedconsiderable losses through their holdings of two UKopen-ended investment companies, the CF Arch Crufunds. These funds were invested in certain Guernsey-domiciled companies (the Guernsey cells), listed onthe Channel Islands Stock Exchange. These were closed-ended schemes authorised by the GFSC and were notauthorised or recognised collective investment schemesin the UK.

The UK Government have no power to pursueGuernsey for redress. However, the FSA is workingwith the Guernsey authorities regarding these matters.

In addition to assisting the FSA, the GFSC is conductingits own investigations relating to those entities withinits regulatory scope.

Under Section 270(5) of FSMA 2000 and StatutoryInstrument 2003/1181, the FSA provided HM Treasurywith an assessment of the authorisation and supervisionof collective investment schemes in Guernsey. Acomparison of protections will depend on specificprotections available to investors and will vary accordingto the nature of the investment.

Collective investment schemes which fall outsidethe designated criteria are restricted in their promotionto UK investors, including under Section 238 of FSMA2000. The Guernsey cells were subject to such restrictionsas they were not authorised or recognised by the FSA.

Gypsies and TravellersQuestions

Asked by Lord Avebury

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theywill take steps to ensure that wherever reference ismade to the ethnicity of patients throughout theNHS, the 2011 Census ethnic group classification,which includes “Gypsy or Irish Traveller”, is used.

[HL4018]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): In order to support consistencywith other data systems within the National HealthService, ethnicity data for NHS patients are currentlycollected utilising the 2001 codes. The department, incollaboration with other bodies, will shortly produceguidance that advises on the codes for data collection,including those for ethnicity. The guidance will initiallyrecommend that organisations continue to use the2001 codes; however this will be revisited biannuallywith decisions to change this advice based upon thebreadth of utilisation of the new coding system.

NHS organisations can choose to use either the2001 or the 2011 categories. If they use the 2011categories, they will need to re-aggregate anyone comingunder the “Gypsy and Irish Traveller” heading into“Other” in order to make national comparisons.Additional codes can be included as appropriate at alocal level to reflect the demographic make-up of thelocal population. This allows local monitoring to takeplace in a way that supports service planning, decision-making, and key processes such as the Joint StrategicNeeds Assessments.

Asked by Lord Avebury

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what stepsthey are taking to ensure that the health needs ofGypsy, Roma and Traveller communities are coveredin NHS Joint Strategic Needs Assessments, Healthand Well-being Strategies and the agendas of Healthand Well-being Boards. [HL4019]

Earl Howe: Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNAs)and Joint Health and Well-being Strategies (JHWSs)are local strategic planning processes, undertaken through

WA 37 WA 38[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

health and well-being boards. They will be the meansby which the current and future health and well-beingneeds of the local population will be determined, andthis will then be used to plan local services on the basisof the identified needs. JSNAs must therefore be inclusiveof the health and care needs of the whole local population,including Gypsy and Traveller and Roma communities.It would not be appropriate for the department tohighlight any care group or area of need over anotheras this would risk undermining the purpose of JSNAsand JHWSs as being an objective, comprehensive and—most importantly—a locally owned process of developingevidence-based priorities for commissioning. As publicauthorities, health and well-being boards will need tocomply with public sector equality duties, not just inhow they engage the local community in the developmentof JSNAs and JHWSs but also in considering theneeds of groups with protected characteristics.

We are addressing the health needs of those peoplemost vulnerable to poor health through the InclusionHealth programme, and the early focus of InclusionHealth includes Gypsies and Travellers. A number ofrepresentative bodies are working with us to supportthe National Inclusion Health Board and its workinggroups, which will work with the National HealthService, local government and others to identify whatmore must be done to include the needs of vulnerablegroups in the commissioning of health and care services.We are supporting health and well-being boards tobetter understand the needs of vulnerable groups withintheir JSNAs and JHWSs; and Gypsy and Travellerbodies have contributed to supportive material we areproducing.

Asked by Baroness Whitaker

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by Lord McNally on 16 July(WA 14), whether they are now in a position topublish information on the number and proportionrelative to population of Gypsy, Roma and Travellerprisoners; and, if not, when this will be available.

[HL4307]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordMcNally): We are currently not in a position to be ableto publish information on the number and proportionof Gypsy, Roma and Traveller prisoners relative to thepopulation.

As mentioned previously in a Written Answer on16 July (WA 14), following the addition of the newcensus 2011 ethnicity categories into the prison ITsystem, prisoners received into custody can now declarethemselves as Gypsy or Irish Traveller. However, it isunlikely that existing prisoners (those already in custodyprior to the new category being introduced) will havebeen given the opportunity to revise their previouslystated ethnicity.

Current data on the number of Gypsy or IrishTraveller prisoners are therefore likely to be an undercountof the true number of prisoners who would identifythemselves as Gypsy or Irish Traveller. We are committedto moving all prisoners from the 2001 census codes tothe 2011 codes; however, this will take some time. Wewill shortly (by April 2013 under current plans) be

issuing guidance to all prisons on how to conduct aone-off exercise to move existing prisoners on to thenew codes.

We will monitor the use of the new code andpublish the figures once the coverage and data qualityare deemed sufficient to provide meaningful and accuratestatistics. We currently have no estimate of when thedata will be deemed fit for publication.

Health: Accident and EmergencyDepartments

Questions

Asked by Lord Taylor of Warwick

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the lightof constraints on NHS spending, how they willensure patients in accident and emergency departmentsare treated promptly. [HL4044]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): The accident and emergency(A&E) waiting time standard states that 95% of patientsshould be admitted, transferred or discharged withinfour hours of their arrival in the A&E department.Thisstandardis includedintheNHSOperatingFrameworkfor 2012-13. Furthermore, eight clinical quality indicatorsfor A&E were introduced in April 2011 which measureother clinically important aspects of time.

It is for local National Health Service trusts toensure that there are strategies and procedures in placeto cope with unexpected periods of increased pressure.

Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whatrepresentations they have received concerning proposalsto close the accident and emergency department atLewisham Hospital. [HL4304]

Earl Howe: The trust special administrator appointedto South London Healthcare NHS Trust published hisdraft report on 29 October. This included a proposalfor the accident and emergency department at Lewishamhospital to become a 24/7 urgent care service. Theconsultation on the draft report closed on 13 December.The trust special administrator is now considering theresponses to the consultation as he prepares the finalreport. The trust special administrator must provideto the Secretary of State a final report stating theaction the administrator recommends by 7 January.The Secretary of State will decide what action to takein relation to the trust by 1 February.

The right honourable Dame Joan Ruddock DBEMP has asked two Written Questions in Parliamentabout accident and emergency services in London,following the publication of the trust specialadministrator’s draft report. The right honourableAndy Burnham MP wrote to the Secretary of State on9 December about the trust special administrator’swork and draft recommendations. A search of thedepartment’s ministerial correspondence database hasidentified 50 items of correspondence about the proposalsto close the accident and emergency department atLewisham Hospital. This figure represents correspondence

WA 39 WA 40[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

received by the department’s Ministerial CorrespondenceUnit only. In addition, this issue was debated in theHouse of Commons on 28 November and 20 December.

Ministers have had no meetings with outside partiesabout the proposal for the accident and emergencydepartment at Lewisham hospital to become a 24/7urgent care service.

Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how muchthey have spent on the refurbishment of the accidentand emergency department at Lewisham Hospitalsince 2005. [HL4352]

Earl Howe: This information is not held centrally.The following table shows the amounts in loans providedby the department to Lewisham Healthcare NHSTrust during the three most recent financial years tofund the development of the integrated Urgent CareCentre at the University Hospital, Lewisham.

Date of loan Amount of loan

15 December 2010 £6.974 million17 July 2011 £4.566 million16 July 2012 £302,000Total £11.842 million

Health: Ambulance ServiceQuestion

Asked by Lord Taylor of Warwick

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what stepsthey will take to reduce the emergency responsetimes of ambulance crews. [HL4043]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): National response time standardsare in place to ensure an appropriate emergency responsefrom ambulance service trusts. The national standardsfor ambulance services are:

A8—75% of category A (immediately life-threatening)calls should receive a response within 8 minutes;andA19—95% of category A patients requiring transportshould receive this within 19 minutes of the requestfor transport being made.In June 2012, category A8 was further split into

red 1 (the most time-critical calls, eg cardiac arrestpatients who are not breathing and do not have apulse) and red 2 (serious but less immediately timecritical, covering conditions such as stroke and fits).This was designed to reduce the inappropriate and/ormultiple dispatch of resources by ambulance trustsand to allow a greater focus on the most seriousincidents.

Category C calls are those which are neither life-threatening nor serious. The setting and monitoring ofcategory C call performance is locally determined.

It is the responsibility of the National Health Servicelocally to ensure that ambulance trusts perform well.Performance on national response time standards ismanaged at strategic health authority level. Localcommissioners must also hold ambulance trusts toaccount for local performance.

Health: Asbestos-related DiseaseQuestions

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what informationis required by coroners investigating asbestos-relateddeaths (1) in the hours following the death, (2) withinseven days of the death, and (3) in the course of theinquest. [HL4342]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what(1) guidance, and (2) training, specific to asbestos-related disease is provided to police officers whofulfil the duties of coroner offices in visiting recentlybereaved families to investigate asbestos-related deaths.

[HL4343]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordMcNally): The Ministry of Justice has responsibilityfor coroner law and policy only. Coroners are solelyresponsible for the conduct of their investigations.

The Ministry of Justice provides training for coronersand their officers. The 2012/13 syllabus includes asession on exposure to asbestos but does not includespecific training on visiting recently bereaved familiesto investigate asbestos-related deaths.

Health: Atypical Haemolytic UraemicSyndrome

Question

Asked by Baroness Masham of Ilton

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyhave received a recommendation from the AdvisoryGroup for National Specialised Services regardingthe commissioning of a national specialised servicefor atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome (aHUS);and, if so, when they plan to make a decision basedon that recommendation about whether or not anational specialised service for aHUS will becommissioned. [HL4248]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): Ministers have received arecommendation from the Advisory Group for NationalSpecialised Services about the commissioning of anational specialised service for the treatment of atypicalhaemolytic uraemic syndrome and expect to make anannouncement early in the new year.

Health: Birth DefectsQuestions

Asked by Lord Rooker

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is thelatest information they have regarding the high riskgroups suffering neural tube defects at birth.

[HL4211]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how the take-upof advice given on NHS websites in respect ofprevention of spina bifida is currently monitored.

[HL4212]

WA 41 WA 42[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how manybirths classed as spina bifida caused by neural tubedefects there have been in each of the past fiveyears. [HL4213]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyhave any plans to propose new advice or actionsregarding women thought to be in the high riskgroups with respect to potential neural tube birthdefects. [HL4214]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health(EarlHowe):Thedepartmentcurrentlyrecommendsthat all women who are planning a pregnancy or whocould become pregnant should take a daily supplementcontaining 400 micrograms of folic acid (the syntheticform of the vitamin folate) before conception and untilthe 12th week of pregnancy, as well as to increase theirconsumption of folate-rich foods, to reduce the risk ofneural tube defects (NTDs) such as spina bifida.

The department recommends that women with anincreased risk of having an NTD-affected pregnancytake a higher dose of folic acid (five milligrams/day),which can be prescribed by their general practitioner.Women at high risk of having an NTD-affected pregnancyinclude those who have previously had a baby with anNTD, those who have (or whose partner has) an NTD,those who are taking an anti-epileptic medication andthose who have diabetes.

The national Infant Feeding Survey, carried outevery five years on behalf of United Kingdom healthdepartments, collects information about dietarysupplementation practices during pregnancy. Data fromthe most recent Infant Feeding Survey (2010) showthat 94% of mothers reported taking folic acid eitherbefore or during their pregnancy. Before they werepregnant, 37% said they took folic acid, increasing to79% who reported taking it during the first threemonths of pregnancy, while 23% took it later on inpregnancy.

Data on the number of births classed as spinabifida are collected and published by the British IslesNetwork of Congenital Anomaly Registers (BINOCAR).The information provided in the following table givesthe numbers of live-born babies with spina bifida inthe English registers for the years 2006 to 2010. Theseare the most recent years BINOCAR has completedata for. BINOCAR does not cover all of Englandand Wales; the registers included in the data coverapproximately 35% of the births in England and Wales.

YearNumber of cases of spina bifida*

(live births)

2006 312007 282008 412009 412010 54

Note: Spina bifida is only one form of NTD; if othercongenital anomalies of the central nervous system (such ashydrocephalus or anencephaly) are included, these figures will behigher.

The department provides women with informationon health and nutrition pre-conception and duringpregnancy, including the importance of taking folic

acid supplements to reduce the risk of NTDs such asspina bifida, via all its relevant communications. Thisincludes the pregnancy and baby guide on the NHSChoices website, materials produced as part of theStart4Life campaign, and the NHS Information Servicefor Parents, a new digital service for parents-to-be andnew parents launched in May 2012. The InformationService for Parents sends parents regular free e-mails,videos and SMS messages with advice and informationabout pregnancy and the first few months with a baby.The service includes advice on folic acid and vitaminsupplements, with a video for parents covering “ShouldI take supplements during my pregnancy?”. To dateover 89,000 parents-to-be and new parents have signedup to the service.

The department was advised by the Scientific AdvisoryCommittee on Nutrition (SACN) and the Food StandardsAgency Board in 2007 on fortification options as ameasure to reduce the risk of pregnancies being affectedby neural tube defects (NTDs). Fortification of foodstuffswith folic acid is a complicated issue, with a balance ofbenefits as well as potential risks. Additional adviceon folic acid and cancer risk was requested by the thenChief Medical Officer and provided by SACN in 2009.The papers underpinning the advice from SACN havenot yet all been peer-reviewed and published in ascientific journal. Ministers need to very carefullyconsider this complicated issue and would like to seeall information in the public domain before makingany decision.

Asked by Lord Rooker

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what currentGovernment-sponsored research is under way inrespect of neural tube birth defects. [HL4215]

Earl Howe: The National Institute for Health Research(NIHR) biomedical research centre at Great OrmondStreet Hospital and University College London Instituteof Child Health is studying whether combined treatmentwith folic acid and inositol is more effective at preventingneural tube defects than folic acid alone. The researchersare leading a clinical trial of this treatment supportedby the NIHR Clinical Research Network.

The neural tube defect spina bifida may be associatedwith hydrocephalus in childhood. Hydrocephalus iscommonly treated through insertion of a shunt todrain off the excess fluid, and new devices have beenintroduced to try to reduce shunt infection. The NIHRHealth Technology Assessment programme is fundinga £2 million trial comparing these new shunts tostandard shunts.

The NIHR is also funding a clinical lectureshipfocused on neurogenic bowel dysfunction associatedwith spina bifida and other neurological conditions.

Health: BountyQuestions

Asked by Lord Taylor of Goss Moor

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what paymentshave been made to Bounty by any department orvice versa in each of the past five years. [HL4162]

WA 43 WA 44[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): The table below sets out the payments madeby HM Revenue and Customs to Bounty.

YearAmount paid to

Bounty £

Number of ChildBenefit claim forms

distributed

2007-08 112,487.00 706,8432008-09 125,671.75 774,6042009-10 143,167.00 852,5922010-11 126,906.79 888,1802011-12 90,805.00 901,298

Information on payments that may have been madeby other government departments is not held centrally.

Asked by Lord Taylor of Goss Moor

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what paymentshave been made to Bounty by the Department ofHealth or vice versa in each of the past five years;and what agreements were in place between Bountyand the Department of Health regarding the contentsof, or distribution of, Bounty packs to expectant ornew mothers, for each of the past five years.

[HL4161]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what informationthey hold regarding payments to NHS HospitalTrusts, primary care trusts or strategic health authoritiesby Bounty for the distribution of their packs toexpectant or new mothers. [HL4164]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whatconditions, restrictions or safety precautions applyto representatives of commercial companies enteringmaternity units for the purposes of data collectionor providing commercial services such as photographyto parents. [HL4166]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): Neither the department nor theNational Health Service centrally has any contractswith Bounty. The distribution of Bounty packs isnegotiated locally by Bounty with individual NHS andfoundation trusts, and individual trusts are able toinfluence the contents of the packs delivered to theirmaternity services users. The department does nothave information about the contracts that exist betweenBounty and the NHS locally, as this is the responsibilityof individual NHS authorities and is not collatedcentrally.

Bounty occasionally promotes departmental publichealth messages free of charge, including messages onseasonal flu, encouraging pregnant women to havethe flu jab, and encouraging women to sign up to theNHS Information Service for Parents. The department’smessages are promoted on Bounty’s website, in itsmembership area and in its “Thank you for registeringwith Bounty” e-mails sent to newly registered pregnantwomen. The NHS Information Service for Parentswallet cards with sign-up details are placed in Bounty’spregnancy and information pack for pregnant womenfree of charge.

Levels of security provision are for NHS bodies toestablish on a local basis, according to an assessmentof the particular security risks they face. Each NHSbody is responsible for providing the necessary resourcesto manage security.

NHS Protect has national responsibility for leadingwork to protect NHS staff and resources from crimeand provides support, guidance and advice to NHSbodies on assessing security risks and taking effectiveaction.

For areas such as maternity units where there arespecific security risks, it is for each NHS body todetermine who has access to these areas and to haveprotocols in place for supervising contractors and/orindividuals while on their premises.

Asked by Lord Taylor of Goss Moor

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether NHStrusts are placed under any restrictions regardingthe distribution of materials from commercialcompanies or charities other than Bounty; andwhat approval has been given by any departmentfor any such contracts. [HL4207]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theywill place in the Library of the House copies of any(1) agreements, (2) correspondence and (3) detailsof meeting dates, between Bounty and the Departmentof Health since June 2010. [HL4208]

Earl Howe: The distribution of materials fromcommercial companies and charities is negotiated locallywith individual National Health Service and/or foundationtrusts, and as such the department is not involved inthe approval process for any relevant contracts.

The department does not have any written agreementswith Bounty.

There were 10 items of correspondence received fromBounty since 1 June 2010. Copies of the correspondence,together with department’s replies, have been placed inthe Library.

Since June 2010 departmental officials have metwith Bounty on five occasions; a further meeting isplanned in 2013. The then Parliamentary Under-Secretaryof State (Anne Milton) also met with Bounty in June2011. The meetings covered a range of issues includingStart4life, public health messages surrounding drinking,giving up smoking in pregnancy and opportunities topromote seasonal flu messages. Officials have alsoattended one of Bounty’s health networks to brief iton Start4Life, the NHS Information Service for Parentsand the Start4Life smoke-free midwives pack.

Health: CardiologyQuestion

Asked by The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when theyexpect the Independent Reconfiguration Panel topublish the findings of its review of the Safe andSustainable proposals on children’s congenital heartservices; whether they issued any instructions aboutconsulting Members of Parliament when requesting

WA 45 WA 46[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

that review; and whether they plan to issue furtherinstructions to ensure that interested Members ofthe House of Lords are able to contribute. [HL4020]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): Following referrals from threelocal Overview and Scrutiny Committees, and subsequentinitial assessments of those referrals, the IndependentReconfiguration Panel (IRP) is currently undertakinga full review of the proposals concerning Safe andSustainable.

The panel is now due to submit its advice to theSecretary of State no later than 28 March 2013. As isroutine, the panel will publish its advice at the sametime as the Secretary of State makes his decisionpublic.

No instructions were issued to the panel aboutconsulting Members of Parliament and no furtherinstructions will be issued. As an independent body, itis up to the panel to determine how to carry out itsreview.

However, we are clear that anyone, includinghonourable Members and other elected or non-electedrepresentatives can make their own representationsand views known to the IRP on this important issue.

This can be done by contacting the panel atinfo@irpanel.org.uk and in writing to IRP, 6th floor,157-197 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1W 9SP.

Health: Consultancy ServicesQuestion

Asked by Lord Mawhinney

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how muchhospital trusts spent on outside consultants, bystrategic health authority area, (1) in each of thepast 12 months, and (2) in each of the past fiveyears, for which figures are available. [HL4233]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (EarlHowe): Informationregardingexpenditureon consultancy services by National Health Servicetrusts within strategic health authority (SHA) regionsfor the years 2007-08 to 2010-11 is in the followingtable.

SHA spend in respect of the last 12 months in2012-2013 will be available once the department’s annualreport and accounts are laid before Parliament inOctober 2013.

NHS Direct NHS Trust does not fall under aspecific SHA region; as such, figures for the organisationhave been listed separately.

NHS Trust consultancy spendby SHA region 2007-08 £000s 2008-09 £000s 2009-10 £000s 2010-11 £000s 2011-12 £000s

NHS Direct NHS Trust 3,627 7,279 4,955 1,308 2,730North East SHA 2,972 2,165 1,230 656 561North West SHA 13,301 12,862 7,460 8,443 14,079Yorkshire and the Humber SHA 5,570 6,604 5,720 5,566 7,844East Midlands SHA 8,349 8,256 12,960 10,822 13,772West Midlands SHA 17,088 17,631 15,658 12,818 17,005East of England SHA 10,003 9,403 9,822 7,781 7,325London SHA 37,588 49,204 52,179 44,871 55,548South East Coast SHA 13,884 16,355 13,193 10,064 12,411South Central SHA 13,407 11,716 11,826 9,099 8,811South West SHA 8,285 7,378 7,865 7,566 6,673

Source: 2007-08 to 2011-12 NHS Trusts Audited SummarisationSchedules

The data are taken from the audited summarisationschedules of NHS trusts which are used to prepare theNHS elements of the department’s annual report andaccounts.

Health: Finance-related Ill-healthQuestion

Asked by Lord Taylor of WarwickTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment

they have made of the link between financial anxietyover debt and health problems; and what steps theyare taking to improve debt advice services. [HL4359]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): The links between worklessnessand mental ill-health are well established. The ForesightReport Mental Capital and Wellbeing, published bythe Government Office of Science, highlighted the link

between mental ill-health and social factors, particularlydebt. A copy of the report is available at the followinglink: www.bis.gov.uk/foresight/our-work/projects/published-projects/mental-capital-and-wellbeing/reports-and-publications.

Through provisions in the Financial Services Act,the Government have clarified the role of the MoneyAdvice Service so that it is required to work with otherorganisations which provide debt services, with a viewto improving the availability, quality and consistencyin the services available, in the way in which they areprovided and in the advice given.

Health: Idiopathic Pulmonary FibrosisQuestions

Asked by Baroness Masham of IltonTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps

they are taking to increase investment in innovationin the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

[HL4266]

WA 47 WA 48[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): The National Institute forHealth Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessmentprogramme is funding a systematic review of evidenceon the benefits, harms and costs of treatments foridiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). The review beganin May 2012 and is expected to report in mid-2014. Inaddition, the NIHR is funding two one-year biomedicalresearch fellowships studying IPF.

In addition, the department has asked the NationalInstitute for Health and Clinical Excellence to producea clinical guideline on the diagnosis and managementof IPF. The draft guideline is due to be published forconsultation from 11 January 2013 to 22 February2013, with a view to final publication in June 2013.

Asked by Baroness Masham of Ilton

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the introduction of the value-basedpricing system for treatments for idiopathic pulmonaryfibrosis. [HL4267]

Earl Howe: The National Institute for Health andClinical Excellence (NICE) is developing technologyappraisal guidance on the use of pirfenidone (Esbriet)for the treatment of patients with mild to moderateidiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. NICE issued initialdraft guidance for consultation on 29 November 2012which does not recommend the drug and currentlyexpects to issue final guidance in April 2013.

The Government have set out their intention tointroduce a system of value-based pricing (VBP) forbranded medicines from January 2014. VBP will focusprimarily on new medicines and it is not our intentionto reassess under VBP the vast majority of treatmentsalready appraised by NICE. Under our current plans,we intend to maintain the funding direction for NICE-recommended treatments and replicate its effect formedicines with a value-based price.

Health: Infection ControlQuestions

Asked by Baroness Masham of Ilton

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plansare in place to appoint a new inspector of microbiologyand infection control to advise the Governmentwithin the new NHS structures. [HL4196]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): The department plans to discusswith the NHS Commissioning Board and Public HealthEngland how to cover the inspector of microbiologyand infection control’s functions in future.

Asked by Baroness Masham of Ilton

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plansare in place to ensure that variations in theredeployment of specialist infection prevention andcontrol commissioning nurses and teams will notpose risks to management of infection preventionand control. [HL4197]

Earl Howe: It is a matter for local determination toensure that appropriate specialist infection preventionand control commissioning nurses and teams are inplace to prevent and control infections.

Health: MiscarriageQuestion

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of reports of women losing theirbabies due to mistaken diagnosis of miscarriage,and the subsequent advice to doctors from theNational Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

[HL4173]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): It is important that womenreceive accurate diagnosis of miscarriage to enablethem to make informed decisions about their pregnancy.

The National Institute for Health and ClinicalExcellence (NICE) has considered the available evidenceon diagnosis and initial management in early pregnancyof ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage and publishedclinical guidelines on 12 December 2012: www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/14000/61854/61854.pdf.

Health professionals will wish to follow the NICErecommendation that women be informed that thediagnosis of miscarriage using one ultrasound scancannot be guaranteed to be 100% accurate and there isa small chance that the diagnosis may be incorrect,particularly at very early gestational ages.

Health: NeurologyQuestions

Asked by Baroness Gale

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how thecommissioning data set for neurology will be developed;and who will be responsible for collecting the dataand ensuring that it is accurate. [HL4281]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when thecommissioning data set for neurology will becomplete. [HL4282]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how manypeople with long-term neurological conditions inthe United Kingdom have a care plan. [HL4284]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): The department does collectinformation on the number of people with a long-termneurological condition who have a care plan. Data oncare planning was previously collected by the GP PracticeSurvey, which assesses patients’ experiences of localNational Health Services. The most recent data collected,which cover the period April 2010 to March 2011,showed that of nearly 2 million respondents with along-term condition, 83% reported they had a careplanning discussion, and 96% reported an improvementin their care as a result of the care planning process. Ofthose respondents reporting having a care planningdiscussion, 70% did not want a written plan summarisingthe discussion.

WA 49 WA 50[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

The Quality, Innovation, Productivity and Preventionwork stream on long-term conditions is looking atreducing the variations in the care planning that peoplereceive. Evidence emerging from this work suggeststhat people want and value a care planning discussionrather than the need for a written care plan.

Arrangements for the development and operationof the neurology dataset will be matters for the NHSCommissioning Board to determine as it moves towardstaking on its full responsibilities from April 2013. Theboard has committed to working with the service toincrease the amount of data flowing within the NHSto support clinical commissioners in driving continuousimprovements in quality in both secondary and primarycare.

Asked by Baroness Gale

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what indicatorsin the Commissioning Outcomes Framework pertainspecifically to neurological conditions. [HL4283]

Earl Howe: The NHS Commissioning Board publishedthe Clinical Commissioning Group Outcomes IndicatorSet (formerly the Commissioning Outcomes Framework)for 2013-14 on 18 December. The set contains indicatorsfrom the NHS Outcomes Framework that specificallyinclude patients with neurological conditions. Theseare as follows (with the NHS Outcomes Frameworknumber in brackets):

potential years of life lost from causes amenable tohealthcare (1a);health-related quality of life for people with long-term conditions (2);unplanned hospitalisation for chronic ambulatorycare sensitive conditions (adults) (2.3.i); andunplanned hospitalisation for asthma, diabetes andepilepsy in under 19s (2.3.ii).

Health: ObesityQuestion

Asked by Lord Jones of Cheltenham

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the risks to patients of usingproducts containing orlistat in treatments (1) prescribedby the NHS, and (2) sold over the counter.[HL4190]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): Orlistat is authorised for weightloss in adults who are overweight and should be takenin conjunction with a mildly hypocaloric, lower-fatdiet. Orlistat works by preventing the absorption ofingested fat.Orlistat isavailableasbothaprescription-onlymedicine(Xenical)andanon-prescriptionover-the-countermedicine that is available under the supervision of apharmacist (Alli).

Orlistat is authorised throughout the European Unionand a full assessment of its safety and efficacy wasconducted at the time of authorisation. Public assessmentreports have been published by the European MedicinesAgency.

The Medicines and Healthcare Products RegulatoryAgency keeps the safety of all licensed medicines,including orlistat-containing products, under close reviewusing a wide range of data sources. These includesuspected adverse drug reactions spontaneously reportedby health professionals and patients through the YellowCard scheme.

Up-to-date information on the side effects of orlistatis provided in the product information for prescribersand the patient information leaflets, which accompanyboth the prescription-only and the over-the-countermedicines.

Health: Parkinson’s DiseaseQuestions

Asked by Baroness Gale

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when thequality standard for Parkinson’s disease will bedeveloped. [HL4279]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): We have asked the NationalInstitute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) todevelop a quality standard on Parkinson’s disease aspart of a library of approximately 180 National HealthService quality standards. NICE has not yet publisheda timescale for the development of this quality standard.

The NHS Commissioning Board, which will beresponsible for the strategic direction of NHS qualitystandards from April 2013, has begun discussionswith NICE to determine the most appropriate sequencingfor NHS quality standards to assist the board inimproving patient outcomes across the five domainsof the NHS Outcomes Framework.

Asked by Baroness Gale

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when theNational Institute for Health and Clinical Excellenceguidance on Parkinson’s disease will next be updated.

[HL4280]

Earl Howe: The National Institute for Health andClinical Excellence (NICE) published a clinical guidelineon the diagnosis and management of Parkinson’s diseasein primary and secondary care in June 2006.

NICE carried out a routine review of the need toupdate the clinical guideline in 2011 and concludedthat the guideline should be further considered for anupdate once the outcomes of recent clinical researchin this area have been published.

Higher Education: Modern LanguagesQuestion

Asked by Baroness Coussins

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many(1) modern languages departments, and (2) degreecourses in or including one or more modern language,have been closed in United Kingdom universities ineach of the last five years. [HL4345]

WA 51 WA 52[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

Baroness Garden of Frognal: The Government donot hold the specific data requested. Higher educationinstitutions (HEI) are autonomous and responsiblefor how they structure themselves and what coursesthey offer. As a result of our funding reforms, from2012-13 HEI funding increasingly flows from the feespaid by students, so institutions are making decisionsabout which courses to offer to respond to studentdemand.

We have asked the Higher Education Funding Councilfor England (HEFCE) to protect subjects that arestrategically important and vulnerable (SIVS), includingmodern foreign languages, to avoid undesirable reductionsin the scale of provision.

HEFCE is working with institutions to explore howmodern foreign language (MFL) provision could best

be sustained across the sector, taking into account thenew landscape for student fees and finance in HE.HEFCE continues to provide funding for studentdemand-raising activity in MFL at a national level: for2012-13 this funding is worth £1 million and between2013 and 2016 HEFCE has committed to invest afurther £3 million in a new programme of demand-raisingwork. Given the need to sustain the supply of MFLprovision, HEFCE protected student numbers in thesesubjects in the redistribution of student numbers for2012-13.

The table below shows the total number of studentsstudying modern foreign languages over the past fiveyears. It demonstrates that there has been little changein the overall number of FTE students taking modernforeign languages at undergraduate level.

Table 1: Undergraduate FTE in modern foreign languages drawn from HESA data*

Academic year

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

% change2006-07 to

2010-11

Undergraduate FTE inmodern foreignlanguages

27,967 26,883 27,441 27,185 28,021 0%

* Includes all students across all modes of study (full-time andpart-time), from all domiciles (home, EU and international), andin all years of study. Excludes Open University.

Higher Education: Online CoursesQuestion

Asked by Lord Taylor of Warwick

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is theirassessment of the impact on the provision of universityeducation of the publication by leading UnitedKingdom universities of degree resources online.

[HL4232]

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: The UK must be at theforefront of developments in educational technology.Open online courses present an opportunity for us towiden access to, and meet the global demand for,higher education. Recent initiatives by the Open Universityand others will make high-quality UK-produced academiccontent freely available to anyone who wishes to studyit. We congratulate the Open University and its partnerson this.

House of Lords: AppointmentsQuestion

Asked by Lord Tebbit

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by Lord Strathclyde on19 November (WA 320), when they expect to starton the process of achieving the objective of creatinga second Chamber that is reflective of the share ofthe vote secured by the political parties in the lastgeneral election. [HL4052]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (LordStrathclyde): It remains the Government’s continuedintention that Lords appointments will be made withthe objective of creating a second Chamber that isreflective of the share of the vote secured by thepolitical parties in the last general election, and thiscommitment is taken into account by the Prime Ministerwhen making appointments.

House of Lords: CateringQuestion

Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark

To ask the Chairman of Committees whether hewill ensure that foie gras is removed from the menuof all catering establishments in the House of Lords.

[HL4301]

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel): Theonly outlets where foie gras had been on the menuwere the Barry Room and the Peers’ Dining Room,during December 2012. Foie gras has now been removedfrom the menu in both outlets.

Foie gras has also been an option for menus forbanqueting events, but will be removed from futurebanqueting menus.

House of Lords: MembersQuestion

Asked by Lord Ashcroft

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to theWritten Answer by Lord McNally on 10 December(WA 196), what steps they take to ensure that allMembers of the House of Lords retain the correctcitizenship status to be a Member of the House.

[HL4192]

WA 53 WA 54[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordMcNally): Since it was established in May 2000, theHouse of Lords Appointments Commission has askednon-party-political nominees to confirm their nationalityand hereditary Peers elected in a by-election are requiredto confirm they are not disqualified for membershipof the House of Lords, but Members’ nationality isnot actively monitored thereafter.

House of Lords: Private Members’ BillsQuestion

Asked by Lord Laird

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assistancein the preparation of Private Members’ Bills wasprovided by the Department of Energy and ClimateChange in (1) the 2010–12 Session, and (2) thisSession. [HL4118]

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: No direct assistance inthe preparation of Private Members’ Bills has beenprovided by the department during the previous andcurrent Sessions. This is because no Private Members’Bills were tabled which fitted in with agreed policy ofthe department. The department does, however, endeavourto support Members whenever it can if their proposedPrivate Members’ Bills fit in with departmental policy.

HousingQuestions

Asked by Lord Taylor of Warwick

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what stepsthey are taking to make family housing moreaccessible. [HL4042]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesandLocalGovernment(BaronessHanham):The Government believe that local communities shoulddetermine the right mix of new housing for their area.In June 2010 we removed the national minimum densitytarget from Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing) togive local authorities the flexibility to set density rangesthat suit the local needs in their areas—particularly forfamily houses. The National Planning Policy Frameworkmakes clear that councils should plan to meet theobjectively assessed needs for market and affordablehousing in the housing market area. As part of this,they should plan for a mix of housing based on currentand future demographic trends, market trends and theneeds of different groups in the community, such asfamilies with children.

The Homes and Communities Agency is expectingthat delivery of larger family homes through the newAffordable Homes Programme is broadly in line withthe proportion delivered through the earlier NationalAffordable Homes Programme. Around 29% of thehomes will be family-sized homes (3+ bedrooms).

The Government are also committed to helpingpeople access all types of housing, including familyhousing, by providing help with mortgage finance.Over £900 million is being invested by governmentand housebuilders through FirstBuy to help up to27,000 first-time buyers into home ownership by March2014. FirstBuy offers an equity loan of up to 20% of

the property value which can be used towards the costof purchasing a home. 45.7% of FirstBuy sales to theend of September 2012 were properties of three ormore bedrooms. The NewBuy Guarantee scheme helpsbuyers realise their aspirations for home ownershipwith a 5% deposit. The Government provide the necessaryguarantee to support lenders to offer 95% loan-to-valuenew-build mortgages.

Asked by Baroness Whitaker

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measuresthey are taking to improve the design quality ofnew-build housing. [HL4238]

Baroness Hanham: Our housing strategy, Layingthe Foundations: A Housing Strategy for England, waspublished in November 2011. It emphasises that gettingthe quality, sustainability and design of housing rightis crucial if communities are going to support newhomes.

In line with this, the National Planning PolicyFramework published in March 2012 makes clear thatgood design is a key aspect of sustainable development,is indivisible from good planning and should contributepositively to making places better for people. Specificallyit sets out that: permission should be refused fordevelopment of poor design; great weight should begiven to outstanding or innovative designs; proposalsthat have evolved to take account of the views of thecommunity should be looked on more favourably; andlocal planning authorities should have local designreview arrangements in place.

In addition, we are currently funding the DesignCouncil CABE to provide design review services. Thisenables developers and local authorities to get potentialschemes reviewed by an independent panel of experts,who provide advice on how the scheme design couldbe improved.

We have also supported the development of theBuilding for Life design checklist. This is promoted bythe Home Builders Federation and the Design Councilas a reference tool that can be used at the pre-applicationstage to help frame local discussions about the designof a new housing scheme.

Asked by Baroness Whitaker

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyplan to introduce minimum space and storagestandards for new homes as part of their review ofhousing standards. [HL4239]

Baroness Hanham: No decisions have been madeabout standards for space and storage in the review oflocal housing standards. Ministers will receiverecommendations for their consideration in due course.

Asked by Baroness Whitaker

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the current minimum spacestandards applicable to new affordable housingdevelopments. [HL4240]

WA 55 WA 56[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

Baroness Hanham: Information on the designand sustainability standards used by the Homes andCommunities Agency can be found online at: www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/ourwork/design-and-sustainability-standards.

Information on how the quality of housing schemesis measured is at: www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/hqi.

Asked by Baroness Whitaker

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the cost implications of (1) theLifetime Homes Standards, (2) the Code for SustainableHomes, and (3) minimum space standards for publichousing for new developments in England. [HL4241]

Baroness Hanham: The Department for Communitiesand Local Government commissioned analysis of thecost implications of Lifetime Homes Standards byBuilding Cost Information Service in 2009, whichestimated costs ranging between £199 and £2,500 perunit for different home types and designs.

The cost of the Code for Sustainable Homes hasbeen regularly assessed, and the last report was publishedin 2011. This indicated that extra over costs can rangebetween £230 and £40,000 per unit, depending ondifferent code level, home type and design, and location.The latest cost report is available at this link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cost-of-building-housing-to-the-code-for-sustainable-homes-standard-updated-cost-review.

The Department for Communities and LocalGovernment has not made any estimate of the costimplications of space standards.

Asked by Baroness Whitaker

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the regulations relating toinformation required for the marketing of newhomes and what consideration they have given tothe proposals made by the Royal Institute of BritishArchitects for an industry-wide voluntary agreementregarding the quality and nature of informationprovided in marketing information for the sale ofhomes. [HL4242]

Baroness Hanham: Striking the right balance in theregulatory system is very important. We need to protectconsumers while eliminating the avoidable burdens ofregulation and bureaucracy to promote growth, innovationand social action.

To protect consumers, the marketing of new homesis covered by general marketing and consumer protectionlaws. There is also a requirement that an energyperformance certificate must be made available toprospective home purchasers.

To remove unnecessary red tape, we abolished theprevious Government’s home information packs becausethey significantly increased the cost of moving homefor sellers and resulted in duplicated costs as buyersdid not trust the information. We have also recentlyannounced our intention to repeal the PropertyMisdescriptions Act 1991 as the Consumer Protection

from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 provide adequatesimilar protections against false or misleading commercialpractices in this sector, as in other sectors.

We would welcome further industry initiatives inresponse to the proposal from the Royal Institute ofBritish Architects and Future Homes Commission.This could build on the consumer code for house-builders,which is an example of an existing voluntary industry-wideinitiative to make the home-buying process fairer andmore transparent for purchasers.

Asked by Baroness Whitaker

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what conditionsor expectations are set out in agreements withdevelopers for the disposal of public land for thepurpose of new housing development as to thedesign quality of the homes that will be built.

[HL4262]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whatrequirements are set out for developers taking partin the Build Now Pay Later scheme in respect of thedesign quality of homes built on surplus publicsector land. [HL4263]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measuresthey are taking to ensure that new homes built onsurplus public sector land are of a good designquality. [HL4264]

Baroness Hanham: As part of the Government’spublic land programme, departments are freeing uptheir surplus, formerly used land, with developmentpotential, particularly for housing. Each landowningdepartment is responsible for the disposal of its landand the contracts it uses, including Build Now PayLater terms, and these will be tailored on a site-by-sitebasis.

The National Planning Policy Framework sets outthe Government’s planning policies on design, makingit clear that good design is a key aspect of sustainabledevelopment. Matters of design quality for homes onpublic land and all sites are for local decision, as theyimportantly need to respect the local character andenvironment of the area. I refer my noble friend to theanswer given to my honourable friend the Member forSouth Staffordshire on 7 January (Official Report,col. 127W), which provides more detail about thesteps being taken by the Government to encouragegood design.

Immigration: DetentionQuestions

Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportionof detainees without authorisation to be in theUnited Kingdom have been incarcerated for (1) oneyear, and (2) over two years. [HL4127]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, of the detaineeswithout authorisation to be present in the UnitedKingdom who have been incarcerated for over twoyears, how many were (1) released, (2) forciblyreleased, and (3) kept in detention, during the lastfive years. [HL4128]

WA 57 WA 58[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, HomeOffice (Lord Taylor of Holbeach): The number ofpersons detained under Immigration Act powers at30 September 2012, the latest date for which publishedinformation is available, was 3,091; 149 were detainedfor one year or more and, of these, 27 were detained fortwo years or more.

I have assumed that by “forcibly released” you referto individuals whose release has been ordered by thecourts. We have provided information relating to thosereleased on bail, but do not hold information centrallyon whether temporary admission or release is given asthe result of a court order or following the UK BorderAgency’s review of detention. Information on thenumber of individuals leaving detention, includingthe reasons and length of detention, is only availablefrom 2010.

Of those detained for two years or more:77 persons left detention in 2010. Of these, 26 were

removed and 15 were granted temporary admission orrelease. A further 31 were granted bail.

118 persons left detention in 2011. Of these, 29 wereremoved and 23 were granted temporary admission orrelease. A further 61 were granted bail.

55 persons left detention in 2012 up to 30 September2012, the latest date for which published informationis available. Of these, 19 were removed and 13 weregranted temporary admission or release. A further22 were granted bail.

Detailed information on people in detention, bylength of detention, is released quarterly in table dt.9.q,and people leaving detention in tables dt.05.q anddt.06.q of Immigration Statistics, which is availablefrom the Library of the House and from the HomeOffice’s Science, Research and Statistics website at:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/immigration-asylum-research/immigration-tabs-q3-2012/detention-q3-2012-tabs?view=Binary

Detention is a necessary part of the process toremove some individuals with no right to be in theUK. We always seek to remove those with no right tobe here as quickly as possible but if detainees give falseor incomplete information or submit spurious last-minuteappeals, then in such cases, it can delay their returnand extend their detention.

Asked by Lord Roberts of LlandudnoTo ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they

will establish an independent panel to review thecases of detainees without authorisation to be presentin the United Kingdom who are held for lengthyperiods. [HL4129]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The establishment ofsuch a panel is not considered to be necessary orappropriate. Exercise of immigration detention powersis a matter for the Secretary of State. Decisions tomaintain detention are kept under regular review atsuccessively higher levels in the UK Border Agency,with cases involving particularly lengthy detentionbeing reviewed at director level. The legality of detentioncan be challenged in the courts, as well as the individualhaving the right to apply for bail at any time.

Immigration: HandcuffsQuestion

Asked by Baroness SternTo ask Her Majesty’s Government how many

times (1) handcuffs, and (2) escort chains, were usedon children by escort providers escorting childrento or from (a) immigration reception centres, (b) thepre-departure accommodation, The Cedars, and(c) immigration detention centres, during the latest12-month period for which figures are available,and during the three preceding 12-month periods.

[HL3533]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, HomeOffice (Lord Taylor of Holbeach): Handcuffs are onlyever used on children as a last resort where it is strictlynecessary to prevent self-harm or escape, or to protectothers and property. Escorting officers do not usechains.

The detention and escorting contract transferred toReliance Secure Task Management on 1 May 2011.From May 2011 to the present date, there have notbeen any instances of officers using handcuffs onchildren when escorting them to or from the pre-departureaccommodation or immigration removal centres. Thereare no facilities called immigration reception centres.

Data from the previous escorting provider are notavailable.

The information is taken from data normally usedfor management information only. It has not beensubject to the detailed checks that apply for NationalStatistics publications and is provisional and subjectto change.

IsraelQuestion

Asked by Baroness TongeTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions

theyhavehadwiththeGovernmentof Israelconcerningany long-term ceasefire they were negotiating withHamas before the recent hostilities started.[HL4187]

TheSeniorMinisterof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesand Local Government & Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Baroness Warsi): We are aware of media reportsabout a possible full ceasefire proposal before therecent violence in Gaza and southern Israel. However,wehavenotdiscussedthis issuewiththeIsraeliGovernment.

Following the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire on21 November, the priority now must be to address theunderlying causes of the conflict, including more openaccess to and from Gaza for people and goods, and anend to the smuggling of weapons. It is important thatmomentum towards finding a solution to the problemsof Gaza is maintained.

Israel and PalestineQuestions

Asked by Baroness UddinTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment

they have made of the impact of the reported raidsby Israeli forces on the offices of Palestinian human

WA 59 WA 60[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

rights organisations, including the offices of theUnion of Palestinian Women Committees and thePalestinian NGO Network. [HL4146]

TheSeniorMinisterof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesand Local Government & Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Baroness Warsi): We are deeply concerned bythe incursion by Israeli security forces into Ramallahon11Decembertoraidtheofficesof threenon-governmentalorganisations(NGOs)withwhichtheEUhasimplementedco-operationprojects—Addameer,theUnionof PalestinianWomen Committees (UPWC) and the Palestinian NGONetwork (PNGO).

Incursions by Israeli forces into Palestinian citieswhere the Palestinian Authority under the Osloaccords assumes the powers and responsibilities forinternal security and public order put in jeopardythe internationally recognised success of Palestinianinstitution-building efforts.

Asked by Baroness Tonge

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recentdiscussions they have had with the Government ofIsrael concerning the recommendation of the Foreignand Commonwealth Office report Children in MilitaryCustody that military law and public administrationshould deal with Palestinian children on an equalfooting with Israeli children. [HL4184]

Baroness Warsi: Our ambassador to Tel Aviv hasdiscussed the report’s findings with the Israeli Attorney-General and Deputy Attorney-General and with theIsraeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We will continuedialogue with the Israeli authorities on this issue.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forForeign and Commonwealth Affairs, my honourablefriend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Mr Burt),has also written to the Israeli ambassador on thissubject and has met Baroness Scotland, as one of theauthors, to discuss follow-up to the report.

Asked by Baroness Tonge

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recentrepresentations they have made to the Governmentof Israel concerning Palestinian farmers in Jayyousand elsewhere who are unable to access their landbecause of the security barrier. [HL4188]

Baroness Warsi: Through our embassy in Tel Aviv,we have lobbied the appropriate authorities on theissue of movement and access. We continue to workclosely with the quartet and EU partners, and to callon Israel to ease restrictions on access.

The UK position on the separation barrier is clear:if Israel wished to build the barrier, it should havebeen built on the 1967 border—and where it is constructedon the Palestinian side of that border, it is illegal underinternational law.

According to the UN Office for the Co-ordinationof Humanitarian Affairs there are now 522 obstacleswhich restrict Palestinian access, compared to 503 atthe end of 2010. This is a clear increase and it is clear

that more needs to be done, particularly in the JordanValley and Palestinian land on the Israeli side of theseparation barrier.

We will continue to argue for a just outcome for allthe people affected by illegal settlement constructionand the confiscation of land due to the separationbarrier. This includes funding from the Departmentfor International Development for the Norwegian RefugeeCouncil to provide legal support to communities affectedby the occupation.

Asked by Lord Hylton

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what hasbeen the total cost of Mr Tony Blair and his supportingstaff in his role as Quartet Envoy to the MiddleEast; and what is the United Kingdom share ofthat cost. [HL4326]

Baroness Warsi: The Government do not provideany financial contribution to the Office of the QuartetRepresentative. However, we do currently second twocivil servants to the Office of the Quartet Representativein London, and one to the Office of the QuartetRepresentative in Jerusalem, to support the work ofthe quartet in reinforcing the prospects of a resolutionof the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Government do not hold information on thetotal cost of Tony Blair’s role as Quartet Envoy.

Asked by Lord Hylton

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theywill make representations to the Government ofIsrael about access to the Old City of Jerusalem forpilgrims and students coming from the West Bank,Jordan and Israel, in line with United Nationsresolutions on the matter. [HL4365]

Baroness Warsi: We remain deeply concerned aboutrestrictions on freedom of movement between theWest Bank and East Jerusalem, and elsewhere in theOccupied Palestinian Territories. Through our embassyin Tel Aviv, we have lobbied the appropriate authoritieson the issue of movement and access. We continue towork closely with the quartet and EU partners, and tocall on Israel to ease restrictions on access.

Israel and Palestine: West BankQuestion

Asked by Baroness Tonge

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussionsthey have had with the Government of Israelconcerning the break-in and removal of all computerhard disks from the human rights offices of Addameerand other community organisations in Ramallah.

[HL4185]

TheSeniorMinisterof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesand Local Government & Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Baroness Warsi): We are deeply concerned bythe incursion by Israeli security forces into Ramallahon11December,toraidtheofficesof threenon-governmental

WA 61 WA 62[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

organisations,includingAddameer,theUnionof PalestinianWomenCommitteesandthePalestinianNon-GovernmentalOrganisation Network.

Incursions by Israeli forces into Palestinian citieswhere the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo Accordsassumes the powers and responsibilities for internalsecurityandpublicorderput in jeopardythe internationallyrecognized success of Palestinian institution buildingefforts.

Officials at our embassy in Tel Aviv are activelyseeking an opportunity to raise this raid with theIsraeli authorities.

Justice: Confiscation OrdersQuestions

Asked by Lord Thomas of GresfordTo ask Her Majesty’s Government how many

prisoners are currently serving a term of imprisonmentfor default in the payment of confiscation orders.

[HL4222]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordMcNally): The National Offender Management Serviceand the Ministry of Justice Analytical Services areunable to obtain information from their data systemsin relation to how many offenders are currently servinga confiscation default sentence for non-payment ofconfiscation orders. In addition, if the court has invokedthe default sentence and if the offender is still servingtheir substantive prison sentence they will not beclassed as serving their default sentence until afterthey have served their main sentence.

Asked by Lord Thomas of GresfordTo ask Her Majesty’s Government how much

was recovered from confiscation orders in 2011.[HL4223]

Lord McNally: A record amount of £120.8 millionwas recovered from confiscation orders in Englandand Wales during the financial year of 2011-12.

Asked by Lord Thomas of GresfordTo ask Her Majesty’s Government how many

confiscation orders resulted in default sentencesbeing activated in 2011. [HL4224]

Lord McNally: HMCTS has eight regional confiscationunits and the breakdown of the number of defaultprison sentences activated for non-payment of confiscationorders during 2011-12 is recorded in the table below.

HMCTS RegionalConfiscation Unit

Number of default sentencesactivated during 2011-12

London 66Midlands (east) 27Midlands (west) 41North East 37North West 67South East 48South West 35Wales 6Total 327

Asked by Lord Thomas of Gresford

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what range ofdefault sentences were set by the Crown Courts fornon-payment of confiscation orders in 2011.

[HL4225]

Lord McNally: The minimum prison default sentencefor non-payment is seven days for outstanding amountsup to £200, while the maximum additional sentence is10 years for outstanding amounts over £1 million.

The table below records the sliding scale of defaultprison sentences against the amount left outstanding,all of which were allocated during 2011-12.

Amount Default Period

Not exceeding £200 7 daysExceeding £200 but less than£500

14 days

Exceeding £500 but less than£1,000

28 days

Exceeding £1,000 but less than£2,500

45 days

Exceeding £2,500 but less than£5,000

3 months

Exceeding £5,000 but less than£10,000

6 months

Exceeding £10,000 but less than£20,000

12 months

Exceeding £20,000 but less than£50,000

18 months

Exceeding £50,000 but less than£100,000

2 years

Exceeding £100,000 but lessthan £250,000

3 years

Exceeding £250,000 but lessthan £1,000,000

5 years

Exceeding £ 1,000,000 10 years

Asked by Lord Thomas of Gresford

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what types ofoffence resulted in confiscation orders being madein 2011. [HL4226]

Lord McNally: During the 2011-12 financial year,20 of the 21 offence categories were used for grantconfiscation orders. No confiscation orders were grantedunder terrorism during 2011-12.

The table below records the volume and value ofconfiscation orders granted during 2011-12, undereach offence category.

OffenceVolume of Orders

GrantedValue of Orders

Granted

Arms Trafficking 7 £1,766,873.33Bribery andCorruption

11 £1,716,429.75

Burglary/Theft 512 £5,697,593.23Counterfeiting/Intellectual Property/Forgery

135 £8,814,064.66

Drug Trafficking 3,333 £45,428,479.24Excise Duty Fraud 46 £2,917,292.68

WA 63 WA 64[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

OffenceVolume of Orders

GrantedValue of Orders

Granted

Handling StolenGoods

63 £868,691.02

Intellectual PropertyCrime

13 £186,313.94

Money-laundering -Drugs

257 £12,407,865.56

Money-laundering -Other

333 £32,106,071.95

Other Crime 127 £8,556,117.70Other Fraud/Embezzlement/Deception/Crimes ofdishonesty

904 £36,014,747.14

People Trafficking 32 £2,179,856.14Pimps and Brothels/Prostitution/Pornography

51 £3,372,369.73

Robbery 103 £513,453.21Tax and BenefitFraud

300 £14,215,450.13

Terrorism 0 0.00Trading StandardsOffences

3 £473,820.00

Unknown 12 £150,134.32VAT Fraud 25 £10,165,274.51Vehicle Offences 3 £111,772.35Grand Total 6,270 £187,662,670.59

Asked by Lord Thomas of Gresford

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is theirestimate of the cost of confiscation proceedings in2010 and 2011 arising out of court hearings, the useof expert witnesses, enforcement and default prisonsentences. [HL4227]

Lord McNally: HM Courts and Tribunals Servicesystems do not identify the cost of confiscationproceedings, including court hearings, the use of expertwitnesses, enforcement and default prison sentences.To provide an estimate would require liaising withmany government departments and would incurdisproportionate costs. Furthermore it is difficult toset an average cost, as some confiscation cases arestraightforward while others such as fraud are verycomplex and would be lengthy and include manyspecialists.

KenyaQuestions

Asked by Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whatconsideration they have given to the issue of anapology to Kenyan victims of torture during the1950s Kenyan Emergency. [HL4103]

TheSeniorMinisterof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesand Local Government & Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Baroness Warsi): We understand the pain andgrievance felt by all those involved in the divisive andbloody events of the emergency period in Kenya. Weacknowledge that the claimants in the related casecurrently before the High Court may have suffered

torture and ill treatment. However, in light of theongoing legal proceedings it would not be appropriateto comment further.

Asked by Baroness Kinnock of HolyheadTo ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they

will meet the Kenyan Human Rights Commissionto discuss the setting up of a welfare fund forKenyan victims of torture and violence and degradingtreatment by the British colonial authorities duringthe 1950s Kenyan Emergency. [HL4104]

Baroness Warsi: It would not be appropriate tocomment on the possibility of a welfare fund whilethere is an ongoing legal case in the High Court.

Liver BirdQuestion

Asked by Lord StoreyTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what

representations they have made to (1) LiverpoolFootball Club, (2) Liverpool City Council, (3) theUK Intellectual Property Office, and (4) the EuropeanUnion Office for Harmonization in the InternalMarket, regarding the rights associated with theuse of the Liver Bird; and, if they have not maderepresentations, whether they will do so. [HL4275]

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: There has been norecent contact between the UK Intellectual PropertyOffice (IPO) and either Liverpool Football Club orLiverpool City Council regarding use of the LiverBird in their logos. In April 2009, an official from IPOheld a discussion with representatives of both LiverpoolFootball Club and Liverpool City Council to offeradvice in relation to their continued and joint use ofthe Liver Bird.

IPO has not discussed this matter with, nor madeany representations to, the Office for the Harmonisationof the Internal Market, and is not aware of anydiscussions between that office and Liverpool FootballClub or Liverpool City Council.

Localism Act 2011Question

Asked by Baroness WhitakerTo ask Her Majesty’s Government to what extent

the duty to co-operate introduced in the LocalismAct 2011 applies to co-operation between publicbodies for individual development sites; and whetherthey will consider measures to require co-operationbetween public bodies and private companies onindividual sites. [HL4243]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesandLocalGovernment(BaronessHanham):The duty to co-operate applies to the preparation oflocal and marine plans where local planning authorities,county councils and prescribed bodies are planning forstrategiccross-boundarymatters.Localplanningauthoritiesreport to their communities on their actions under theduty in their authority monitoring report at least annually.The duty is intended to support the joint workingnecessary for good plan-making and this may includework with private partners where appropriate. Public

WA 65 WA 66[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

bodies subject to the duty are required to have regardto the activities of local enterprise partnerships whenpreparing local plans, bringing together public andprivate sector organisations. The duty does not applyto the development management process but there is asimilar expectation around effective joint working.

London Underground: Line ExtensionsQuestion

Asked by Lord BerkeleyTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their

estimate of the cost of extending the Northern Lineto Battersea Power station; and what contributionthe developer of that site will make. [HL4289]

Earl Attlee: The costs of the extension are notexpected to exceed £1 billion in outturn prices. Furtherdesign works will be required to provide a more accurateforecast of the capital costs, which will also be dependenton the timing of construction.

Transport for London is currently working with theLondon boroughs of Wandsworth and Lambeth, theGreater London Authority and private developers tofinalise the project’s funding and financing solution.The developer of the Battersea Power Station site iscommitted to providing £211.6 million (this figure willbe subject to indexation) of funding towards infrastructureworks, as set out in its Section 106 agreement. At least72% of this will be used to fund the Northern Lineextension.

Muslim BrotherhoodQuestion

Asked by Lord PattenTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their

assessment of whether the Muslim Brotherhoodpresents any terrorist threat globally. [HL4160]

TheSeniorMinisterof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesand Local Government & Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Baroness Warsi): The Muslim Brotherhood is adiverse movement that has its own political parties in anumber of countries. We will engage with politicalparties where they respect the democratic process andhave a commitment to human rights, the rule of lawand non-violence. We do not consider the MuslimBrotherhood to be a terrorist organisation.

NHS: ContractsQuestion

Asked by Lord BeechamTo ask Her Majesty’s Government how many

NHS contracts are currently placed with organisationsowned by private equity companies. [HL4255]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): Contracts to provide goodsand services to National Health Service bodies aregenerally let by the NHS bodies themselves. As aconsequence the department does not hold informationon the corporate structure of suppliers awarded thesecontracts.

NHS: DataQuestion

Asked by Lord Taylor of Goss MoorTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what applications

they have (1) received, and (2) granted, fromorganisations which collect data from NHS users inNHS hospital maternity units regarding the permissionof onward sale of that data to other organisationsand individuals. [HL4206]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): The Health and Social CareInformationCentre(HSCIC)isthecentralbodyresponsiblefor undertaking national collections of data from healthand care organisations, including data on maternityservices. The HSCIC routinely publishes and sharesthe data it collects so that they can be used to supportthe delivery of healthcare services but—crucially—onlyin ways that do not identify individuals. Identifiabledata are released by the HSCIC only where consenthas been obtained or where there is another basis inlaw to release it.

The HSCIC receives applications for specific extractsof the data it holds to be provided for particularpurposes as part of a bespoke data extract service. Allapplications for such data extracts are assessed by thecentre to ensure there is a valid and appropriate purposefor the intended use of the data. If they includeidentifiable data, the applicant must have the appropriatelegal approval to see the data. In addition, a customerof the service can only hold the data having signed adata reuse agreement which contains strict conditionsabout how the data are to be used.

The HSCIC operates this service on a cost recoverybasis. That means that any charges made by HSCICcover only the resource cost of providing the data. Nocharge is made for the data itself.

The HSCIC records requests for bespoke data extractsaccording to the customer rather than the subjectmatter of the data. As a result, this information is notstored in a way that allows any requests which mayhave included maternity data to be identified withoutexamining every extract request manually.

Dame Fiona Caldicott is currently leading anindependent review, commissioned by the Government,to examine and report on how we can strike the rightbalance between appropriately safeguarding people’shealth and care data while ensuring we are able toharness the enormous power information has to transformpeople’s experience of care. That review is expected toreport early in 2013.

NHS: FundingQuestions

Asked by Baroness PitkeathleyTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the

cost to the National Health Service in the period2007-2012, as captured by the National ProgrammeBudgeting Database, of funding continuing healthcarepackages for patients’ ongoing health and socialcare needs, broken down by medical speciality.

[HL4133]

WA 67 WA 68[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was thecost to the National Health Service in the period2007-2012 of funding continuing healthcare packagesfor patients’ ongoing health and social care needsarising from problems of vision, broken down byprimary care trust. [HL4134]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was thecost to the National Health Service in the period2007-2012 of funding continuing healthcare packagesfor patients’ ongoing health and social care needsarising from neurological problems, broken downby primary care trust. [HL4135]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): The cost of funding NationalHealth Service continuing healthcare packages is notcaptured specifically by National Programme Budgeting.Since 2009, the department has collected informationon the total cost of NHS continuing healthcare packagesthrough a financial information management system1.The annual costs are as follows:

2009-10 - £2,030,071,000;2010-11 - £2,186,171,000; and2011-12 - £2,324,655,000.

This information is not available broken down bymedical specialty.

Note:1This is management information and is not audited for

departmental records

NHS: General PractitionersQuestion

Asked by Lord Taylor of Warwick

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what stepsthey are taking to minimise patient services beingcut by general practitioners. [HL4361]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): The proposed changes to thegeneral practitioners’ (GP) contract for 2013-14 aredesigned to improve the range and quality of servicesprovided by GP practices.

The Government’s evidence to the Review Body onDoctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration proposes thatGP practices should also receive an uplift in fundingfor 2013-14 to allow up to a 1% increase in pay forGPs and practice staff and additional funding toreflect increases in non-staff expenses.

NHS: Liverpool Care PathwayQuestions

Asked by Lord Patten

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether allpatients who are intended to be placed on the LiverpoolCare Pathway, and their legal carers, (1) must beinformed by hospital staff of that intention, and(2) have the absolute right to decline this form ofcare. [HL4071]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): The Liverpool Care Pathway(LCP) is an option for clinicians to help manage thecare of people in their last days or hours of life,complementing the skill and expertise of the practitionerusing it. It requires senior doctors and nurses involvedin a patient’s care to agree that death is very likely to beimminent, and that being placed on the LCP wouldreduce a patient’s distress, discomfort and pain. Thatdecision involves the clinician choosing the best approachto care for an individual patient, whether curativetreatment, palliative care, or a mixture of both. TheLCP documentation is very clear that the decisionshould involve the patient and family members whereverpossible. The LCP is not a treatment but a frameworkfor managing treatments. Consent is therefore notrequired for the LCP itself, but normal consent rulesapply to treatments while someone is on the LCP. If, aspart of the discussions between the patient, family andhealthcare team, it becomes clear that someone did notwish LCP to be used to help manage their care, thenthe healthcare team should respect that choice.

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool

To ask Her Majesty’s Government who has beenappointed to chair their inquiry into the operationof the Liverpool Care Pathway; with whom thechair will be working to conduct that inquiry; andwhat mandate the inquiry will have. [HL4257]

Earl Howe: We expect to announce the chair of theindependent inquiry very shortly. Once the chair is inplace, further details, including the terms of referencefor the inquiry, will be published.

North KoreaQuestions

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe answer by Baroness Warsi on 12 December(Official Report, col. 1064) and following the decisionby the Government of North Korea to test itsballistic missile technology, what message was conveyedto the ambassador from North Korea during themeeting to which he was invited at the Foreign andCommonwealth Office on 12 December; what washis response; and what contact the Foreign Secretaryhas had with the Government of China in preparationfor the meeting of the United Nations SecurityCouncil which will consider this matter. [HL4177]

TheSeniorMinisterof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesand Local Government & Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Baroness Warsi): The North Korean ambassadorwas summoned to the Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (FCO) by the Permanent Under-Secretary ofState for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, myhonourablefriendtheMemberforNorthEastBedfordshire(Mr Burt), on 12 December. Alistair Burt condemnedNorth Korea’s satellite launch, made clear that it was aviolation of UN Security Council Resolution 1874 and

WA 69 WA 70[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

emphasised the importance of North Korea adheringto its international obligations. He also pointed outthat North Korea should prioritise its resources onfeeding its people, avoid further provocative actionand take urgent steps to re-engage constructively withthe international community.

The ambassador’s response was consistent withpublic statements by the North Koreans.

The Minister of State for Foreign and CommonwealthAffairs, my right honourable friend the Member forEast Devon (Mr Swire), met the North Koreanambassador on 19 December. He repeated the UK’sstrong condemnation of the satellite launch and explainedthat under international law North Korea must adhereto the obligations placed on it by the UN SecurityCouncil. He reiterated the Government’s call for NorthKorea to focus its resources on improving the lives ofthe North Korean people.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and CommonwealthAffairs, my right honourable friend the Member forRichmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), did not have anycontact himself with the Chinese Government beforethe UN Security Council meeting on 12 December.However, in advance of the satellite launch, he instructedour embassy in Beijing to speak to the ChineseGovernment to explain our position. Officials fromthe FCO in London also spoke to the Chinese embassyand our ambassador to North Korea met the Chineseambassador in Pyongyang to reiterate these messages.

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussionshave taken place in the United Nations SecurityCouncil following the launch of a ballistic missileby North Korea; what bilateral discussions theyhave had with China; and what measures are beingtaken in response by the international community.

[HL4258]

Baroness Warsi: The UN Security Council heldurgent consultations following the launch on 12 Decemberof North Korea’s Eunha 3 rocket. In that meeting,members of the Security Council condemned the launchas a clear violation of Security Council resolutions1718 and 1874. They recalled that in April 2012 thecouncil demanded that North Korea not proceed withany further launches using ballistic missile technology.Consultations on the exact nature of the SecurityCouncil’s response are ongoing between council members.

Officials at the UK Mission to the UN have alsodiscussed the satellite launch with officials at the ChineseMission to the UN as part of wider efforts to secure astrong UN response. Our embassy in Beijing has alsospoken to the Chinese Foreign Ministry and set outour position in an attempt to secure Chinese supportfor an appropriate Security Council response.

We and other like-minded partners remain focusedon seeing the Security Council agree an appropriateresponse to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’slaunch. EU member states will then consider theirown response, in light of decisions taken by the SecurityCouncil. At the same time, other international partnerssuch as South Korea and Japan are also consideringbilateral responses to the satellite launch.

OfstedQuestion

Asked by Baroness Sharp of GuildfordTo ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to

the Written Answer by Lord Hill of Oareford on24 September (WA 326) regarding complaints toOfsted, whether details of complaints are madepublic, and if so where; and what was the outcomeof the two complaints against further educationcolleges which were not concluded at the time theQuestion was answered. [HL4144]

Baroness Garden of Frognal: This question is amatter for Ofsted. The Deputy Chief Inspector, Education,Children’s Services and Skills, John Goldup, has writtento the noble Baroness, and a copy of his response hasbeen placed in the House Libraries.

Letter from John Goldup, Deputy Chief Inspector,Education, Children’s Services and Skills, Ofsted, toBaroness Sharp of Guildford, dated 13 December 2012.

Your recent Parliamentary Question has been passedto Ofsted for response. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspectoris away, and I am replying on his behalf.

I can confirm that we do not currently make publicdetails of complaints about Ofsted’s work. However,the annual report of the Independent ComplaintsAdjudication Service for Ofsted (ICASO) evaluateshow complaints have been handled when complainantsremain dissatisfied following our internal investigationsinto their concerns. The ICASO annual report isavailable on its website at: http://www.ofstedadjudicationservice.co.uk/

In terms of the two complaints by further educationcolleges where investigations had not been completedat the time the previous Parliamentary Question wasanswered, one related to the inspection judgmentsawarded, and one related to aspects of inspector conduct,administrative issues and the inspection judgments.None of these concerns was upheld following complaintinvestigations.

A copy of this reply has been sent to Lord Hill ofOareford, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forSchools, and will be placed in the Libraries of bothHouses.

Older PeopleQuestion

Asked by Lord Taylor of WarwickTo ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to

the remarks by Baroness Warsi on 14 December(Official Report, col. 1328) that “the mark of agood society is how it treats its old people”, whatplans they have to encourage people in the UnitedKingdom to value older people. [HL4228]

TheSeniorMinisterof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesand Local Government & Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Baroness Warsi): As the debate on 14 Decemberhighlighted, the contribution of older people to oursociety is considerable and wide-ranging. The peoplewho benefit from that contribution—whatever form ittakes—already hold them with great value.

WA 71 WA 72[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

Government do recognise the importance of theissues facing people in later life and the contributionthey make to society, but do not assume that theyknow all the answers. The Age Action Alliance wascreated in recognition of the need for a radical shift inapproach. The alliance’s vision is informed and drivenby older people themselves, sharing a vision of improvingolder people’s lives and creating neighbourhoods whereall older people are secure, valued and able to make acontribution to their local communities and widersociety.

UK Older People’s Day is held on 1 October andcelebrates the contribution older people make to oursociety. The purpose of the day is to be a nationalcelebration of the achievements and contributionsthat older people make to our society and to theeconomy. Supported by the Department for Work andPensions, Older People’s Day is a means throughwhich we can progressively address negative attitudesand outdated stereotypes.

Community events such as the Big Lunch have alsoshown themselves to be good vehicles for bringing thegenerations together. In 2012 8.5 million people tookpart, with events often involving an intergenerationalaspect. In rural Cleveland, targeted support madepossible by this department gave an isolated communitya big boost with teenagers helping older residents totake part in the Big Lunch.

Organisation for Economic Co-operationand Development

QuestionAsked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by Lord Sassoon on 6 December(WA 203–4), whether the voluntary contributionof ¤150,000 to the Organisation for EconomicCo-operation and Development “to support rapidprogress on its work to tackle the profit shifting andthe erosion of the corporate tax base at the globallevel” is directly linked to a specific deliverable andagreed timetable. [HL4322]

Lord Newby: The Organisation for the EconomicCo-operation and Development’s (OECD) work isimportant to help promote a better way of dealingwith profit shifting and the erosion of the corporatetax base at the global level. The OECD will report tothe G20 Finance Ministers on progress in February2013. The timetable and direction for further work bythe OECD will be set following consideration of theFebruary report.

Given the complex issues involved and the need togather evidence, the voluntary contributions to thiswork will help make progress in achieving concreteresults.

Overseas AidQuestion

Asked by The Earl of Sandwich

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how muchfunding the Department for International Developmenthas allocated in the last two financial years for(1) agriculture, (2) forestry, (3) fisheries, and(4) livestock, broken down by country. [HL4137]

Baroness Northover: DfID uses input sector codesto collect information on sectoral spend across itsbilateral programme. Information on how much isspent by sector is published annually through its Statisticson International Development publication and at moredetailed sectoral level through a set of additionaltables. This information can be found at the followinglink: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/About-us/How-we-measure-progress/Aid-Statistics/Statistics-on-International-Development-2012/.

The tables below provide details of bilateral spendingin agriculture, forestry, fisheries and livestock brokendown by country and regional programme in financialyears 2010-11 and 2011-12. The department also providesfinance for these sectors through core contributions tomultilateral organisations. For example, the UnitedNations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO)received £32 million in 2010-11, with elements of thisfunding being used for agricultural purposes.

Bilateral sector spending, by country, 2010-11£ thousandCountry Agriculture Fisheries Forestry Livestock Grand Total

Afghanistan 5,088 - - 6 5,094Africa Regional 11,984 2,813 1,515 1 16,314Asia Regional - - 13 - 13Brazil - - 24 - 24Burma 2.706 - - 375 3,081Cambodia 455 280 253 - 988Cameroon - - 257 - 257China 884 - - - 884Ethiopia 15,838 - - - 15,838

Ghana 70 - 607 - 677

India 6,888 - - - 6,888

Indonesia - - 753 - 753

Kenya 17 - - - 17

Liberia - - 146 - 146

Malawi 4,097 - - - 4,097

Mozambique 192 - - - 192

WA 73 WA 74[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

Bilateral sector spending, by country, 2010-11£ thousandCountry Agriculture Fisheries Forestry Livestock Grand Total

Nepal 1,602 - 3,200 - 4,802Nicaragua 113 - - - 113Nigeria 294 - - 694 988Pakistan 2,192 - - - 2,192Rwanda 4,283 - - - 4,283South Africa,Republic of 1

-319 - - - -319

South of SaharaRegional

36 - - - 36

St Helena - 169 - - 169Sudan 1,214 - - - 1,214Tajikistan, Republicof

11 - - - 11

Tanzania 467 - - - 467Uganda 334 - - 334

Yemen 1,021 - - - 1,021Zimbabwe 4,281 - - - 4,281Non-specificCountry

5,050 48 52,872 1,205 59,174

Grand Total 68,799 3,310 59,640 2,281 134,030

1 Reimbursement of funds to programme.2 Spending on agriculture based on Input Sector Codes

31110, 31120, 31130 and 31191.3 Spending on fisheries based on Input Sector Codes 31310

and 31320.

4 Spending on forestry based on Input Sector Codes 31210and 31220.

5 Spending on livestock based on Input Sector Codes 31163.

- represents zero expenditure

Bilateral sector spending, by country, 2011-12£ thousandCountry Agriculture Fisheries Forestry Livestock Grand Total

Afghanistan 3,540 - - 20 3,560Africa Regional 3,661 1,834 404 - 5,900Asia Regional - - 30 - 30Burma 8,375 - - 875 9,250Cameroon - - 516 - 516China - - 44 - 44Congo (Dem Rep) - - 70 - 70Ethiopia 16,740 - - - 16,740Ghana 107 - 167 - 274India 1,762 - - - 1,762Indonesia - - 1,036 - 1,036Kenya - - - 336 336Malawi 15,246 - - - 15,246Middle East 200 - - - 200Mozambique 291 - - - 291Nepal 1,958 - 3,721 - 5,680

Nigeria 330 - - 573 903

Pakistan 415 - - - 415

Rwanda 7,115 - - - 7,115

Somali Republic 1,394 - - - 1,394

South Sudan 4,380 - 353 - 4.733

Sudan - - 566 - 566

Tajikistan, Republicof

72 - - - 72

Tanzania 3,915 - - - 3.915

Uganda - - 35 - 35

Vietnam 0 0 - - 0

Zambia 22 - - - 22

Zimbabwe 3,883 - - - 3,883

WA 75 WA 76[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

Bilateral sector spending, by country, 2011-12£ thousandCountry Agriculture Fisheries Forestry Livestock Grand Total

Non-specificCountry

5,179 4 2,317 1,091 8,591

Grand Total 78,587 1,838 9,261 2,895 92,580

1 Spending on agriculture based on Input Sector Codes31110, 31120, 31130 and 31191.

2 Spending on fisheries based on Input Sector Codes 31310and 31320.

3 Spending on forestry based on Input Sector Codes 31210and 31220.

4 Spending on livestock based on Input Sector Codes 31163.- represents zero expenditure.0 represents expenditure rounded down to zero.

Parliaments: CostsQuestion

Asked by Lord Stoddart of SwindonTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the

latest figures for the annual total costs, and cost permember, of (1) the House of Lords, (2) the Houseof Commons, and (c) the European Parliament.

[HL4062]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): The table below sets out the annual cost,number of Members and average cost per Member forthe House of Commons, House of Lords and EuropeanParliament.

Annual cost Number ofMembers

Expenditureper member

£ million £ million

House ofCommons

385 650 0.59

House ofLords

109 821-831 0.13

EuropeanParliament1

1,332 736 1.79

The figures for the House of Commons are takenfrom the House of Commons annual accounts 2011-122

(for both administrative and Members’ budgets) andthe Independent Parliamentary Standards Authorityannual accounts 2011-123.

The House of Lords figures are for taken from theHouse of Lords annual accounts 2011-124.

For the European Parliament, figures are taken fromthe European Union Budget of 2011 financial report5.The European Parliament increased from 736 Membersto 754 from 1 December 2011.

1 Reported annual cost of ¤1,555 million, converted at theDecember 2011 exchange rate of ¤1.18 = £1

2 http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/commons/resource-accounts

3 http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/About%20Us/Corporate%20Publications/Annual%20Report%20and%20Accounts%202011-%202012.pdf

4 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/Id/Idresource/35/35.pdf

5 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/00059f3ea3/The-budget-of-the-European-Parliament.html

PensionsQuestions

Asked by Lord Watson of InvergowrieTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what action

they intend to take to ensure that recipients of theBritish state pension resident overseas and whosepensions are currently frozen will in future havetheir pensions paid at the same rate as the remainingexpatriates whose pensions are uprated. [HL4325]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): There are noplans to change the current arrangements for pensionspaid overseas.

Asked by Lord RookerTo ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they

have plans to incorporate the £10 Christmas bonusfor pensioners into the basic pension, or to abolish it.

[HL4328]

Lord Freud: The £10 Christmas bonus is paid toboth pensioners and working-age people in receipt ofcertain qualifying benefits.

The majority of recipients receive their paymentautomatically with whichever qualifying benefit theyreceive, which keeps administrative costs relativelylow. There are no plans to change the way the Christmasbonus is paid or to abolish it.

PlanningQuestion

Asked by Baroness WhitakerTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions

they have had with the regulators of utility companiesabout requiring utility companies to co-operatewith public bodies in the planning of sustainabledevelopment. [HL4261]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesandLocalGovernment(BaronessHanham):In 2011, the Government undertook a consultation onthe draft Town and Country Planning (Local Planning)(England) Regulations 2012 in which the bodies subjectto the duty to co-operate were prescribed. This was ageneral public consultation and so enabled the regulatorsof utility companies to put forward their views. Theconsultation also specifically invited views on the listof bodies that should be subject to the duty.

A summary of the responses to that consultationwas published on 27 March 2012 and is availableon the departmental website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/local-planning-regulations.

WA 77 WA 78[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

Police: Aid and Development ProgrammesQuestions

Asked by Lord Chidgey

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of opportunities to review the wayin which police reform and development is administeredoverseas in countries where the United Kingdom iscontributing to this process. [HL4309]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the scope for employing UnitedKingdom police forces to deliver appropriate outcomesin aid and development programmes. [HL4311]

Baroness Northover: The Building Stability OverseasStrategy sets out the UK’s “whole of government”approach to delivering stability and development outcomesoverseas. The positive contribution that UK policeforces can make to deliver development outcomes isrecognised within this strategy. Appropriate use ofUK police expertise and experience for a particularprogramme is assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Police reform can make a critical contribution tothe development of more effective security and justiceservices in developing countries. The UK is currentlyreviewing its existing approaches for police reform inorder to prepare up-to-date guidance based on experienceand lessons learnt.

Police: Cross-Commonwealth ReformQuestion

Asked by Lord Chidgey

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the scope for developing across-Commonwealth approach to police reform,including the establishment of a register of policereform service providers within Commonwealth policeagencies. [HL4312]

TheSeniorMinisterof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesand Local Government & Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Baroness Warsi): The Commonwealth Secretariatcontinues to provide Commonwealth member stateswith support on police reform, including facilitatingco-operation between members. A recent example hasseen the Secretariat run a programme to strengthen thecapacity of the Sierra Leone police force throughpartnership with the Botswana Police College. TheUK also continues to provide support to Commonwealthmembers on police reform through our bilateral aid.Mostrecently,theDepartmentforInternationalDevelopmenthas funded programmes in Kenya, Sierra Leone, Nigeriaand Jamaica, and the International Academy of theCollegeof Policingprovidedassistanceto17Commonwealthcountries in 2012 through their training programmes.The Government have not, at this point, made anassessment of scope for further developing a cross-Commonwealth approach to police reform.

Police: Overseas ServiceQuestion

Asked by Lord Chidgey

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the demand for the provision ofUnited Kingdom policing practice and expertise bycountries in Africa. [HL4340]

The Senior Minister of State, Department forCommunities and Local Government & Foreign andCommonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi): UK policingis highly regarded internationally, and there is demandfor UK policing expertise both through multilateralmechanisms and from specific countries. While wehave not made an assessment overall of the demandwithin Africa for UK policing, requests put to theStabilisation Unit—which co-ordinates all requestsfor “non-operational”policing assistance—suggest thatdemand in Africa, as elsewhere, is high. We currentlyhave senior UK police officers serving in UN missionsto South Sudan, Liberia and Sierra Leone.

The Government’s Building Stability Overseas Strategyrecognises the contribution that our policing expertisecan make to building security, justice and broaderdevelopment outcomes.

Police: ReformQuestion

Asked by Lord Chidgey

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the effect on the police ofoutsourcing police reform and development tocommercial companies; and, what assessment theyhave made of the benefits delivered by the investmentthey have committed to such outsourcing to date.

[HL4341]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, HomeOffice (Lord Taylor of Holbeach): HM Inspectorate ofConstabulary’s Collaboration Report (July 2012) estimatedthat forces would save £169 million through collaborationby March 2015, including through collaboration withthe private sector. It is for police and crime commissionersand forces to consider whether the private sector canhelp achieve cost savings and better services for thepublic. The police remain a public service, accountableto the people.

PopulationQuestions

Asked by Lord Empey

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what forecastthey have made of the size of the population of theUnited Kingdom in 2021. [HL4285]

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The information requestedfalls within the responsibility of the UK StatisticsAuthority. I have asked the authority to reply.

WA 79 WA 80[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

Letter from Glen Watson, Director General for ONS,to Lord Empey, dated December 2012.

As Director General for the Office for NationalStatistics I have been asked to reply to your questionto Her Majesty’s Government asking what forecasthas been made of the size of the population of theUnited Kingdom in 2021. [HL4285]

Estimates of future population are available aspopulation projections. The most recent nationalpopulation projections are based on mid-year populationestimates for 2010 published in 2011, and they projectthe population of the United Kingdom to reach67.6 million by mid-2021. These projections do nottake account of results of the 2011 Census.

National population projections are not forecastsand do not attempt to predict the impact of futuregovernment policies, changing economic circumstancesor the capacity of an area to accommodate a changein population. They provide an indication of the futuresize and age structure of the population if recentdemographic trends continued.

Asked by Lord Empey

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whichdepartment or agency is responsible for assessingpopulation trends in England. [HL4287]

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The information requestedfalls within the responsibility of the UK StatisticsAuthority. I have asked the authority to reply.

Letter from Glen Watson, Director General for ONS,to Lord Empey, dated December 2012.

As Director General for the Office for NationalStatistics I have been asked to reply to your questionto Her Majesty’s Government asking which departmentor agency is responsible for assessing population trendsin England. [HL4287]

The Office for National Statistics is responsible forpopulation statistics and analyses population trends inorder to produce population projections.

Post OfficeQuestion

Asked by Baroness Byford

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much ofthe £1.34 billion allocated to the Post Office formodernising its network will be spent in rural areas.

[HL4293]

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: Post Office Ltd’s NetworkTransformation programme for modernising some 6,000branches by 2015 is operating on a voluntary basisand is still in its early stages. It is therefore not possibleto indicate how much of the funding will be spent inrural areas. Of the 307 branches which had convertedto new operating models as at end November 2012,162 are classified as rural.

Post-2015 Development AgendaQuestions

Asked by Lord Chidgey

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whatconsideration they are giving to promoting a law andjustice component within the Post-2015 DevelopmentAgenda. [HL4310]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theywill push for a post-2015 millennium developmentgoal of promoting internal security and stabilityand the rule of law. [HL4339]

Baroness Northover: Ahead of the UN High-LevelPanel (HLP) meeting on the post-2015 developmentgoals on 1 November, the UK hosted a day of seminarsfor panel members on issues that might feature in thenew framework. This included sessions on access tojustice and personal security.

As co-chair of the High-Level Panel, the PrimeMinister is keen that the post-2015 development goalstackle the root causes of poverty. This includesstrengthening the rule of law, promoting greater accessto justice and providing stable and secure environmentsfor all citizens.

Post-2015 Millennium Development GoalsQuestions

Asked by Lord Chidgey

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proceduresthey will adopt to engage directly with Members ofthe House of Commons and the House of Lords inproviding their input to, and monitoring of, thedeliberations of the High-Level Panel on Post-2015Millennium Development Goals. [HL4244]

Baroness Northover: The International DevelopmentCommittee has launched an inquiry into the post-2015development agenda. The Department for InternationalDevelopment, the Department of Energy and ClimateChange and the Department for Environment, Foodand Rural Affairs provided joint written evidence andthe Secretary of State for International Development,the right honourable Justine Greening MP, gave oralevidence in November 2012. Her Majesty’s Government(HMG) Ministers are also engaging directly inparliamentary debates, such as the adjournment debatesin the House of Commons (January and October2012) and the Lords debate in November 2012. HMGare also answering large numbers of ParliamentaryQuestions about the post-2015 development goals andengaging with parliamentarians through All-PartyParliamentary Groups.

Asked by Lord Chidgey

To ask Her Majesty’s Government which civilsociety organisations have held discussions withthe High-Level Panel on Post-2015 MillenniumDevelopment Goals. [HL4245]

WA 81 WA 82[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

Baroness Northover: In parallel to the High-LevelPanel meetings, held in New York and London, aglobal online civil society consultation provided theopportunity to respond to questions on individualand household poverty.

Many members of the High-Level Panel have organisedtheir own national or regional consultations—manyof them with civil society representatives.

Asked by Lord ChidgeyTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what topics

were discussed, and what were the outcomes ofthese discussions, at the last meeting of the High-LevelPanel on Post-2015 Millennium Development Goals.

[HL4246]

Baroness Northover: The first substantive meetingof the post-2015 High-Level Panel took place in Londonin early November. The panel discussed individualand household level poverty—with a particular emphasison human development, jobs and livelihoods. In a dayof UK-hosted seminars, panellists also addressed keyissues related to poverty reduction with some of theworld’s foremost experts—including sessions on futuresocial and economic projections, the rule of law andgood stewardship of natural resources. Panellists agreedon a set of questions that set the agenda for the panel’swork and will frame its report. They discussed elementsof a vision statement where there was strong supportfor ending poverty in our time while putting in placethe building blocks of sustained prosperity.

Prisoners: Ethnicity and ReligionQuestions

Asked by Baroness UddinTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what information

they collect on prisoners’ ethnicity and religiousbackgrounds; and what are the most recent figuresfor which information is available. [HL4348]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what datathey hold on the number of religious conversions inprison. [HL4349]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordMcNally): Tables A and B provide information onpopulation in prison establishments by ethnicity andreligion as at 30 September 2012.

Information on the number of prisoners who convertto each religion while in prison is not held centrally.The data held centrally relate to prisoners’ currentdeclared religion, not any previously declared religion.

These figures have been drawn from administrativeIT systems which, as with any large scale recordingsystem, are subject to possible errors with data entryand processing.

Prisoners: MuslimsQuestion

Asked by Baroness UddinTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what specialist

advisers are employed within the prison service inrelation to Muslim detainees; and what are theirroles and responsibilities. [HL4350]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordMcNally): There are a range of specialists employedby the National Offender Management Service tomeet the needs of prisoners generally. The service alsoemploys a Muslim adviser to advise specifically onIslamic issues relating to prisoners and to be one ofthe tiers of approval in the appointment process of allMuslim chaplains. Chaplaincy teams in prisons willinclude Muslim chaplains whose role includes providingreligious and pastoral support to Muslim prisoners.

Prisons: Lincoln PrisonQuestion

Asked by Baroness Stern

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyhave responded to the finding by HM Chief Inspectorof Prisons in his report on Lincoln Prison publishedin October 2012 that the data provided evidence ofunequal treatment of black and minority ethnicprisoners. [HL4319]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordMcNally): NOMS is committed to fairness for all inits duty of care towards prisoners. Prison ServiceInstruction 32/2011 “Ensuring Equality” sets out thepolicy approach and lists key mandatory actions designedto ensure legal compliance in prison establishments.This is supplemented by comprehensive guidance. Thiscompliance is audited. In the course of 2012-13 it isproposed to improve on the range and quality ofmonitoring data with the aim of driving forwardimprovements at both national and local levels.

Since the inspection of HMP Lincoln a new governorhas been appointed and he has introduced newarrangements related to equality issues to engage withprisoners in minority groups, including those fromblack and minority ethnic communities.

As with all establishment inspection reports byHMIP, NOMS intends to produce an action planresponding to all the recommendations made in thereport between three and six months after the date ofpublication. I will therefore write to the noble Baronessdetailing the response to the specific recommendationsabout this matter once the plan has been sent to thechief inspector.

Asked by Baroness Stern

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyhave sought an explanation for the finding of HMChief Inspector of Prisons in his report on LincolnPrison published in October 2012 that work, trainingand education places in a new academy were almostempty whilst up to half the prisoners were locked intheir cells during the working part of the day.

[HL4321]

Lord McNally: Since the inspection a new governorhas been appointed to HMP Lincoln. He is workingclosely with a new learning and skills provider andother partners to improve and monitor attendance atwork, training and education places. They are committedto delivering an appropriate level of offender learning

WA 83 WA 84[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

to meet the needs of prisoners, and thereby improvingon the previous arrangements and partnership workingthat existed.

Work is also under way on the reorganisation ofLincoln, in order to deliver a more effective regime.

As with all establishment inspection reports byHMIP, NOMS intends to produce an action planresponding to all the recommendations made in thereport between three and six months after the date ofpublication. I will therefore write to the noble Baronessdetailing the response to the specific recommendationsabout this matter once the plan has been sent to thechief inspector.

Railways: StationsQuestions

Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussionsthey have had with relevant agencies about thereopening of a rail station in Walworth. [HL4302]

Earl Attlee: We are not aware of any discussionsthat have taken place with agencies about the reopeningof a rail station in Walworth.

Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what publicmoney has been spent on the following railwaystations (1) New Cross, (2) New Cross Gate, (3)St John’s, (4) Lewisham, and (5) Ladywell, in 2010and 2011. [HL4303]

Earl Attlee: Under the National Stations ImprovementProgramme (NSIP) £695,000 and £95,000 were spenton improvements to the waiting accommodation atLewisham Station in 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively.

Under the Access for All (AfA) main programme,£138,000 has been spent so far at New Cross towards a£2.5 million project and £171,000 at New Cross Gatetowards a £4 million project, most of which will havebeen spent in 2010 and 2011. As part of the AfA smallscheme programme, a further £65,000 was spent atNew Cross Gate in 2009-10 and 2010-11.

At Lewisham, a £5.7 million Access for All projectwas completed in 2010, although only a minimal amountof this sum would have been spent in 2010.

Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how muchthey have spent on (1) Elephant and Castle, and(2) Denmark Hill, railway stations in (a) 2010, and(b) 2011. [HL4351]

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: Under the NationalStations Improvement Programme (NSIP) £11,000,£30,000 and £879,000 was spent on station improvementsat Denmark Hill station in 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12respectively.

£3.4 million of funding under the Access for All(AfA) main programme has also been spent towards a£4.18 million project at Denmark Hill, which is duefor completion in 2013. Of this, £400,000 was spent in2010 and £1.6 million in 2011.

Under the station commercial project facility, £328,000was awarded in 2011 for new station ticket gates and£80,000 to improve retail facilities for passengers atDenmark Hill.

There isnorecordof equivalentexpenditureatElephantand Castle.

RodentsQuestions

Asked by Lord LairdTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate

they have made of the rat population in (1) England,(2) Wales, (3) Greater London, and (4) NorthernIreland, in each of the past 15 years for whichinformation is available. [HL4121]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord DeMauley): Defra has made no estimate of the size of therat population in England, Wales, Greater London orNorthern Ireland in any of the last 15 years.

Defra has published data on rodent presence indomestic dwellings. The most recent information publishedby Defra is a report in May 2010 of the interimanalysis of rodent presence in domestic propertiesfrom data for 2005, 2006 and 2007. This reported thatthere was no significant increase in rat presence insidedwellings between 1996 and 2007. The presence of ratsoutside dwellings increased between 1996 and 2001but between 2001 and 2007, although the presence ofrats outside dwellings fluctuated, there were no statisticallysignificant increases or decreases.

Asked by Lord LairdTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps

they have (1) taken, and (2) plan to take, to reducethe rodent population in (a) Greater London,(b) England, (c) Wales, and (d) Northern Ireland.

[HL4122]

Lord De Mauley: Responsibility for dealing withproblems caused by wild animals normally rests withthe occupier of the land concerned.

Under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act1949, local authorities are responsible for ensuringthat their districts are kept, as far as is practicable, freeof rats. The Act gives local authorities the power torequire landowners and occupiers to control ratinfestations on their land. A local authority can also,where necessary, carry out the control work itself andrecover the cost of such action from the landowner oroccupier.

Natural England provides advice on controlling ratinfestations; its publication Rats: Options for ControllingInfestations is available on its website.

Schools: Primary School PlacesQuestion

Asked by Lord DykesTo ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they

plan to provide extra funding to increase primaryschool places in the Greater London area. [HL4046]

WA 85 WA 86[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forSchools (Lord Hill of Oareford): The department providesbasic need funding to local authorities to support theprovision of additional pupil places and we will confirmthe 2013-14 allocations by the end of January 2013.The Chancellor, as part of the recent Autumn Statement,announced that an additional £980 million of investmentto support the creation of new pupil places will bemade in schools in England by the end of this Parliament.The department will make further information aboutthis funding available in the new year.

Asked by Lord DykesTo ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they

have made any assessment of the availability ofprimary school places, including state-funded churchschools, in London. [HL4047]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forSchools (Lord Hill of Oareford): The department collectspupil place data from all local authorities through theAnnual Schools Capacity Survey. The most recentinformation, which includes state-funded church schools,relates to the position as at May 2011 and shows thatthere were 1,779 primary schools in London providing622,597 primary places. Also as at May 2011, a totalof 40,353 unfilled places were available across London.The data to provide detail on the May 2012 positionwill be available in the new year.

Scotland: IndependenceQuestion

Asked by Lord LairdTo ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they

will make representations to the Government ofIceland about the remarks by that country’s President,Olafur Grimson, that independence for Scotlandcould be the “road towards prosperity and a goodsociety”. [HL4252]

TheSeniorMinisterof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesand Local Government & Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Baroness Warsi): There are no plans for theGovernment to make representations to the IcelandicGovernmentaboutthereferendumonScottishindependence.

As the Government have made clear, any decisionson Scotland’s future are for the people in Scotland todecide. The Government are confident that Scotlandwill choose to remain part of the UK and are thereforenot planning for any other outcome. The governmentposition is clear: Scotland is stronger in the UK andthe UK is stronger with Scotland in it.

Sport: Motor RacingQuestion

Asked by Lord RookerTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress

they have made regarding allowing motor racing onclosed public roads. [HL4332]

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: The Department forTransport is currently considering the case for makingit easier to hold on-road motor racing events andintends to consult in the spring.

SudanQuestions

Asked by Lord Avebury

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theywill seek to ensure that the Paris Club opposes anydebt relief for Sudan until the Government of thatcountry have been shown to have ceased all militaryaction against civilians in Darfur, South Kordofanand Blue Nile. [HL4017]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): Any future debt relief for Sudan would takeplace as part of a wider reform programme that maybe prepared by the IMF and would be subject todecisions made by the boards of the IMF, WorldBank and Paris Club, on which the UK Governmentare represented. This would be subject to the samerequirements and obligations as for any other country.

It is important that the Government of Sudandemonstrate their full commitment to the reduction ofpoverty across the whole country. Ongoing conflictsare a significant cause of poverty and an obstacle tothe implementation of development plans.

Asked by Baroness Cox

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what furtherpressure they will put on the Government of Sudanto allow access for humanitarian aid for the peoplesof South Kordofan and Blue Nile states, particularlyin view of the Sudan People’s Liberation MovementNorth’s offer to initiate a ceasefire to facilitatehumanitarian aid access. [HL4336]

Baroness Northover: We welcome the statement bythe Sudan People’s Liberation Movement North on19 December expressing their readiness for a ceasefire.It is now imperative that they, and the Government ofSudan, enter into direct talks immediately and withoutpreconditions, aimed at a cessation of hostilities. Apolitical settlement remains the best hope for thepeople of the South Kordofan and Blue Nile states.Working with the United Nations, African Union,League of Arab States and other international partners,we will continue to press both sides to co-operate sothat we see these talks begin and full humanitarianaccess granted.

SyriaQuestions

Asked by Lord Hylton

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the provision of European Unionand other international aid and supplies to Turkey,Jordan and Lebanon to assist Syrian refugees inthose countries. [HL4234]

Baroness Northover: The European Union has providedsubstantial funding for the crisis in Syria, includingfor refugees in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq.Total EU humanitarian funding for the Syria response

WA 87 WA 88[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

to date is well over ¤320 million. ¤120 million of thistotal is provided by the European Commission, withover ¤200 million by member states. The UK is aleading donor among the EU member states, providing£68.5 million, at least £24 million of which is going tohelp refugees in neighbouring countries.

The UK continues to monitor the situation closelyand actively consider what more we can do. We arecalling on the international community, including theEU, to step up and provide more funding, or co-ordinatebilateral assistance with the UN appeals.

Asked by Baroness CoxTo ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they

will make representations to the Government ofSyria to allow access by international aid organisationsto all civilians including Christians and other religiousminorities in Aleppo and Homs. [HL4337]

Baroness Northover: The UK is calling on all partiesto the conflict in Syria to facilitate improved access,respect international humanitarian law, facilitate safepassage for humanitarian workers and supplies, andpermit civilians to evacuate conflict zones safely. Mostrecently we did this at the Friends of Syria meeting on12 December 2012. We are also working closely withthe UN on this matter. The UN’s Humanitarian Affairsand Emergency Relief Co-ordinator, Baroness Amos,recently visited Syria and met the Syrian ForeignMinister, Walid Muallem, to discuss humanitarianaccess, among other issues.

Asked by Baroness CoxTo ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they

will make representations to the Governments ofGreece and Turkey to allow access for refugeesfrom the fighting in Syria. [HL4338]

Baroness Northover: There are over 550,000 refugeesfrom Syria in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. Wewelcome the generous effort of these countries inhosting thousands of refugees and co-ordinating withthe UN-led humanitarian response to assist them. Wehave been clear in our engagement with host Governments,including Turkey’s, to press the importance of keepingtheir borders open to allow refugees to flee the violencein Syria, in line with international law. We understanda small number of Syrians have requested asylum inGreece. The UK is providing assistance to Greece toimprove their immigration and asylum managementin the context of the EU’s support for Greece’s actionplan.

The UK has provided £68.5 million to assist peopleaffected by the violence in Syria, including £24 millionto support refugees. We continue actively to considerwhat more we can do to ease the desperate suffering ofthe Syrian people.

Taxation: AvoidanceQuestions

Asked by Lord Kennedy of SouthwarkTo ask Her Majesty’s Government how many

large multinational companies they estimate aretrading in the United Kingdom and organisingtheir tax affairs to pay little or no corporation tax.

[HL4029]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): All multinationals plan and manage theirtax compliance. The amount of tax they have to pay isaffected by a range of factors, including how theyarrange their affairs. There are a range of rules designedto ensure that profits earned in the UK are taxed here.HM Revenue & Customs ensures that multinationalspay the tax that is due under UK tax law.

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what stepsthey will take to avoid any tax avoidance arisingfrom their proposal for employees to exchange sharesfor employment rights; and whether they agree withthe Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessment ofthe potential risk of avoidance or evasion arisingfrom the proposal. [HL4085]

Lord Sassoon: The Government are introducing anew employee shareholder employment status. Employeesadopting the new status will receive a minimum of£2,000-worth of shares. Any gains made, on up to£50,000-worth of shares, will be exempt from capitalgains tax (CGT).

The Government will take steps to preventmanipulation of CGT exemption available on sharesreceived under the status. The draft capital gains taxlegislation, published on 11 December 2012, sets out anumber of anti-avoidance provisions, including rulesto preserve the integrity of the £50,000 limit and toprevent those in control of a company from accessingthe CGT exemption.

The Government agree with the Office for BudgetResponsibility (OBR) that predicting take-up of newpolicies, such as the new employment status, is difficult.However, some further clarification is needed. TheOBR refers to tax planning—not avoidance. Encouragingtake-up of this targeted employment policy shouldnot be misconstrued as encouraging avoidance. Inaddition, the potential costs of the policy referred toby the OBR are estimated to take place well beyondthe end of the forecast period.

If further provisions are needed to address particularavoidance risks, the Government will have the opportunityto include these at a later date, with a view to ensuringthat this policy does not become disproportionatelycostly to the taxpayer. The Government keep all areasof tax policy under review at all times.

Taxation: Income TaxQuestion

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how manypeople are projected to be paying income tax at the40% rate in the financial years 2012-13 and 2013-14;and how many paid income tax at that rate in2009-10. [HL4004]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): The number of people with higher-rate incometax liabilities is projected at 4.10 million in 2012-13and 4.72 million in 2013-14. In 2009-10, 3.19 millionpeople paid income tax at that rate.

WA 89 WA 90[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

These estimates are based on the 2009-10 Survey ofPersonal Incomes data, projected to 2012-13 and 2013-14,using economic assumptions consistent with the Officefor Budget Responsibility’s December 2012 economicand fiscal outlook.

Thames TunnelQuestion

Asked by Lord Berkeley

To ask Her Majesty’s Government which companywill be responsible for developing and financing theconstruction of the Thames Tunnel Project andwhether it will adopt the Equator Principles inarranging its financing. [HL4194]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord DeMauley): Thames Water Utilities Ltd (TWUL) is thesewerage undertaker in London and is responsible forensuring a solution to ongoing sewage discharges intothe Thames.

While a final decision is yet to be taken, the currentworking assumption is that the proposed ThamesTideway Tunnel would be financed and built by adedicated infrastructure provider (IP) procured viacompetitive tender by TWUL. The IP would be anindependent company separate from TWUL with itsown licence from Ofwat.

Equator Principles are a voluntary set of standardsdeveloped by private sector banks for determining,assessing and managing environmental and social riskswhen considering project finance investments. Theprinciples are not designed for companies seekinginvestments in utility services under a well establishedregulatory regime which already balances the economic,social and environmental aims of sustainable development.

It is unlikely that there would be benefit for ThamesWater customers in restricting investment to institutionsthat have signed up the Equator Principles, but anytender specification for an IP is for Thames Water todetermine within the regulatory framework.

Turks and Caicos IslandsQuestion

Asked by Lord Jones of Cheltenham

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of progress in the Turks and CaicosIslands since the cessation of direct rule and theelection of a new Government in November 2012.

[HL4191]

TheSeniorMinisterof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesand Local Government & Foreign and CommonwealthOffice(BaronessWarsi):TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, myhonourable friend the Member for Boston and Skegness(Mr Simmonds), visited the Turks and Caicos Islandson 26 to 28 November and had discussions with PremierEwing, his new Government and a wide range ofstakeholders. Mr Simmonds and the Premier had abilateral meeting in London on 3 December and PremierEwingtookpart intheOverseasTerritoriesJointMinisterialCouncil from 4 to 5 December.

Premier Ewing’s new Government have set out anambitious agenda for the Turks and Caicos Islandswhich includes the development of the economy, educatingand empowering its people, creating opportunities forits workforce, moving towards self-reliance in key areas,the restoration of national pride and achieving desiredstandards in healthcare and the security of its borders.

UnemploymentQuestion

Asked by Lord Taylor of Warwick

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the willingness to work of thoseexperiencing long-term unemployment. [HL4231]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): All those countedin the Labour Force Survey as unemployed, includingthe long-term unemployed, must have looked for workin the last four weeks and be available to take up workin the next two weeks. People not actively looking for ajob are counted as economically inactive rather thanunemployed.

People claiming jobseeker’s allowance for more than12 months are still required to bring evidence of jobsearch to their fortnightly job search review at theJobcentre, in addition to activity they are doing to findwork supported by their work programme provider.

The department is aware of the challenges currentlyfacing jobseekers in the labour market and a substantialbody of support has been put in place to help peoplemove into work. Jobcentres currently offer claimants acomprehensive menu of help including skills provisionand job search support. This is bolstered by a numberof specific measures including work experience placements,the work programme, the youth contract and supportfor those looking to start their own business throughthe new enterprise allowance.

Previousrecessionshavetypicallyseenarise in inactivity,including more people claiming unemployment-relatedbenefits who had reduced their job search efforts. Nosuch trend has been seen this time around: excludingfull-time students, the inactivity rate is the lowest sincerecords began in 1993.

Universal CreditQuestions

Asked by Lord Greaves

To ask Her Majesty’s Government which areasof the country will be covered by the universalcredit pilots due to commence in April 2013.

[HL4109]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): Pathfinder is theearly implementation of universal credit in April 2013,in the Greater Manchester and Cheshire area, whichwill enable us to test the end-to-end process in advanceof the national launch of universal credit in October2013.

WA 91 WA 92[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

The people who will be able to claim universal creditduring pathfinder will be single, unemployed peoplewith or without rented housing costs, who live in theTameside,Wigan,OldhamandWarringtonlocalauthorityareas.

Asked by Lord GreavesTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what provision

and support will be provided for universal creditclaimants who do not have access to the internet athome, and for those who do not have the ability touse the internet. [HL4111]

Lord Freud: Universal credit will be predominantlyonline, although telephony and face-to-face channelswill remain available. At whatever point claimantsenter the system, they will be signposted to the mostappropriate channel for their needs.

We recognise some claimants do not have access tothe internet and will require support to go online. Ourcurrent plans are to provide claimants with help to getonline and to stay online over the phone and toprovide access to the internet at jobcentres and throughpartners.

Winter Fuel PaymentsQuestion

Asked by Lord RookerTo ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they

will consider taxing winter fuel payments for pensionersrather than means-testing those payments.[HL4330]

Lord Newby: The Government have no plans tomeans-test winter fuel payments or make them taxable.The coalition agreement set out that the Governmentwill protect key benefits for older people, includingwinter fuel payments.

Written Ministerial StatementsQuestion

Asked by Lord Hughes of Woodside

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to theWritten Answer by Lord Strathclyde on 12 November(WA 249), and in the light of Recommendation 42of the Report of the Leader’s Group on WorkingPractices (HL Paper 136, Session 2010–12), whetherthey will issue guidance that Ministers should publishwritten responses to all substantial points raised inHouse of Lords debates and not answered orally inthe Official Report as Written Ministerial Statements.

[HL4209]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (LordStrathclyde): I do not intend to issue such guidance toMinisters. The Official Report is held in perpetuityand covered by parliamentary privilege, and thereforenot every written response by a Minister to a pointraised in a debate in the House will be suitable forpublication as a Written Ministerial Statement.

WA 93 WA 94[8 JANUARY 2013]Written Answers Written Answers

Tuesday 8 January 2013

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TOWRITTEN STATEMENTS

Col. No.Banks: Business Bank.......................................................... 1

Copyright ............................................................................ 2

Correction to Commons Written Answer ............................ 3

Crime: Domestic Violence ................................................... 4

Department for Communities and Local Government ........ 5

EU: European Council ........................................................ 8

EU: Transport Council ........................................................ 9

Col. No.Flooding............................................................................ 11

Government Car and Dispatch Agency ............................. 13

Government: Coalition Government ................................. 15

Licensing: Entertainment................................................... 16

NHS: South London Healthcare NHS Trust ..................... 17

Ports .................................................................................. 19

Railways: Franchises.......................................................... 20

Youth Justice Board........................................................... 21

Tuesday 8 January 2013

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERSCol. No.

Abortion.............................................................................. 1

Adoption ............................................................................. 2

Afghanistan......................................................................... 3

Agriculture: Soil Management............................................. 3

Airports: Gatwick and Heathrow ........................................ 4

Airports: Security ................................................................ 4

Armed Forces: Afghanistan................................................. 5

Arms Trade Treaty............................................................... 5

Arts: Funding...................................................................... 6

Asylum Seekers ................................................................... 6

Bank of England ................................................................. 8

Banking ............................................................................... 8

Banking: European Central Bank........................................ 8

Banks: Iceland..................................................................... 9

Banks: Lending.................................................................. 10

Benefits.............................................................................. 10

Burma ............................................................................... 12

Carbon Monoxide Poisoning............................................. 17

Children: Data Sharing...................................................... 17

Dentistry: Dental Hygienists.............................................. 18

Drones ............................................................................... 18

Col. No.Drugs................................................................................. 18

Drugs: Orphan Medicines.................................................. 19

Economy ........................................................................... 19

Economy: Cost of Living................................................... 20

Education: English Language ............................................ 20

Elections: Devolved Administrations................................. 21

Elections: Voting Age ........................................................ 21

Embryology ....................................................................... 22

Energy: Biofuels ................................................................ 25

Energy: Green Deal ........................................................... 25

Energy: Prices .................................................................... 25

Energy: Smart Meters........................................................ 26

EU: Banking...................................................................... 27

EU: Competence ............................................................... 27

EU: Justice and Home Affairs Powers ............................... 27

EU: Prisoner Voting .......................................................... 28

EU: Trade Agreements ...................................................... 28

European Commission ...................................................... 29

Falklands War Veterans..................................................... 29

Finance: Isle of Man and Channel Islands ........................ 30

Financial Services Authority.............................................. 31

Col. No.Fire and Rescue Service ..................................................... 31

Food: Climate Change....................................................... 32

Forced Marriage ................................................................ 32

Gambia.............................................................................. 33

Gaza .................................................................................. 34

Gibraltar............................................................................ 34

Government Departments: Budgets................................... 35

Government Departments: Legislation.............................. 35

Government Departments: Publications............................ 36

Government Departments: Staff........................................ 37

Government: Ministerial Guidance ................................... 37

Guernsey Financial Services Commission ......................... 37

Gypsies and Travellers ....................................................... 38

Health: Accident and Emergency Departments ................. 40

Health: Ambulance Service................................................ 41

Health: Asbestos-related Disease ....................................... 42

Health: Atypical Haemolytic Uraemic Syndrome.............. 42

Health: Birth Defects......................................................... 42

Health: Bounty .................................................................. 44

Health: Cardiology ............................................................ 46

Health: Consultancy Services ............................................ 48

Health: Finance-related Ill-health...................................... 47

Health: Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis ............................. 48

Health: Infection Control .................................................. 49

Health: Miscarriage ........................................................... 50

Health: Neurology ............................................................. 50

Health: Obesity.................................................................. 51

Health: Parkinson’s Disease .............................................. 52

Higher Education: Modern Languages.............................. 52

Higher Education: Online Courses .................................... 53

House of Lords: Appointments ......................................... 53

House of Lords: Catering .................................................. 54

House of Lords: Members................................................. 54

House of Lords: Private Members’ Bills ............................ 55

Housing ............................................................................. 55

Immigration: Detention..................................................... 58

Immigration: Handcuffs .................................................... 60

Israel.................................................................................. 60

Col. No.Israel and Palestine ............................................................ 60

Israel and Palestine: West Bank ......................................... 62

Justice: Confiscation Orders .............................................. 63

Kenya ................................................................................ 65

Liver Bird .......................................................................... 66

Localism Act 2011 ............................................................. 66

London Underground: Line Extensions ............................ 67

Muslim Brotherhood ......................................................... 67

NHS: Contracts................................................................. 67

NHS: Data ........................................................................ 68

NHS: Funding................................................................... 68

NHS: General Practitioners............................................... 69

NHS: Liverpool Care Pathway .......................................... 69

North Korea ...................................................................... 70

Ofsted ................................................................................ 72

Older People ...................................................................... 72

Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment ................................................................. 73

Overseas Aid...................................................................... 74

Parliaments: Costs ............................................................. 77

Pensions............................................................................. 78

Planning ............................................................................ 78

Police: Aid and Development Programmes........................ 79

Police: Cross-Commonwealth Reform ............................... 79

Police: Overseas Service ..................................................... 80

Police: Reform ................................................................... 80

Population ......................................................................... 80

Post Office ......................................................................... 81

Post-2015 Development Agenda........................................ 82

Post-2015 Millennium Development Goals ....................... 82

Prisoners: Ethnicity and Religion ...................................... 83

Prisoners: Muslims ............................................................ 83

Prisons: Lincoln Prison...................................................... 84

Railways: Stations.............................................................. 85

Rodents ............................................................................. 86

Schools: Primary School Places ......................................... 86

Scotland: Independence..................................................... 87

Sport: Motor Racing ......................................................... 87

Col. No.Sudan ................................................................................ 88

Syria .................................................................................. 88

Taxation: Avoidance .......................................................... 89

Taxation: Income Tax........................................................ 90

Thames Tunnel .................................................................. 91

Col. No.Turks and Caicos Islands................................................... 91

Unemployment .................................................................. 92

Universal Credit ................................................................ 92

Winter Fuel Payments ....................................................... 93

Written Ministerial Statements .......................................... 94

NUMERICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERSCol. No.

[HL3533] ........................................................................... 60

[HL3892] ............................................................................. 6

[HL3952] ............................................................................. 5

[HL3961] ........................................................................... 35

[HL4001] ........................................................................... 36

[HL4004] ........................................................................... 90

[HL4006] ........................................................................... 37

[HL4017] ........................................................................... 88

[HL4018] ........................................................................... 38

[HL4019] ........................................................................... 38

[HL4020] ........................................................................... 47

[HL4029] ........................................................................... 89

[HL4042] ........................................................................... 55

[HL4043] ........................................................................... 41

[HL4044] ........................................................................... 40

[HL4046] ........................................................................... 86

[HL4047] ........................................................................... 87

[HL4052] ........................................................................... 53

[HL4053] ........................................................................... 37

[HL4055] ........................................................................... 36

[HL4062] ........................................................................... 77

[HL4071] ........................................................................... 69

[HL4080] ........................................................................... 17

[HL4084] ............................................................................. 8

[HL4085] ........................................................................... 90

[HL4093] ........................................................................... 10

[HL4094] ........................................................................... 36

[HL4097] ............................................................................. 1

[HL4103] ........................................................................... 65

[HL4104] ........................................................................... 66

Col. No.[HL4107] ............................................................................. 3

[HL4108] ............................................................................. 3

[HL4109] ........................................................................... 92

[HL4111] ........................................................................... 93

[HL4114] ........................................................................... 25

[HL4118] ........................................................................... 55

[HL4120] ........................................................................... 36

[HL4121] ........................................................................... 86

[HL4122] ........................................................................... 86

[HL4125] ........................................................................... 10

[HL4127] ........................................................................... 58

[HL4128] ........................................................................... 58

[HL4129] ........................................................................... 59

[HL4131] ............................................................................. 6

[HL4133] ........................................................................... 68

[HL4134] ........................................................................... 69

[HL4135] ........................................................................... 69

[HL4137] ........................................................................... 74

[HL4144] ........................................................................... 72

[HL4146] ........................................................................... 61

[HL4147] ........................................................................... 12

[HL4148] ........................................................................... 13

[HL4149] ........................................................................... 13

[HL4152] ........................................................................... 22

[HL4153] ........................................................................... 22

[HL4154] ........................................................................... 22

[HL4160] ........................................................................... 67

[HL4161] ........................................................................... 45

[HL4162] ........................................................................... 44

[HL4164] ........................................................................... 45

Col. No.[HL4166] ........................................................................... 45

[HL4167] ........................................................................... 11

[HL4168] ............................................................................. 8

[HL4170] ............................................................................. 8

[HL4173] ........................................................................... 50

[HL4174] ........................................................................... 24

[HL4175] ........................................................................... 24

[HL4176] ........................................................................... 24

[HL4177] ........................................................................... 70

[HL4178] ........................................................................... 32

[HL4179] ........................................................................... 32

[HL4180] ........................................................................... 14

[HL4181] ........................................................................... 14

[HL4182] ........................................................................... 15

[HL4184] ........................................................................... 61

[HL4185] ........................................................................... 62

[HL4186] ........................................................................... 34

[HL4187] ........................................................................... 60

[HL4188] ........................................................................... 61

[HL4189] ........................................................................... 34

[HL4190] ........................................................................... 51

[HL4191] ........................................................................... 91

[HL4192] ........................................................................... 54

[HL4194] ........................................................................... 91

[HL4196] ........................................................................... 49

[HL4197] ........................................................................... 49

[HL4198] ........................................................................... 35

[HL4201] ........................................................................... 33

[HL4202] ........................................................................... 33

[HL4203] ........................................................................... 33

[HL4204] ........................................................................... 33

[HL4205] ........................................................................... 32

[HL4206] ........................................................................... 68

[HL4207] ........................................................................... 46

[HL4208] ........................................................................... 46

[HL4209] ........................................................................... 94

[HL4210] ........................................................................... 18

[HL4211] ........................................................................... 42

Col. No.[HL4212] ........................................................................... 42

[HL4213] ........................................................................... 43

[HL4214] ........................................................................... 43

[HL4215] ........................................................................... 44

[HL4217] ........................................................................... 27

[HL4218] ........................................................................... 19

[HL4219] ........................................................................... 37

[HL4220] ........................................................................... 20

[HL4221] ........................................................................... 30

[HL4222] ........................................................................... 63

[HL4223] ........................................................................... 63

[HL4224] ........................................................................... 63

[HL4225] ........................................................................... 64

[HL4226] ........................................................................... 64

[HL4227] ........................................................................... 65

[HL4228] ........................................................................... 72

[HL4229] ........................................................................... 20

[HL4230] ........................................................................... 18

[HL4231] ........................................................................... 92

[HL4232] ........................................................................... 53

[HL4233] ........................................................................... 48

[HL4234] ........................................................................... 88

[HL4235] ........................................................................... 18

[HL4236] ............................................................................. 7

[HL4238] ........................................................................... 56

[HL4239] ........................................................................... 56

[HL4240] ........................................................................... 56

[HL4241] ........................................................................... 57

[HL4242] ........................................................................... 57

[HL4243] ........................................................................... 66

[HL4244] ........................................................................... 82

[HL4245] ........................................................................... 82

[HL4246] ........................................................................... 83

[HL4247] ........................................................................... 25

[HL4248] ........................................................................... 42

[HL4251] ........................................................................... 28

[HL4252] ........................................................................... 87

[HL4253] ............................................................................. 9

Col. No.[HL4255] ........................................................................... 67

[HL4256] ............................................................................. 2

[HL4257] ........................................................................... 70

[HL4258] ........................................................................... 71

[HL4259] ............................................................................. 2

[HL4260] ............................................................................. 9

[HL4261] ........................................................................... 78

[HL4262] ........................................................................... 58

[HL4263] ........................................................................... 58

[HL4264] ........................................................................... 58

[HL4265] ........................................................................... 27

[HL4266] ........................................................................... 48

[HL4267] ........................................................................... 49

[HL4268] ........................................................................... 19

[HL4272] ........................................................................... 21

[HL4274] ........................................................................... 21

[HL4275] ........................................................................... 66

[HL4279] ........................................................................... 52

[HL4280] ........................................................................... 52

[HL4281] ........................................................................... 50

[HL4282] ........................................................................... 50

[HL4283] ........................................................................... 51

[HL4284] ........................................................................... 50

[HL4285] ........................................................................... 80

[HL4287] ........................................................................... 81

[HL4289] ........................................................................... 67

[HL4290] ........................................................................... 29

[HL4293] ........................................................................... 81

[HL4294] ........................................................................... 26

[HL4298] ........................................................................... 11

[HL4299] ............................................................................. 4

[HL4300] ............................................................................. 4

[HL4301] ........................................................................... 54

[HL4302] ........................................................................... 85

[HL4303] ........................................................................... 85

[HL4304] ........................................................................... 40

[HL4305] ............................................................................. 4

[HL4306] ........................................................................... 25

Col. No.[HL4307] ........................................................................... 39

[HL4308] ........................................................................... 27

[HL4309] ........................................................................... 79

[HL4310] ........................................................................... 82

[HL4311] ........................................................................... 79

[HL4312] ........................................................................... 79

[HL4313] ........................................................................... 34

[HL4314] ........................................................................... 28

[HL4319] ........................................................................... 84

[HL4321] ........................................................................... 84

[HL4322] ........................................................................... 73

[HL4323] ........................................................................... 12

[HL4325] ........................................................................... 78

[HL4326] ........................................................................... 62

[HL4328] ........................................................................... 78

[HL4330] ........................................................................... 93

[HL4331] ........................................................................... 17

[HL4332] ........................................................................... 87

[HL4333] ........................................................................... 16

[HL4334] ........................................................................... 16

[HL4335] ........................................................................... 16

[HL4336] ........................................................................... 88

[HL4337] ........................................................................... 89

[HL4338] ........................................................................... 89

[HL4339] ........................................................................... 82

[HL4340] ........................................................................... 80

[HL4341] ........................................................................... 80

[HL4342] ........................................................................... 42

[HL4343] ........................................................................... 42

[HL4345] ........................................................................... 52

[HL4346] ........................................................................... 29

[HL4348] ........................................................................... 83

[HL4349] ........................................................................... 83

[HL4350] ........................................................................... 83

[HL4351] ........................................................................... 85

[HL4352] ........................................................................... 41

[HL4354] ........................................................................... 31

[HL4355] ........................................................................... 31

Col. No.[HL4356] ............................................................................. 3

[HL4357] ............................................................................. 3

[HL4358] ............................................................................. 5

[HL4359] ........................................................................... 47

Col. No.[HL4361] ........................................................................... 69

[HL4362] ........................................................................... 20

[HL4364] ........................................................................... 31

[HL4365] ........................................................................... 62

Volume 742 TuesdayNo. 89 8 January 2013

CONTENTS

Tuesday 8 January 2013

List of Government and Principal Office Holders and Staff

Death of a Member: Lord Rees-MoggAnnouncement ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Leader of the House ............................................................................................................................................................... 1

QuestionsAirports: Capacity .............................................................................................................................................................. 7Housing: New Homes ....................................................................................................................................................... 10Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2012............... 12Economy: Effect of US “Fiscal Cliff” Solution ............................................................................................................ 15

Ibrahim Magag: DisappearancePrivate Notice Question................................................................................................................................................... 17

NHS: South London Healthcare TrustPrivate Notice Question ................................................................................................................................................... 21

Public Service Pensions BillOrder of Consideration Motion ....................................................................................................................................... 25

Growth and Infrastructure BillSecond Reading ................................................................................................................................................................. 26

Armed Forces: Future SizeQuestions for Short Debate............................................................................................................................................ 110

Grand Committee

Public Bodies (Abolition of British Shipbuilders) Order 2013 .................................................................................... GC 1Public Bodies (Abolition of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal) Order 2013 ................ GC 3Charging Orders (Orders for Sale: Financial Thresholds) Regulations 2012

Considered in Grand Committee ................................................................................................................................ GC 6

Sri LankaQuestions for Short Debate ....................................................................................................................................... GC 13

Written Statements .......................................................................................................................................................... WS 1

Written Answers ............................................................................................................................................................... WA 1