First elected: 28th April 1977
Left House: 30th March 2015 (Retired)
Speeches made during Parliamentary debates are recorded in Hansard. For ease of browsing we have grouped debates into individual, departmental and legislative categories.
e-Petitions are administered by Parliament and allow members of the public to express support for a particular issue.
If an e-petition reaches 10,000 signatures the Government will issue a written response.
If an e-petition reaches 100,000 signatures the petition becomes eligible for a Parliamentary debate (usually Monday 4.30pm in Westminster Hall).
These initiatives were driven by Austin Mitchell, and are more likely to reflect personal policy preferences.
MPs who are act as Ministers or Shadow Ministers are generally restricted from performing Commons initiatives other than Urgent Questions.
Austin Mitchell has not been granted any Urgent Questions
Austin Mitchell has not been granted any Adjournment Debates
Austin Mitchell has not introduced any legislation before Parliament
Austin Mitchell has not co-sponsored any Bills in the current parliamentary sitting
The root cause of the launch anomaly that affected the 5th Galileo launch on 22 August 2014 was a design fault leading to a shortcoming in the system thermal analysis.
As a result of the inquiry the system thermal analyses were re-examined and the design fault corrected. The Inquiry Board recommended measures that would allow a return to flight for the Soyuz launch vehicle. The Commission now aims to resume Galileo launches shortly.
The Galileo Programme’s development stage took place between 2000 and 2007, and was funded through contributions by Member States of the European Space Agency (ESA). The UK contributed €240.3 million (£163.43m at March 2007 prices) to the approximately €1.5 billion (£1.02bn at March 2007 prices) budget, approximately 16%.
In 2007, Member States and the European Commission agreed a multi-annual budget to last until the end of 2013 of €3.4 billion (£2.3bn at March 2007 prices) of EU funds to complete the programme. EU Member States, including the UK, contribute to the EU Budget as a whole and not to individual spending programmes within it. As a reference point, the UK’s post-abatement financing share of the EU Budget was estimated to be around 12.5% in 2013.
The European Commission, as the Galileo Programme Manager, is expected to issue a revised launch timetable shortly, this will inform the timetable for the provision of services.
The system is designed to provide four different services under Full Operational Capability (FOC). One of these, the ‘Open Service’ will be free of charge to the end user.
In 2014, two new EU Regulations came into force: the Galileo Regulation (EU 1285/2013), and the amending GSA Regulation (EU 512/2014). These set out further detail on governance and programme delivery.
The European Commission will issue a revised launch schedule shortly, following the full inquiry into the launch anomaly that occurred on 22 August 2014.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my Rt Hon Friend the Member for Havant (David Willetts) on 22 January 2014, Official Report, column 213W regarding the cost of the Galileo and EGNOS satellite navigation programmes.
Galileo is still in development and it is not currently possible to provide exact figures. The current total estimated value of Galileo-related contracts won by UK companies is in excess of the UK’s contribution to the Galileo programme (via the EU budget).
A report on the directors’ conduct was submitted by the administrators of Cosalt plc to my Rt hon Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. When considering whether to seek a director’s disqualification The Insolvency Service has to consider the seriousness of the misconduct alleged and whether there is sufficient evidence of the alleged misconduct to satisfy the court that the director should be disqualified. In this case, the Insolvency Service also considered information received from other regulators and the concerns raised by the company’s shareholders. A decision was made that there was insufficient evidence of relevant misconduct for it to be in the public interest to investigate further since the issues raised are unlikely to be viewed by the Court as serious enough misconduct to merit the minimum disqualification period of two years.
The allegation of a breach of Companies Act requirements to file accounts with Companies House was considered by BIS prosecuting lawyers, who decided not to bring a criminal prosecution against the directors of Cosalt PLC. A detailed explanation of the basis for the decision has been provided to a number of MPs who had expressed concerns.
Complaints about the work and levels of service provided by the Insolvency Service are taken very seriously. Details about The Insolvency Service’s complaints procedure is available on the websitewww.gov.uk/government/publications/complaints-procedure. If matters are not resolved, then individuals can contact The Adjudicator’s Office which acts as an unbiased referee into complaints about The Insolvency Service.
The Small Business Enterprise and Employment Bill (currently before the Other House) contains a reserve power which will allow the Secretary of State to designate a body to be the sole regulator for insolvency practitioners. We have made clear that we would only exercise this power if the other measures contained within this Bill do not succeed in improving confidence in this regulatory regime; and only with proper consultation and assessment of the costs and benefits.
The maintenance of central records of all contracts let by the Department commenced from August 2012. Therefore, I can provide information on contracts let in the period August 2012 to date only.
No contracts put in place for the Department using UK SBS terms and conditions include provision for compensation for lost income in the event of abrogation by the customer. Indeed, UK SBS terms and conditions include clauses specifically excluding such activity. Where the Department’s needs have been met through the use of Crown Commercial Service frameworks, the terms and conditions applied will be those required by the respective framework.
The Department’s contract opportunities with a value greater than £10,000 and all contracts subsequently awarded are published on Contracts Finder.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change does not hold this information centrally and it can only be provided at a disproportionate cost. The Department’s standard terms and conditions include a cancellation clause which provides for termination upon giving the supplier 28 days’ notice. The Department endeavours to manage its relationship with suppliers fairly and complies with all contractual obligations applicable prior to any termination.
Mr Tomlinson’s report called for an independent investigation of allegations about bank treatment of businesses in financial difficulty. This Department therefore passed the report to the financial services regulators including the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Serious Fraud Office. The FCA has subsequently appointed Promontory Financial Group and Mazars to conduct an independent skilled persons report under section 166 of the Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA) 2000. The first stage of the review is considering Royal Bank of Scotland’s treatment of a sample of customers referred to its Global Restructuring Group. If the review reveals that poor practices are widespread and systematic, a second stage will identify the root causes and make recommendations to address the shortcomings. In addition, the FCA has sought confirmation from other relevant banks that they are satisfied that they do not engage in any of the poor practices alleged in the report.
The FCA expects that the skilled person will report outcomes from the review in early 2015.
The Prime Minister’s Office is an integral part of the Cabinet Office.
Since January 2011, as part of the Government’s transparency programme, details of procurement opportunities, tender documents and contracts worth over £10,000 are published online on Contracts Finder (https://www.gov.uk/contracts-finder), and the Crown Commercial Service (CCS) also publishes details of its contracts on its web site (http://ccs.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/).
The Prime Minister’s Office is an integral part of the Cabinet Office.
Since January 2011, as part of the Government’s transparency programme, details of procurement opportunities, tender documents and contracts worth over £10,000 are published online on Contracts Finder (https://www.gov.uk/contracts-finder), and the Crown Commercial Service (CCS) also publishes details of its contracts on its web site (http://ccs.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/).
The Public Contracts Regulations (2006) include a mandatory requirement for contracting authorities to exclude companies from public contracts where they have been convicted of certain criminal offences. The Regulations specify that this includes “any other offence within the meaning of Article 45(1) of the Public Sector Directive as defined by the national law of any relevant State”.
Since 2010 DCMS have signed no contracts with suppliers of services or consultants which include such a clause.
In the last year, the DCMS press office has responded to ten enquiries from student journalists.
The information requested is not held centrally. An answer could only be provided at disproportionate cost, as we would need to review all departmental contracts.
It is the Department for Education’s usual policy that contracts include a mutual, no faults termination clause which allows either party to terminate a contract by giving a period of notice. If the Department terminates such contracts under the ‘no faults’ clause we would reimburse the contractor for any committed or unavoidable cost, and would expect the contractor to take mitigating action to reduce such cost.
The standard terms and conditions used by core Defra do not include compensation clauses in the event of termination of the contract. Reviewing all contracts signed since 2010 to identify possible exceptions to our standard terms would entail disproportionate costs.
Since January 2011, as part of the Government’s transparency programme, details of contracts worth over £10,000 are published online on Contracts Finder (https://www.gov.uk/contracts-finder).
Seafood manufacturers are precluded from applying for regional structural aid through the provisions set out in the European Commission’s state aid rules for the fisheries sector which apply to businesses involved in the processing of fish and fisheries products, as well as to the catching sector. The Commission views this as necessary to avoid distortion of the market and to ensure consistency with the objectives of the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy. However, support is available to small and medium-sized seafood manufacturers via the European Fisheries Fund, and its successor, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund.
Any application for alternative funding would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis subject to the specific request.
Following the horsemeat fraud incident the Government commissioned Professor Chris Elliott, of Queen’s University Belfast, to carry out an independent review into the Integrity and Assurance of Food Supply Networks. This was not an inquiry into the horsemeat fraud itself but a much wider review of the issues which impact on consumer confidence in the authenticity of their food.
Professor Elliott’s Review was published on 4 September 2014 and sets out a systems approach to improve the food supply chain. The integrity of our food and empowering consumers to make informed choices are central to this Government’s vision of a competitive, resilient and growing UK food and farming sector. This is an important issue and it is only right that upon her appointment on 15 July 2014 the Secretary of State gave Professor Elliott’s final report the time and consideration it deserved before its publication. The report was published when Parliament returned after recess.
The UK secured a landing obligation as part of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy which entered into force on the 1 January 2014. The landing obligation comes into force in a phased timetable starting with pelagic fisheries on 1 January 2015 and extending to other fisheries from 2016.
Detailed preparatory work is underway with the fishing industry, European Union Member States and other stakeholders about how we can best implement these changes in practice. This includes supporting the industry in reducing discards ahead of the discard ban coming into effect, including through our successful catch quota scheme.
Most Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) in England have byelaws which affect net fishing activities in the intertidal zone. These byelaws vary between IFCAs, with each Authority prescribing certain net specifications, geographic areas, time restrictions and other limitations. Details of each IFCA's byelaws can be found on their respective websites.
The IFCAs with byelaws relating to intertidal nets are:
· Cornwall IFCA
· Devon and Severn IFCA
· Eastern IFCA
· Kent and Essex IFCA
· North Eastern IFCA
· North West IFCA
· Northumberland IFCA
· Southern IFCA
· Sussex IFCA
Isles of Scilly IFCA is the only Authority not to have any byelaws relating to intertidal nets, as this is not a fishing activity that takes place in the Isles of Scilly.
Most IFCAs have enforcement officers based both on land and at sea. These officers enforce all byelaws, not specifically those concerning intertidal nets. The latest figures held by Defra are:
Cornwall IFCA: 12 officers
Devon and Severn IFCA: 8 officers
Eastern IFCA: 10 officers, 3 land based
Kent and Essex IFCA: 2 land based officers, 6 sea based officers
North Eastern IFCA: 6 officers, 2 dedicated land based
North West IFCA: 8 mostly land based officers
Northumberland IFCA: 8 officers and 1 part time
Southern IFCA: 10 officers
Sussex IFCA: 4 officers
DFID does not provide compensation for lost income in its standard conditions of contract.
There are no applications for open access services before the Department. The decision on all access applications is solely the responsibility of the Office of Rail Regulation as the independent regulator. The Department responds to consultations on access applications as appropriate.
There are currently two open access applications before the ORR for open access applications on the East Coast Mainline. The ORR’s decisions on current and historical track access applications can be found on their website (http://orr.gov.uk/consultations/access-consultations/track-access-decisions) alongside current applications being considered (http://orr.gov.uk/consultations/access-consultations/current-track-access-applications).
It is not the role of the Department or Network Rail to approve or reject any access applications. The decision on all access applications is solely the responsibility of the Office of Rail Regulation as the independent regulator. The Department responds to consultations on access applications as appropriate.
The ORR’s past decisions on track access applications can be found on their website (http://orr.gov.uk/consultations/access-consultations/track-access-decisions) alongside current applications being considered (http://orr.gov.uk/consultations/access-consultations/current-track-access-applications). There are currently two open access operators operating on the East Coast Mainline who were approved by the ORR. These are Grand Central and First Hull Trains.
Spending Round 2013 set out a long-term funding envelope for HS2 Phase 1 (London to Birmingham) of £21.4bn (in 2011 prices). For Phase 2 (Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds) the envelope is £21.2bn (in 2011 prices), with a further £7.5bn (in 2011 prices) for rolling stock. This provides long-term certainty to the project.
In the Development Agreement signed between DfT and HS2 Ltd on the 8th December 2014 (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389368/HS2_development_agreement__December_2014_.pdf), HS2 Ltd has been set a Target Price for delivering Phase 1 of £19.34bn, including £3bn for rolling stock.
There is no equivalent Target Price for Phase Two yet.
The Department is working with Transport for the North, Network Rail and HS2 Ltd to consider improving transport connectivity between cities and regions in the North of England; and new rail links between Manchester and Leeds forms part of this work. I would expect to be able to comment on the scope and the scale of possible investments within the next few months. However, candidate schemes in supporting the future growth and wellbeing of Northern economies must be both affordable and offer acceptable value for money.
The Department for Transport and its agencies have no contracts that have been signed since 2010 that include this clause.
Rail North’s represents 30 local transport authorities in the north of England. Its constitution, including the specific make up of its membership, and decision making process are a matter for them. The Department worked with the Rail North group on the development of the consultation paper and the views of individual councillors were not presented or sought as part of this process.
Rail North’s represents 30 local transport authorities in the north of England. Its constitution, including the specific make up of its membership, and decision making process are a matter for them. The Department worked with the Rail North group on the development of the consultation paper and the views of individual councillors were not presented or sought as part of this process.
The Department and Rail North are working collaboratively in accordance with the “Partnership Principles,” which includes “full and open disclosure between parties subject to any confidentiality obligations which apply.” As such Rail North was provided with all of the information necessary for the creation of the consultation document. This included known passenger numbers on existing services and financial information from the Department’s Long Term Forecast for both franchises. As stated in the consultation, the Department is not considering line or station closures for these competitions. Staffing levels are a matter for the train operators and estimates have not been made regarding them.
The Department for Transport is currently conducting a joint public consultation with Rail North which will inform the specifications for both the Northern and TransPennine Express franchises. The consultation can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/future-of-northern-and-transpennine-express-rail-franchises and concludes 18th August.
No estimates of the potential impacts on station staffing, or cost savings have yet been completed for any of the options set out in the consultation. The consultation states that the Department is not considering station closures for either the Northern or TransPennine Express franchises as part of the specification. Further work will be carried out, informed by the consultation, before any decisions are taken.
The Department for Transport is currently conducting a joint public consultation with Rail North which will inform the specifications for both the Northern and TransPennine Express franchises. To date we have received 131 formal responses to the consultation from various people and organisations across the North of England. This number does not include responses to our online survey (which will be collected at the end of the consultation). These responses have not yet been fully analysed as the consultation is ongoing but they cover a wide range of themes. We will publish a stakeholder briefing document setting out a summary of responses to the consultation and how they were taken account of when we publish the Invitations to Tender (ITTs) for the franchises, expected in December 2014.
The consultation can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/future-of-northern-and-transpennine-express-rail-franchises and concludes 18th August. No decisions have yet been taken.
The Department for Transport holds this information on a commercially confidential basis. However, as I stated in the debate of 16 July, Official Report, column 984, I am happy to consider whether the Department can release such information and I will meet with the Hon. Member and other Hon. Members for the local area shortly.
The Department for Transport continue to work with industry partners to develop a solution that will see more electric trains going into the North of England, in addition to the 14 already planned. We envisage that these electric trains will release diesel trains to be used on parts of the network in the North of England that are not yet electrified. The exact detail of this is subject to commercial negotiations and I will update the House as soon as these are concluded.
The Rail North consortium has been formed by 30 Local Transport Authorities (LTAs) in the North of England to help deliver a vision for a strengthened role for rail in supporting economic growth in the region. The LTAs are currently formalising Rail North’s governance. This will comprise:
The Department worked with Rail North in the development of the consultation document and their views were represented in the options set out and the consultation as a whole. The consultation can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/future-of-northern-and-transpennine-express-rail-franchises and concludes 18th August. No decisions have yet been taken.
The Department for Transport is currently conducting a joint public consultation with Rail North which will inform the specifications for both the Northern and TransPennine Express franchises. The consultation can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/future-of-northern-and-transpennine-express-rail-franchises and concludes 18th August.
No estimates of the potential financial savings have yet been completed for any of the options set out in the consultation. Further work will be carried out, informed by the consultation, before any decisions are taken.
Rail North’s decision making process is a matter for them. The Department worked with Rail North representatives on the development of the consultation paper. The consultation itself seeks the views of individual councillors, councils, passengers, and all other interested parties to inform the specifications for both the Northern and TransPennine Express franchises. The consultation can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/future-of-northern-and-transpennine-express-rail-franchises and concludes 18th August.
The Department for Transport is currently conducting a joint public consultation with Rail North which will inform the specifications for both the Northern and TransPennine Express franchises. The consultation can be found at:
and concludes 18th August. No estimates of the possible journey time have yet been completed for any of the options set out in the consultation. Further work will be carried out, informed by the consultation, before any decisions are taken.
We have taken a robust approach to managing the contract with Atos Healthcare and have applied financial remedies such as service credits and awarded fees where and when appropriate.
From 1 March 2015, MAXIMUS Health and Human Services will take over the contract to deliver Work Capability Assessments.
In 2014, there were 29,821 assessments completed nationally that required a doctor to undertake a Work Capability Assessment. 121 of these were completed for the Grimsby postcodes DN15 to DN20, DN31 to DN41 and DN55.
Official statistics for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) processing times are not readily available and to provide this information would incur disproportionate cost.
This information is not collated centrally. However, since January 2011, as part of the Government’s transparency programme, details of procurement opportunities, tender documents and contracts worth over £10,000 are published online on Contracts Finder (https://www.gov.uk/contracts-finder), and the Crown Commercial Service (CCS) also publishes details of its contracts on its web site (http://ccs.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/).
Information for all contracts is not held centrally and to provide a complete answer would result in disproportionate cost.