House of Commons

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

Thursday 9 February 2012

The House met at half-past Ten o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport was asked—

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

1. What assessment he has made of the potential for local radio franchises and licensing; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

We have made no assessment of the potential for radio franchises because radio licensing is a matter for Ofcom, which awards licences via a “beauty parade” mechanism, assessing individual applicants’ ability to deliver services for the local area.

[John Pugh]

I thank the Minister for that reply. News content aside—[Interruption]—should there not be more flexibility in licences and franchises to allow commercial radio to respond to market conditions?

[Mr Vaizey]

I found it slightly difficult to hear the question, but I think my hon. Friend was asking about flexibility in content regulation. That will be an important matter for the Green Paper as we look at communications regulation in the round.

[Mr Speaker]

The difficulty in hearing was not attributable to the questioner but to ministerial nose-blowing, which is entirely understood.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Follow that, Mr Speaker!

BBC Radio Merseyside is the most popular radio station on Merseyside and is a lifeline for many elderly and disabled people. Rather than setting up local radio franchises, would the Government not do better to support much-loved existing local BBC radio such as Radio Merseyside?

[Mr Vaizey]

I heard the hon. Gentleman loud and clear, and I am delighted that the chairman of the BBC Trust has made it clear that the BBC will review its original plans for BBC local radio, which is very good news.

[Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)]

2. What estimate he has made of the number of category B2 gaming machines in operation in the UK.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)]

The latest version of the Gambling Commission’s six-monthly industry statistics was published in December 2011. It showed that the number of category B2 gaming machines—fixed odds betting terminals, or FOBTs, as they are sometimes known—in operation in Great Britain as at 31 March 2011 was 32,007.

[Mr Foster]

I am most grateful to the Minister for that answer. The FOBTs he refers to, through which punters can lose £100 a spin or £18,000 a year, have been described as the crack cocaine of gambling. As he said, numbers are exploding: some 32,000 such machines are in easily accessed high street betting shops, yet the evidence shows that they are causing real damage to individuals and families, including some of the poorest people in our communities. Does the Minister therefore not agree that a responsible Government should be taking urgent action to address this problem, including looking at the recommendations in early-day motion 2634, such as cutting the stakes and prize levels of these machines so that they are more akin to those in other adult centres?

[John Penrose]

I completely share my right hon. Friend’s concern about gambling addiction. Although it affects only a small number of people, it can ruin lives and is a very serious issue. Many colleagues on both sides of the House have raised it, as did Mary Portas in her recent review of the health of high streets throughout the country. However, my right hon. Friend will agree that we have to ensure that any policy or regulatory changes that might be considered are based not just on concern and anecdote, but on firm evidence and factual foundation. Therefore, my invitation to him and any other colleagues concerned about this issue—on either side of the House—is that if they can bring me hard evidence and facts, I will of course consider them extremely carefully.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Despite what the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) says, does my hon. Friend the Minister not accept that the percentage of problem gamblers using FOBTs declined from 11.2% in 2007 to 8.8% last year, and that the availability of gambling on the internet drives a coach and horses through the ridiculous limits we now have on the use of betting shop terminals? Given that people can use only one at a time—or perhaps two at best if they are particularly proficient—whether there are four, six or eight in a betting shop makes absolutely no difference at all to an individual’s problem gambling.

[John Penrose]

I accept that the causal link between FOBTs and problem gambling is poorly understood, which is why I asked for better evidence and facts to back up any suggested changes in regulation. I also agree with my hon. Friend that remote gambling is changing how people gamble. We need to make sure that such gambling is properly controlled and regulated, which is why we propose to introduce new regulations on it in due course.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

3. What recent progress he has made on the roll-out of superfast broadband to rural communities.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

5. What recent progress his Department has made on the roll-out of superfast broadband; and if he will make a statement.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to extend broadband coverage.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

Our plans for the roll-out of superfast broadband mean that—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am very interested to hear about the plans for the roll-out of superfast broadband, but I believe I am right in saying that the Secretary of State wants to group this question with two others.

[Mr Hunt]

With your humble permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to take this Question with Questions 5 and 6.

I wanted to say that our plans for the roll-out of superfast broadband will mean that conditions such as the common cold, even when held by Ministers, will be able to be diagnosed online. The roll-out continues apace, and broadband plans have now been approved for a third of local authorities.

[Simon Hart]

The progress on this subject is particularly welcome in rural areas, but inevitably 2%, 3% or 4% of people will fall outside the proposals. What are the Government going to do for them?

[Mr Hunt]

I am going to Pembrokeshire next week on holiday, when I will personally be inspecting the rural broadband facilities and mobile coverage in my hon. Friend’s constituency, although I cannot promise to do the same for all hon. Members. He makes an important point, and we have made good progress this year. Our plans for superfast broadband will cover 90% of the country, but Ofcom’s plans, as announced in January, for the 4G spectrum auctions mean that the new 4G coverage will reach 97% of the country, and that will offer a broadband signal. That still leaves 3% to go, and we must work very hard to make sure that everyone is included in the broadband revolution.

[Adam Afriyie]

With such a massive budget deficit, we cannot rely on extra Government spending for ever more, so it seems to me that we have no choice: we have to rely on innovation—both innovative industries and the innovation of our people—to bring economic growth to every region. Today’s satellites can beam high-speed internet access to every region of Britain, instantly opening up remote areas to economic activity. Does the Secretary of State share my vision for a connected Britain in which satellites bring jobs and the power of online public services to every region of our nation?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. In the Thames Valley local enterprise partnership, which covers his constituency, the broadband plans are still at amber, rather than green, and I would be most grateful for his help in getting the three unitary authorities to work together to get those plans into a state where they can be approved. He rightly says that we need to be technology-neutral about this; fixed-line fibre will go into the ground in some areas, but for the more remote areas we will definitely need wireless solutions, be they mobile, wi-fi or satellite, and we will keep all options open.

[Andrew Selous]

Residents of villages such as Hockliffe, Stanbridge, Tilsworth and Eggington often have to make do with broadband speeds of only 1.5 megabits per second, which is very restrictive for local people and severely limits the ability of local businesses to grow. So when can residents in these villages expect things to get better for them?

[Mr Hunt]

Again, I ask for my hon. Friend’s help, because the plans for Bedfordshire are also amber-rated, rather than green-rated. We have said that we want all local authorities not only to start procurement for their broadband plans, but to complete procurement by this Christmas, otherwise we will consider taking back the funds that we have allocated and putting them in a national contract. We are very keen to ensure that roads start to be dug up and solutions actually happen by the start of next year.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact of YouView on the demand for broadband services?

[Mr Hunt]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I think that the impact will be huge. The iPlayer is already a very big source of demand for broadband, and as YouView arrives many more people will use the iPlayer and other such services. I am pleased to say that Wales is making excellent progress. Its broadband plans have been given the green light and we have had a good partnership with the Welsh Government. I hope that his constituents will benefit from that.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Following on from the Secretary of State’s report on Wales, will he update us on the situation in Northern Ireland? What discussions has he had with the Northern Ireland Executive and what progress has been made there?

[Mr Hunt]

We have had very good discussions. There is good news and bad news as far as Northern Ireland is concerned. The funding allocation has been quite small for Northern Ireland, but that is because it has one of the best superfast broadband networks in the UK and, in many ways, is a model for the rest of the country.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I would like to bring a little reality to this debate. My constituency covers rural Teesdale, so I know that farmers are being required to communicate online with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs even when they have no broadband. Given that the problem is in rural areas, why did the Secretary of State earmark £150 million of new money for cities? What is he going to do for people whose local authorities do not come forward with viable plans?

[Mr Hunt]

The hon. Lady ought to have a bit of humility, because when her Government left office, a quarter of a million homes still had no broadband whatsoever. We are going to sort that out. We have massively increased the investment in rural broadband. It is five times more than the amount that is going into urban broadband. Her party makes a big song and dance about opposing cuts, but in the interests of consistency, it might like to support increases in spending, particularly when they are much more than her Government ever promised.

[Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)]

4. What discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the EU directive on privacy and electronic communications; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

We are very good Europeans on the Government Benches and we are one of the first countries to have implemented the e-privacy directive. Naturally, we are engaged in ongoing discussions with our EU colleagues. Several member states, including France and Germany, have had discussions with us about the best way to implement it.

[Eric Joyce]

This measure contains a number of sensible dimensions, as does the related data protection directive, but does the Minister agree that we should reject the idea of a freedom to be forgotten, which is what is being proposed by the European Justice Commissioner?

[Mr Vaizey]

We will have discussions with Ministers at the Ministry of Justice, which is the Department responsible. We will undertake a consultation and call for evidence, so that people can give us views and help our negotiations on the data protection directive.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that things such as cookies and targeted behavioural advertising are of great benefit for both businesses and consumers, and that a lot of the fear of them is based on ignorance? What is his Department doing to try to increase understanding of these technologies so that decisions can genuinely be made as a result of informed choice?

[Mr Vaizey]

When we implemented the e-privacy directive we made sure that we worked closely with business. There is a balance to be struck between implementing the law and ensuring that business still has the freedom to innovate. The e-privacy directive is about transparency. So long as consumers know what is happening to data, they should be comfortable with what is being done with them.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

7. What plans VisitEngland has to promote domestic tourism during the London 2012 Olympics.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)]

In March VisitEngland will launch a new £4 million domestic marketing campaign to promote UK tourism throughout 2012. We are encouraging the tourism industry to sign up to a scheme that offers 20.12% off all sorts of different accommodation and attractions. The promotion will be supported by a high-profile TV campaign.

[Mrs Laing]

I am sure that the House will be delighted to hear the Minister’s enthusiasm, and to hear of the worldwide advertising campaign to encourage people to come to London. Will he also publicise the fact that many Olympic venues are outside London, such as the excellent white water centre in Waltham Abbey in my constituency? Will he encourage people to enjoy the wonders of the Lee valley park, the ancient town of Waltham Abbey, its beautiful church and, of course, the wonders of the beautiful Epping forest?

[John Penrose]

I would be delighted to do that. In fact, that is one of the central aims of the campaign. We will use the torch relay, which I believe will go to my hon. Friend’s constituency on 7 July, as a way of promoting the different parts of the country that it will visit and all the things that can be done there, including, in her case, the Lee valley white water centre, as well as the Waltham Abbey church and its links with King Harold.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

One of the great tourist attractions for 2012 visitors to the west midlands and north Staffordshire is the Wedgwood museum. It is facing the loss of its UNESCO-listed collection because of loopholes in pension protection fund legislation. The museum has had great assistance from the arts Minister, so will the heritage Minister now commit the Government to do everything possible to save this world-class museum?

[John Penrose]

I agree completely that it is a world-class museum. I am pleased to say that my colleague the culture Minister has already had close, detailed meetings with the administrators, and I understand that the hon. Gentleman has been closely involved as well. We will continue to help in any way we can.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

Will the Minister cast his eye over the availability of reasonably priced hotel rooms during the Olympics? A number of my constituents have told me that they have been unable to book rooms. There seems to be a block-booking, or blocked-out, period during which these reasonably priced rooms are unavailable. The feeling is that they will be released late and charged at great expense to the punters.

[John Penrose]

My hon. Friend is right that there has been concern. I am pleased to say that the LOCOG—London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games—block booking, which was instigated some time ago, has released a tranche of rooms so there is now more supply on the market. The marketing campaign that I just mentioned is aimed at producing good value “20.12% off or better” accommodation offers not just in London, but in the London travel-to-work area and other parts of the country, so that people can get into London to view Olympic events if they want to. If they do not want to attend the Olympics but want to visit other parts of Britain instead, there will still be great offers for them to use.

[Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

There is a big problem here, and although I welcome the Government’s £4 million to encourage domestic tourism and yield the potential £2.5 billion Olympic tourism premium, does the Minister agree that the Government should act to address this scandal of extortionate price rises in London hotels during the Olympic and Paralympic games? We could take the case of Mrs Aileen Hamer from Exeter, for example. Having to pay £1,000 a night for a room with a track hoist to be able to take a disabled daughter to the Paralympics—a room which at Easter costs £375—would represent a 167% increase. Our research shows that the increase in prices across London is averaging at 315%, so will he act on behalf of those already struggling families across the UK who want to be able to afford to come to London and enjoy the Olympic and Paralympic games?

[John Penrose]

I agree with the right hon. Lady that it is vital that we have properly accessible attractions and accommodation. Indeed, a great deal of work has been done to make sure that the important legal obligations, as well as commercial opportunities, in respect of making accommodation available to people with disabilities are well understood and the opportunity is grasped. However, it has always been the case that prices alter during the season, as is entirely natural. What has happened in London is that the LOCOG block booking—she will be aware of it, as it was part of the original Olympics deal—meant there was a restriction in supply. That has now been eased as a result of the additional rooms that LOCOG has just released.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

8. What progress his Department has made on his plans to merge Sport England and UK Sport; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

The project board set up at the request of UK Sport and Sport England, which is chaired by Sir Keith Mills, has identified four key benefits: shared resources to reduce costs, co-location, increased commercial income and enhanced strategic co-ordination. We will discuss the future governance arrangements after the 2012 games.

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the Minister for his response. These two organisations have different articles of association and different objectives. It is almost like one of them services a Lotus and the other encourages Ford Fiestas to become Lotuses. Other than sharing back-office functions, can he say what the cost savings are?

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes. The cost savings are considerable. The bodies both have entirely separate back-office operations, and they both live in central London offices for which they signed leases at the height of the market without any break clauses at £57 a square foot and £35 a square foot, I think. There is no co-ordination of commercial strategy to drive success at the elite end alongside the mass market and their strategies operate in completely different spheres. There are many different savings and a lot of possible synergies.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

When the Secretary of State was the shadow Secretary of State he respected the different roles of UK Sport and Sport England. In a press release that is still on the Conservative website, he said he would retain

“the current split between UK Sport and Sport England”.

He said one thing before the general election and something completely different—that these organisers should merge—after it. No one opposes economies of scale such as sharing offices and back-office services, or co-ordination where it is necessary, but these two bodies serve two very different functions. UK Sport has taken us from 36th to fourth in the Olympic medal tables. Will he say something now so that we can end the speculation about a merger of governance, not dither until after the general election and allow these organisations to get on with their jobs?

[Hugh Robertson]

Nobody has ever said that the two organisations are merging. I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands what is on the table—probably because the briefing has led him to do so. There has never been any question but that the new body will contain two separate organisations, one of which looks after elite and high-performance sport and one that looks after community sport. I simply want central governance arrangements over the top so that we do not end up with boards all over the place. Actually, the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, when she was in the chair, was well known for having described the organisation of British sport—she will correct me if I am wrong—as a nightmare.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to support increased participation in mountaineering, hill walking and climbing.

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

Sport England has awarded £1.3 million under the whole sport plan to the British Mountaineering Council between 2009 and 2013 to grow and sustain participation in mountaineering, hill walking and climbing.

[David Rutley]

As one of the co-chairmen of the all-party parliamentary group on mountaineering—we like to think of it as the pinnacle of APPGs—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”]—I thank the Minister for Sport for his ongoing support of mountain-related activities and of the British climbing team. As part of the Olympic legacy, the Outdoor Industry Association, supported by the BMC, is planning to launch a major new campaign, Britain on foot, to promote outdoor activities and to get people outdoors and keep them fit and healthy. Does my hon. Friend support those objectives, and could one of the ministerial team meet the organisers in the months ahead?

[Hon. Members]

A summit!

[Hugh Robertson]

I am having one of those days.

May I start by paying tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) both in the all-party group and as the parliamentary sports fellow? One of the key opportunities for mountaineering and hill walking lies in the tourism initiative launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and guided by the tourism Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose). Many people will want the chance not only to take part in the activity of hill walking but to see some of our fabulous countryside.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

10. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the findings of the Woolf Review.

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

We welcome the International Cricket Council’s commitment to an independent review of its governance. It is a key Government priority to improve the governance of all sports, including those operating internationally—it does not say FIFA in my notes but it probably ought to—so we look forward to the ICC’s response.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The Woolf review offers a damning critique of the current governance structure of cricket and, to its credit, mentions aspirations for a national one-day Twenty20 cricket side in Wales, backed by 81% of those responding to a recent Western Mail poll. Will the Minister engage with the Woolf report findings and work towards reforming the global game?

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes, I shall certainly work towards reforming the global game. The points the hon. Gentleman makes about the structure of the ICC are indeed correct. As far as Wales is concerned—I think Wales lies under his question—it is worth recording the very real contribution that many Welshmen have made to English cricket. At a time like the present, when independence is very much the political currency, it is worth noting that one of the men most closely associated with England’s rise to the top of the test rankings is Hugh Morris, who is of course Welsh.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of new financing arrangements on the editorial and operational independence of S4C.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

I agree with the assessment of the new independent chairman of S4C that financial and governance arrangements agreed between the BBC and S4C will

“safeguard the Welsh language services provided by S4C for the foreseeable future”

and

“allow S4C to maintain its editorial and managerial independence.”

[Alun Michael]

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but why have he and the BBC explicitly ruled out operational independence? The cut in grant is 24% over four years, but the cut against anticipated income is some 32%, which is really challenging. Is it not important for S4C to be able to manage its own business and have operational independence?

[Mr Hunt]

We do want S4C to learn from what the BBC does as a much larger broadcaster—it is one of the most successful public service broadcasters in the world, if not the most successful—in how it runs its operations, because S4C has been through a very difficult period. The most important thing is editorial independence, so that there is a choice of Welsh language services and plurality of news provision in Wales. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the new agreement between the BBC and S4C is supported not just by peers from his party but also by Plaid Cymru in the other place.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

12. What assessment he has made of the effect of the merger of Sport England and UK Sport on (a) Sport Northern Ireland, (b) Sport Wales and (c) Sport Scotland.

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

Ministerial and Sports Council colleagues from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been closely involved and the issue was formally discussed at the last sports cabinet. We all agree that the restructuring should be implemented in a way that maintains and improves the links that currently exist between the sports councils, and increases available funding for athletes across the UK, as a result of reduced administrative costs and increased commercial revenue. Everyone has agreed to move forward on the four key points I mentioned.

[Mr Brown]

I very much welcome the Minister’s comments. We all recognise how important sport is in people’s lives, especially young people. Has he taken any specific action to ensure that young people in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland can continue to participate in school games, which are so vital to their development?

[Hugh Robertson]

Sport in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is clearly a matter for the devolved Governments, but discussions are ongoing with those Administrations and we very much hope that all three countries will compete in the UK school games.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

13. What support his Department is providing for the creative industries.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

This is my first chance to welcome the hon. Lady to the House following her by-election victory.

We are of course supporting the creative industries. We have established the Creative Industries Council, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. Creative England is supporting the creative industries throughout England. We have created one home for British film, with increased lottery funding, and established the film policy review, which has been widely welcomed. The computer science curriculum is being revolutionised as a result of the Livingstone-Hope review.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister for that answer. The global games industry is likely to see more than £50 billion a year in software sales alone by 2014. Having worked with much of Britain’s developer and publisher talent, it is clear that there is great potential for our interactive entertainment industry to provide much-needed growth to the UK economy. What assessment have the Government made of the needs of the interactive entertainment industry and how we need to respond?

[Mr Vaizey]

The UK has a thriving video games sector; it is fair to say that we are probably the European leaders. As I mentioned earlier, we have conducted the skills review to ensure that kids can learn about computer science in school and be ready for the industry. We engage regularly with the industry on a whole range of issues.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

In the last year of the Labour Government, UK television exports grew by 13%, which is further evidence of our creative industries’ global appeal and potential for jobs and growth. Can the Minister tell the House when we can expect a comprehensive strategy for increasing our international business with developing economies, especially Brazil, Russia, India and China?

[Mr Vaizey]

We have regular discussions with the BRIC countries. I have been to Beijing to represent the creative industries and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been to Brazil. We obviously engage with India and Russia, and this week we met a delegation from Mexico to talk about the creative industries, so we are engaging around the globe on the creative industries and their huge success, which is admired around the world. As the House will be aware, last year the UK topped the US singles chart at Nos. 1, 2 and 3, more than 50% of the top albums in the UK were by British artists, and British films topped the UK box office for 20 weeks. We are doing extremely well in the creative industries, and the world recognises it, and 2012 will put the spotlight on that.

[Mr Speaker]

It looks like there is scope for an Adjournment debate on the matter.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

14. What steps he is taking to speed up the roll-out of broadband in Greater Manchester.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

We are doing a great deal to promote the roll-out of broadband in Manchester, including a £100 million urban broadband fund, which has been warmly welcomed by Labour-controlled Manchester city council, if not by Opposition Front Benchers.

[Mr Nuttall]

For residents in small villages such as Affetside in my constituency, the length and complexity of the procurement process for the delivery of high-speed broadband inevitably means that they are being prevented from enjoying the benefits of the internet that many of us take for granted. Is there anything my right hon. Friend can do to speed up the process?

[Mr Hunt]

Absolutely. We are doing everything we can, including insisting that all local authorities complete their broadband plans and have contracts signed by the end of this year, which is much faster than normal procurement processes. We want to ensure that we are able to deliver for my hon. Friend’s constituents well before the next election.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

15. What recent discussions he has had with the Premier League, Football Association and Football League on the licensing of football clubs.

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

The Secretary of State and I have had several discussions with the Football Association, the premier league and the Football League since we published our response to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s football governance inquiry last October. The football authorities are due to respond with their proposals to the reforms that we have called for, including a new licensing model for clubs, by 29 February.

[Tom Greatrex]

I understand that the Football Association may have other things on its mind today, but is it not important that by the end of this month it comes forward with proposals that include the role of supporters in clubs?

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

We will have the opportunity to debate the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s report on football governance this afternoon in Westminster Hall, although, ideally, we would have wanted to have debated the report after the FA had responded. The Minister says that he still expects the FA to respond by the end of February, but that is not our understanding, so when does he really expect a response from the football authorities?

[Hugh Robertson]

I absolutely do expect the football authorities to respond by the end of February. That is the deadline to which we are working.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

16. What steps he is taking to protect children online; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

The previous Government set up the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, which works very well in bringing together industry stakeholders to promote the safety of children online. This week we had safer internet day, and UKCCIS launched its advice on child internet safety. I am also delighted by the industry agreement to introduce active choice controls on websites.

[Mr Sheerman]

Will the Minister look at the very good report that is out this week from the commission on stalking, of which I had the privilege of being a member? Cyber-stalking, like cyber-bullying, originates in schools, but there is not enough action to control the way in which children are exposed to danger, and if one visits schools, as I do, one finds that the number of children who are exposed to pornography, as well as to manipulation, is growing not diminishing.

[Mr Vaizey]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and that is a very real problem. It is important that the Government work with industry and look at self-regulatory solutions first, because the answers will best come from industry, but there should be no doubt on the industry’s part that this is a very real problem, and we expect action from it to help parents to protect their children from every kind of inappropriate content, whether pornography or inappropriate behaviour, on the internet.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) has a topical question, so the time when we will hear from her will not be long delayed.

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

T2. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

As my Department is proudly responsible for the diamond jubilee celebrations, I wish to add my congratulations to those of the Prime Minister yesterday to Her Majesty the Queen. All Departments are of course at the disposal of Her Majesty, but this Department is at her personal disposal in order to make sure that we mark this wonderful moment for the nation in the best way possible.

[Mr Burley]

Two Sundays ago I rode 45 miles around Cannock Chase in a charity bike ride known locally as the Tour de Nock, a race only slightly less famous than the Tour de France. The event was organised by a local man, John Hibbs, and sponsored by Cycle Shack, Cannock, and it raised thousands of pounds for a local charity, the Hibbs Lupus Trust, which raises funds to support people with that incurable condition. In this Olympic year, what are the Government doing to encourage more people to take up cycling as a way both of keeping fit and of raising money for good causes?

[Mr Hunt]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his efforts, and we are doing a great deal, but perhaps the most significant thing that we have done in terms of grass-roots sport participation is the change that we made to the lottery, meaning that over the five years that follow the Olympics an extra half a billion pounds will go into boosting grass-roots and elite sport.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

May I ask the Secretary of State about women in broadcasting? I am sure he will agree that it is a sorry state of affairs when the BBC sports personality of the year shortlist failed to identify even one woman, while its woman of the year shortlist somehow managed to include a panda, but we all know that what is on the screen is a product of what goes on behind the camera. There has been progress, and now there are many fantastic women in the industry, but they still face unequal odds. When even the BBC today acknowledges that there should be more women throughout the industry, why is the Secretary of State proposing to strip Ofcom of its duty to promote gender equality? Will he drop that proposal?

[Mr Hunt]

First, the right hon. and learned Lady, like me, knows that it is important that we respect the BBC’s editorial independence. There is cross-party agreement on that. I am sure that she will welcome the huge progress that the BBC has made, including the clear acceptance by the director-general of the BBC today that something needs to be done to address this issue urgently. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) has made big efforts in this respect. We have arranged for my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) to meet the director-general to talk about this issue. I am hopeful that we will make progress without the need to resort to legislation or regulation.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

T3. Each year, the Football Association raises a surplus of about £100 million, mostly from the England football team. By convention, 50% of that money goes to the professional game, where it is not needed, and not to the community and grass-roots game, where it is badly needed. I declare an interest as a director of Warrington Town football club, which badly needs the money. When will the Minister address this governance issue?

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

I can tell my hon. Friend exactly when we will address the issue. There has been a Culture, Media and Sport Committee report into the entire issue and we are awaiting a response that will come by the end of February. Only when the FA board has a better governance structure will it be able to tackle such issues. At the moment, it is simply divided on the basis of the vested interests inside the game.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

T4. Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) about the video games industry, given the success of the film tax credit in the UK, will the Minister reconsider introducing a tax credit for the video games industry, as per his manifesto commitment, to assist innovative businesses such as those in Dundee?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

Dundee is, of course, the home of Abertay university, which is one of the world’s leading universities for the video games industry. The tax credit for the video games industry remains a lively topic, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will direct his questions to the Treasury.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

T6. Ministers will know that a group of concerned MPs and peers recently concluded a cross-party parliamentary inquiry into online child protection. Without wishing to front-run the conclusions of the report, it is clear that the current protections are failing. We know that 93% of women are extremely concerned about the ease with which online pornography can be accessed by children. The “active choice” response of the internet service providers targets only new customers and will not be rolled out fully until October. Given that 80% of British households are already ISP customers, does the Secretary of State really think that that response is enough? If he does not, what is he going to do about it?

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

It is a great pleasure finally to hear from my hon. Friend. I have a great deal of sympathy for her point. She has campaigned assiduously on this issue. I do not want to pre-empt the Green Paper that we will publish shortly. I hope that that will address some of the concerns that she has raised.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

T5. Will the Sport Minister give an update on the participation of a British team in the Olympic football competition? As a Welsh Member of Parliament, I recognise that the Football Association of Wales has difficulties. However, does he agree that it would be a travesty if the British team comprised only English players?

[Hugh Robertson]

The composition of the team is properly a matter for the selectors and, through them, the British Olympic Association. I hope that the BOA has sent out invitations to young men and women up and down the United Kingdom, and that politics will not stand in the way of their having the opportunity to represent their country in a home Olympics.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

May I return the Secretary of State to the issue of rural broadband? My constituents in northern Lincolnshire, in particular in the villages of Kirmington, Croxton and Aylesby, have severe problems with their connection. That is a key issue for the rural economy. Kirmington is the home of Humberside airport and is therefore a vital area. May I wish the Secretary of State a good holiday in Pembrokeshire next week and suggest for future holidays that he might like to taste the delights of Cleethorpes?

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

I gratefully accept my hon. Friend’s kind invitation. As soon as the diary permits, I will race to Cleethorpes for my next family holiday. He is right that broadband is incredibly important for rural communities. That is why, unlike the previous Government, we have secured a £530 million central Government investment, through the licence fee, to transform the situation. I am pleased to say that north Lincolnshire has been at the forefront on this issue and that I have given the green light to its local broadband plan. I am optimistic that the problems that he talks about will be addressed very soon.

[Mr Speaker]

I note the Secretary of State’s unilateral decisions about family holidays. Whether that is a precedent that other right hon. and hon. Members will feel inclined to follow is open to speculation and doubt.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

T7. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.Members will know that those who have taken civil action, which is now complete, against the News of the World have faced legal bills of some £300,000, £400,000 or £500,000, yet the most that has ever been awarded by a court in a privacy case is £60,000, and many settlements have been for much less. Given the changes to the conditional fee agreements that the Government are pushing through, may I suggest that it might be a good idea to have a small claims court for privacy and libel cases? Would the Secretary of State support that? I do not want him to say, “Let’s wait to hear what Leveson and the Justice Secretary say.” We want to know what he thinks.

[Mr Hunt]

Without wishing to pre-empt what Lord Justice Leveson says, I think the hon. Gentleman’s idea may have some merit. We will look into it and see whether it is something that we can pursue.

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the fit and proper person test in relation to media ownership applies equally to companies as to individuals?

[Mr Hunt]

I can. We have looked into that very closely following the phone hacking and BSkyB merger issues, and it is absolutely the case that when Ofcom considers the application of the fit and proper person test, under law it must consider whether a company is a fit and proper organisation to hold a broadcast licence, because licences are held by companies.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

T8. The arts Minister may well be aware that next Thursday marks the start of the Glasgow film festival, which, fortunately for me, coincides with part of the recess. Will he undertake to consider the role of film festivals, including the Glasgow one, in promoting British film? They play a vital role that is sometimes under-appreciated.

[Mr Vaizey]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and part of the film policy review, so ably conducted by Lord Smith of Finsbury, highlighted the important role of film festivals in promoting film education and film culture.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I declare that I am a parliamentary fellow to the Football Association.

Does the Minister agree with the leadership of David Bernstein in recent days on matters of judgment, and will he condemn Fabio Capello’s decision to walk out on the England team with only a few months to go until Euro 2012?

[Hugh Robertson]

The FA had absolutely no option but to strip John Terry of the captaincy, not to prejudge the court case but simply because it would have been impossible for him to discharge his responsibilities as captain of the England team with that hanging over him.

It is a very great shame that Fabio Capello has acted in the way he has. If a player in his team had behaved in the way he has behaved to the FA, he would have taken the toughest possible action. I am delighted that the FA has agreed with him that he should no longer be manager.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Secretary of State will share my excitement about the recently announced concert to celebrate the Queen’s diamond jubilee. How confident is he that the measures being put in place by his Department will tackle the scourge of ticket touts and prevent them from getting their hands on, and profiting from, tickets for a publicly funded celebration?

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on brilliantly linking the diamond jubilee to her personal commitment to improve how tickets are sold. I commend her determination to improve the situation.

There will be more tickets to more events this year than at any time in our history, with the diamond jubilee, the Olympics, the Paralympics, the cultural Olympiad and the London 2012 festival. It will be a very good year to see whether the touting problem needs to be addressed in legislation, or whether changes in technology can do the trick.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Last week, I took part in a panel auditioning for participants in a new production of “Swindon: The Opera”. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Janice Thompson Performance Trust on an admirable project that will help to showcase the cultural richness of Swindon?

[Mr Vaizey]

My constituency is next door to Swindon, so I can confirm that Swindon is an area rich in cultural pleasures. It contains Wroughton, which is the storeroom of the Science museum, and a very successful football club and is the home town of Jamie Cullum.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

On something slightly different, will Ministers explain how they intend to turn the enthusiasm to volunteer to help with the Olympics into long-term volunteering in our communities, given the decision to axe funding for the national volunteer service?

[Hugh Robertson]

The answer to that is very simple. A fantastic new scheme called “Join In”, which is being promoted by the Cabinet Office, will do exactly that.

The Leader of the House was asked—

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

1. What recent assessment he has made of the Government’s e-petitions website.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. How many e-petitions have attracted more than 100,000 signatures.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

In the six months since the launch of the site, more than 3.5 million signatures have been submitted to more than 11,000 published petitions. Those statistics underpin my view that e-petitions are connecting the Government and Parliament with a remarkable number and range of people. So far, eight e-petitions have passed the 100,000 signature threshold. They remain viewable on the site, including the Government response.

[Claire Perry]

May I ask the Deputy Leader of the House for his opinion on the report from the Procedure Committee, which is chaired so ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight)? The report suggests that e-petitions should be debated in Westminster Hall, which would be opened up so that we have more time for such debates. I welcome that proposal, but my constituents would be very concerned if they thought all e-petitions would be shuffled off to Westminster Hall. Will the Deputy Leader of the House reassure them and me that we will still have time to debate e-petitions on the Floor of the House?

[Mr Heath]

I agree with the hon. Lady. It is important that the Backbench Business Committee can choose where it holds debates, including on the Floor of the House and in some cases on a substantive motion. Last year’s debate on the release of Hillsborough papers is a good example of just such scheduling of a debate that showed the House at its best.

The Committee should also continue to be able to decide that e-petitions are not appropriate for debate, or that they have already been considered, and not schedule them for debate. Members should be free to seek Adjournment debates on e-petitions if that is felt to be the best route. I note that there will be such a debate in Westminster Hall on 22 February relating to the e-petition on the death of Kevin Williams at Hillsborough.

[Tom Greatrex]

I am sure the Deputy Leader of the House has looked at the report of the Procedure Committee, of which I am a member. One issue that the report looks at is how expectations have been raised because the wording on the Government website suggests that every petition that gets more than 100,000 signatures will be debated on the Floor of the House. If the Committee comes up with an amended form of wording, will he undertake to look at it and to implement changes suggested by the Committee quickly?

[Mr Heath]

The Government will respond in due course. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I generally support the thrust of the Committee’s report, but we will respond in the normal way, shortly after the Hansard Society seminar on e-petitions, which I welcome. That is due to take place on 6 March.

[Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Is the Minister aware that many of us feel that the Government should be congratulated on introducing for the first time an e-petition system that can trigger a debate in Parliament? However, does he also agree that any new system needs examining, refining and improving in the light of experience? Because of that, will he try to secure a Government response to the Procedure Committee’s report as soon as possible, so that the House can debate this matter sooner rather than later?

[Mr Heath]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee for their work on this matter. No system in the world is incapable of refinement and improvement by looking at it over time and I am grateful for the points he makes. I did not think there was any doubt in what we have consistently said. We have said that e-petitions are eligible for debate once they reach the threshold, not that they will necessarily be debated. The system is working well, but the Procedure Committee has made some fair points on how we can better manage the process in the House. We will certainly respond to the Committee as soon as is appropriate.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

The Procedure Committee report was not only excellent; it was done in record time to ensure that we could have a timely debate and to ensure that the e-petition system works as well as it possibly can. Will the Government ensure that their response to the Committee’s e-petitions report comes before 6 March, so that we can consider it in the Hansard Society seminar?

[Mr Heath]

We will do our best. The seminar to which the hon. Lady refers will help to inform the work of the Procedure Committee. The results of the seminar plus the Government’s response will—I hope—enable something to be laid before the House that will improve how we deal with e-petitions. With co-ordination and co-operation from everybody involved, we will ensure we get the right response.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I think I am right in saying that virtually every e-petition a Member has brought to the Backbench Business Committee that has reached 100,000 signatures has been debated in one way or the other. The Government should be enormously congratulated on bringing the public in line with Parliament. The Leader of the House has not had enough praise for that. Without this system, we would not have had the EU referendum debate.

[Mr Heath]

I am always grateful for praise and congratulation from the hon. Gentleman. I genuinely think the e-petition system has been a great improvement. The old Downing street e-petition system, under the previous Government, had no mechanism for questions ever to get on to the Floor of the House. The most memorable thing it ever produced was a suggestion that Jeremy Clarkson be Prime Minister. I think our system works an awful lot better.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

3. Whether he has provided written guidance to Ministers on ministerial statements.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

Ministers take seriously the requirement in the ministerial code that when Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance to Parliament. My hon. Friend and I do not hesitate to remind colleagues of that requirement.

[Mr Brown]

I thank the Leader of the House for that, but he knows only too well that concern is all too often expressed in the House about Ministers speaking and leaking to the press. Can he assure the House—I think he can, from what he has said this morning—that he and the Deputy Leader of the House take this issue very seriously? Should he not, as a belt-and-braces exercise, issue written guidance to Ministers?

[Sir George Young]

My view is that the problem has been less acute in this Parliament than in previous Parliaments, partly because the Government are making more statements to the House than previously: we are making 0.7 statements per day in this Parliament, as opposed to 0.4 statements per day in the previous Parliament. I take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said. There is already written guidance in the ministerial code, and I do not hesitate to remind my ministerial colleagues of the imperatives in the code on every appropriate occasion.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will be aware that there are 18 written ministerial statements on the Order Paper today. Given that the House is now rising for recess, it will be impossible to debate them. Will he publish the policy criteria determining whether written, as opposed to oral, ministerial statements are made?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend asks a good question. There is a balance always to be struck between the imperative of making an oral statement and the need to preserve time for the House to debate the issues before it on that particular day. We try to strike the right balance. Today, we have an oral statement from the Foreign Secretary and an important debate thereafter on Somalia. It would have eroded the time for the statement and the debate if, on top of that, we had scheduled for oral statement some of the written ministerial statements to which my hon. Friend referred. We try to get the balance right, but we are always open to fresh suggestions.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

4. Whether the introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists will require any changes to the Standing Orders of the House.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

5. Whether the introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists will require any changes to the Standing Orders of the House.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

The Government published our initial proposals in the form of a consultation document on 20 January. Any effects on Standing Orders would best be considered in the light of what emerges from that consultation and subsequent legislation.

[John Cryer]

Does not the fact that there are links between serving parliamentarians and certain lobbying firms imply that there would be a need to change Standing Orders in some way? Does not this exchange reinforce the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister should have made an oral statement on the Floor of the House to launch the document, rather than fobbing us off with a written statement?

[Mr Heath]

I really think we need to understand that the House is not being fobbed off with a written ministerial statement, particularly when there is a consultation paper the hon. Gentleman can contribute to in the same way as every other Member. Consultation papers are there to consult, and it is perfectly appropriate to let the House be aware of a consultation paper that has been issued by issuing a written ministerial statement—a point you, Mr Speaker, have also made in recent weeks.

[Graham Jones]

It took months for the consultation to be published. There is obviously a lot of dithering by the Government. When will the register of lobbyists finally be put before the House so that we can scrutinise it?

[Mr Heath]

Let us make a comparison on dithering. We have brought before the House, within 18 months, firm proposals in a consultation paper with draft clauses. In 13 years, the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported did nothing whatsoever, despite being asked several times by Committees of the House to bring forward a statutory register of lobbyists. I think that we are making progress where his Government did not.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Why have the Government not been able to provide a concise definition of a lobbyist?

[Mr Heath]

Because, believe it or not, it is rather a difficult thing to define, which is why the consultation paper invites responses on precisely that issue. Some people would take an all-encompassing definition, which would require every one of our constituents who comes to see us in an advice surgery to register as a lobbyist before attending. I think that that would be an over-extensive definition.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

The Government’s proposals, inadequate as they are, will require primary legislation. Will the Government now commit to pre-legislative scrutiny, which might encourage Ministers to come up with more substantial proposals?

[Mr Heath]

Pre-legislative scrutiny requires the publication of draft clauses, and that is what we have done. The hon. Lady might have noticed that. Of course, if, as a result of consultation, a very different proposal is put before the House, that too will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, because it is important that we get this right. Again, though, I really cannot take seriously the hon. Lady and her colleagues, who were incapable of doing anything about this problem, now complaining that we are doing something, which we are.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The tentacles of the corrupt and semi-corrupt lobbying system have sunk deep into the body politic. If politics is to be reformed and confidence in the House and politics restored, major reform is essential. Unfortunately, the consultation document shows that instead of listening to what the Prime Minister said when in opposition, the Government have spent their time listening to lobbyists lobbying about lobbying.

[Mr Heath]

That is absolute nonsense.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

6. Whether he has any plans to change the order of oral answers to questions.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

The Government have shown themselves willing to make changes to the order of oral questions for the convenience of the House. For example, they responded positively to a request from the official Opposition to extend the length of questions to the Deputy Prime Minister to 40 minutes. The status of the oral questions rota is kept under review.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

The Deputy Leader of the House will recall that a couple of weeks ago the Chancellor was unable to make it to Treasury questions because he was at ECOFIN, That was a perfectly reasonable and acceptable excuse, but given what is happening in the eurozone and given that ECOFIN usually meets on a Tuesday, does it mean that the Chancellor will miss future Treasury questions and should we not consider changing the time of Treasury questions, perhaps back to Thursdays, which is when they used to be a couple of years ago?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly proper question. From my experience, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer never knowingly loses an opportunity to debate matters in the House or to answer questions. He is no Macavity. He has attended 11 of the 13 Treasury oral sessions since he took office, which compares well to the previous Chancellor. The hon. Gentleman might have a point, though, and I will discuss the matter with Treasury colleagues, if there is a problem. I believe, however, that we will see the Chancellor the Exchequer regularly here answering questions on economic matters, as he would wish to do.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

May I put in a plea for an extension to Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Question Time, which is still limited, despite there being so many particularly interesting matters relating to rural affairs and food?

[Mr Heath]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. The trouble is that we cannot extend one Question Time without reducing another or lengthening the interval between them. I know that the House wants to hold Ministers and Departments to account and to fulfil its scrutiny role, and we have to find a balance in order to ensure that that is done efficiently and effectively, but I hear what she says.

Feed-in Tariffs

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

11:34

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will make a statement on the Government’s reforms to feed-in tariffs.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

I am sorry that the Secretary of State cannot be here today. He is in Cumbria opening the world’s largest industrial offshore wind farm—another big step forward in the deployment of renewables under this coalition Government.

The Government have today announced ambitious plans to ensure the future of the feed-in tariffs scheme and make it more predictable. The reforms will lead to a bigger scheme, providing better value. The feed-in tariffs scheme provides a subsidy, paid for by all consumers through their energy bills, to enable small-scale renewable and low-carbon technologies to compete against higher-carbon forms of electricity generation. The unprecedented surge in solar photovoltaic installations in the latter part of last year, owing to a 45% reduction in estimated installation costs since 2009, has placed a huge strain on the feed-in tariffs budget. That threatened the Government’s ability to roll out small-scale low-carbon technologies over the next few years in the numbers that we had wanted. We therefore acted as swiftly as possible to respond to the threat, through the changes we are now making to the tariffs for solar PV. Today is a turning point for the feed-in tariffs scheme.

[Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)]

I’ll say—downwards!

[Gregory Barker]

The right hon. Lady might care to listen, because she clearly knows nothing about it. Rather than cackling, perhaps she will just listen for a change. The Opposition asked for a statement and I am giving it.

We have looked at the feed-in tariffs budget and made the most of the flexibility available under the levy control framework to ensure that we can keep the scheme going, but we want to do much more. The reforms I am announcing today are designed to make that budget go as far as possible to maximise the number of people able to benefit from feed-in tariffs. With the new reform package, we aim to give plenty of TLC—transparency, longevity and certainty, which were absent from the old scheme that we inherited from Labour. The reforms will provide greater confidence to consumers and industry investing in exciting renewable technologies, such as solar power, anaerobic digestion, micro-CHP, and wind and hydro power.

Instead of a scheme for the few, the new, improved scheme will deliver for far more people. Our plans will see almost two and a half times more installations than was planned by the Labour Administration, and that is just by 2015. That is good news for consumers and good news for the sustainable growth of the industry. We are proposing a more predictable and transparent scheme, as the costs of technologies fall. That will ensure a long-term, predictable rate of return, which will closely track changes in prices and deployment. Make no mistake: this will be a challenging package. The tariff degression mechanism that we will propose will not allow for fat profits or excessive rents, but it will show a serious ambition. Under our new plans, we believe that by 2020 we could see up to 20 GW of solar installed in the UK. That is a huge increase in our ambition for decentralised energy. This coalition wants to see a bright and vibrant future for small-scale renewables in the UK, in which each of the technologies is able to reach its potential and get to a point where it can stand on its own two feet without the need for subsidy, sooner rather than later.

In opposition, we promised a decentralised energy revolution, bringing power to the people. Today we take a huge stride forward to making that dream a reality.

[Caroline Flint]

I understand that the Minister was due to give a press conference at his Department at 11 am to announce his plans for feed-in tariffs. I hope that Her Majesty’s Opposition have not inconvenienced him too much by forcing him to come to this House to defend his plans. Nor will it have escaped the House’s notice that, faced with the first opportunity to deal with this chaotic policy, the new Secretary of State has ducked the challenge and gone AWOL. I do not think that is a particularly encouraging start. I received a copy of the Government’s statement only 20 minutes ago, so we shall have to look closely at the details of the announcement.

Last night, the Minister tweeted that he had an ambition for 22 GW of solar capacity to be installed by 2020. That is all very well, but not if his policies do not get us anywhere near the figure. Will he confirm that he is today proposing a further cut in the tariff level for solar power to 13.6p from July of this year? That would be a 70% cut in six months, which would be out of all proportion to the falling costs in the industry.

The Minister mentioned the analysis that his Department had commissioned, but will he confirm that the study was commissioned on 10 January and asked to report back just three days later? In those three days, how many businesses were consulted? Will he also tell us whether his plans will result in a contraction in the solar industry in the next four years and cause people to lose their jobs? The Minister tried to claim that his original plans would create an additional 1,000 to 10,000 jobs in the solar industry, but we have found out that that was the total number of jobs that the industry would support, not the additional number of jobs, which would in fact mean 15,000 to 20,000 job losses. I suppose that he will try to tell us that even deeper cuts will create even more jobs.

For months, I have warned that the Government’s plans to change the eligibility criteria would exclude nearly nine out of 10 families from having solar power. Moving the energy efficiency requirement from band C to band D is a welcome retreat, but will the Minister tell me how many people will still be excluded from having solar power, and how much they will need to spend on improving their property before they meet the revised eligibility criteria?

Finally, one of our deepest concerns with the Government’s proposals is that they will exclude everyone in social housing and community groups from having solar power. What have the Government done to enable people in social housing and community organisations to access solar power? More than 80% of the people who responded to the first consultation told the Government that they had got it wrong. The appointment of a new Secretary of State was an opportunity for them to change course. Today, we can see that they have failed to take that opportunity.

[Gregory Barker]

I am sorry that the right hon. Lady constantly sees the glass as being half empty, and carps at a very ambitious scheme that will be very good news for the industry. She clearly wants to invest her political capital in failure. If she looks at the consultation, she will see that we are proposing a further cut in the tariff for solar power. She mentioned one of the options, but there are actually three. The proposals for smaller schemes, which typically involve installations on the roofs of average homes, include the options for 16.5p, 15.7p and 13.6p. We will consult on those options. She clearly does not understand the big dynamic that is driving down costs. We welcome the fact that costs are coming down, and we are determined to ensure that tariffs come down with them. If she wants to stick to, and defend, the old scheme, she is welcome to do so.

I welcome the right hon. Lady’s acknowledgement that we listened to the consultation—that rarely happened under her Government—and that we are going for band D. More than 50% of homes in Britain already meet the band D criteria, and, when the green deal is launched in the last quarter of this year, everyone in the country will be able to access measures to improve their home at no up-front cost. We have also announced today that we are going to consult on a community scheme, which the Labour Government failed to introduce when they launched this programme. For us, communities are at the heart of the renewable energy revolution, and we want to do far more to encourage and enable communities to come together to generate low-carbon and renewable energy. We expect to be able to achieve exactly that under this scheme, which will be bigger and deployed to give better value for consumers and householders.

[Mr Tim Yeo (South Suffolk) (Con)]

The Minister’s statement is welcome in that it restores a degree of order to a situation that had become increasingly chaotic. I am afraid that the chaos was aggravated by the nature of the consultation process on solar feed-in tariffs before Christmas. Does he agree that the new package will be judged on whether it offers more predictability for investors, thus bringing down the capital costs, and on whether it will give value for money to the consumers who are required to contribute to the development of the renewables industry?

[Gregory Barker]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those two things are right at the heart of this new scheme: better value for money and greater predictability, with a regular, predictable degression, particularly for solar PV, allowing us to anticipate, and take advantage of, the falling costs of this exciting technology. I think he will see that industry broadly welcomes these measures.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I agree with the Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee that the previous FITs debacle has tarnished the industry, but we have not had an opportunity to discuss this new scheme; had it not been for today’s urgent question, we would not have known about it. Will the Minister print two schedules—one on the FITs that are currently available and another on those that are likely to be introduced in the future—so that business, individuals and community groups can have certainty about what they are entering into?

[Gregory Barker]

Earlier this morning, I placed a written statement in the Library, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to download the full consultation document. If he does so, he will find all the proposed tariffs, with the various options, set out very clearly. We would welcome his, and all other, contributions to this discussion.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the subsidies are paid not by the Treasury but by consumers as a whole—by other electricity users—and that we must therefore strike a fair balance between the consumers who are benefiting from the subsidy and every other electricity consumer?

[Gregory Barker]

That is absolutely right; my hon. Friend is spot on. Under the scheme we inherited from Labour, a very small number of people were enjoying bumper returns. Our improved scheme is much fairer. Under it, there will be far more deployment and at a fairer rate, which will be better news for consumers—who, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, pay for this through their bills.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Given the shattered consumer and business confidence following the fiasco before Christmas, has the Minister conducted any analysis of how many people will take up the FITs on a 13.6p return? I am also concerned that this new scheme might exclude a lot of people who are not in a position to have loans out for a very long time and who need to get the money back more quickly.

[Gregory Barker]

We expect to see two and a half times more installations by 2015 than under the original scheme introduced by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Energy Secretary, and we also expect that that higher level of deployment will be delivered for far less money. We therefore believe we have struck the right balance between consumers and having a higher level of ambition. Our scheme will be predictable: it will offer greater transparency, and it will offer certainty to the industry.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I welcome the move on the eligibility of domestic properties, widening the scheme to a wider group of potential consumers, and the move to widen it to community groups. What will the Government do to ensure that community groups, and especially housing estates, are made aware of this great opportunity, and what reassurance will the Minister give to organisations that might be approaching this sector for the first time?

[Gregory Barker]

A couple of weeks ago, the Department launched a new project to help communities build local energy schemes and programmes, and many communities across the country have responded very positively to it. They will be ideally placed to help inform, encourage and drive forward local programmes. We take the issue of communities very seriously, which is why we are consulting on a new community tariff. We are also considering introducing a community tariff guarantee to make it easier for communities to plan ahead, recognising that it sometimes takes them a little longer to get their plans in place.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Does the Minister intend to increase the proportion of the levy cap that is provided for FITs up to the end of the spending round in 2015? If so, how much will he increase it to—and why could he not do this before the recent fiasco?

[Gregory Barker]

We will substantially increase the DECC resources that are made available for this scheme. We are happy to do that now because this new scheme offers much better value for money than the scheme we inherited. We expect that about £1.3 billion will be made available for this scheme over the spending period, but there will not be any increase in the cost to consumers, and the total sums will still be within the overall levy control framework. This will be achieved through better budgetary management by DECC, and our conviction that the new scheme offers better value for money than the one we inherited from Labour.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

As the Minister knows, I am a patron of ONCORE—Oxford North Community Renewables Limited—a community group in my constituency that has built a photovoltaic array on a local school in partnership with community investors, a local climate group, and the school itself. I am sure he agrees that ONCORE is exactly the kind of group that we want FITs to encourage, but unfortunately under Labour’s scheme it was impossible to distinguish between community groups and businesses, and as a result it has been impossible to treat community groups differently under the review. What action is he taking to deal with that?

[Gregory Barker]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. Labour failed to discriminate in favour of community groups, as we propose. We are consulting on proposals for a special community band to ensure that we give communities the preference we believe they deserve.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The owners of Trusted Solar, a company in my constituency, contacted me this morning to say that they were appalled by the way in which the statement had been sneaked out. They told me that they had had to lay off staff, and would not be able to go ahead with their plans for jobs and growth. How will any firm be able to trust this Government—or to plan for jobs and growth—if this is the kind of action that we are going to see from them?

[Gregory Barker]

Issuing a written ministerial statement and a full consultation document hardly constitutes sneaking something out. Later this morning I shall meet dozens of members of the industry and all the major trade groups at a stakeholder round table at DECC, which will be extremely open and very inclusive.

The message I am receiving from those in the industry is that they welcome the predictability we are providing. They will find the tariff reductions challenging, but there is a great deal that they will be able to bank on, and invest in, as a result of the improvements we are making to Labour’s failed scheme.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement, and in particular his announcement that band D properties will be eligible for solar panels. A number of older properties on Exmoor and in the Blackdown hills in my constituency have solid walls and are very expensive to insulate. Can the Minister provide any extra help for those owners of those properties?

[Gregory Barker]

Under the green deal and its supporting energy company obligation, a significant subsidy will be available for homes that are hard to treat, and I imagine that those cottages on Exmoor are exactly the sort of homes that would benefit from additional subsidy for solid-wall insulation.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Businesses and consumers in my constituency will assume that the Minister’s “TLC” stands for “turbulence, losses and chaos”. The Government have already spent £66,400 on fighting this case in the courts. How much more public money will they waste before they put solar energy on a sustainable footing?

[Gregory Barker]

The proposal we have presented today means that we are indeed putting solar energy on a sustainable footing. What we are not going to do is give up trying to save the consumer £1.5 billion, which is what it would cost if our appeal to the Supreme Court did not succeed. We think that it is right to stand up for hard-pressed consumers, and we do not think it is right to over-inflate rewards for the few people who receive unnecessarily high rewards of 43p.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

Green technology leaders such as Worcester Bosch in my constituency will welcome the increased transparency and certainty and the increase in eligibility, but they will particularly welcome the increase in support for combined heat and power. Does the Minister agree that given the continuing prevalence of gas central heating in this country, CHP is a key technology in encouraging microgeneration, and will he do everything in his power to support it?

[Gregory Barker]

Absolutely. We are very pleased that as a result of our reforms we shall be able to increase the tariff for micro CHP. So far there has been relatively little deployment of such exciting technologies, but I hope that the industry will now grasp the opportunity with both hands and that we shall see a greatly increased uptake.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

The Minister will recall that in December he met my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and me to discuss the terrible impact of his changes on my constituents who work for Carillion, which has announced 4,500 redundancies. I hope that the measures announced today will safeguard jobs. I shall study them in more detail, but what measures will the Minister take to ensure that the uncertainty created by his actions does not spread to the green deal?

[Gregory Barker]

I think that people will take confidence from the fact that we are managing the budget responsibly, and introducing budgetary mechanisms that allow the available subsidy to be spread over the whole budget period. We shall no longer see the boom and bust in feed-in tariffs, and indeed in the green deal, that we saw under Labour’s scheme.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

What advice can the Minister give the thousands of householders throughout the country who, as we speak, are receiving direct mail shots from the solar industry offering them the opportunity to benefit from the 43p per kWh tariff? I am not sure that that is an entirely honest way of doing business, but will the Minister advise people on how they should respond?

[Gregory Barker]

I think that people should be very cautious about making a decision based on a rate of 43p. What they can do is plan with certainty on the basis of a 21p rate until July, and a stable rate of return after that.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I ask the Minister to answer the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), and tell us how many people will lose their jobs if the Government proceed with a further cut in the solar tariff to 13p in July?

[Gregory Barker]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the statement. We are talking about growing the solar industry, and we expect a steady growth in the number of people who will be employed in the industry until 2015 and beyond.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

As one who approves of local production for local consumption, I welcome the statement, but can my hon. Friend tell us what is the recommendation for the small-scale wind FIT and why any change has been made in it?

[Gregory Barker]

There is to be a dramatic reduction in the tariff for small-scale wind. We had to take a hard look at it on a value-for-money basis, and as a result we are having to reduce it substantially to 21p. We must make it clear that we can justify paying a significant subsidy to individual technologies only if there is a real chance that they will reach a point at which they are cost-competitive with other mainstream renewables, and indeed fossil fuels, in the relatively near future. Unfortunately, that case has not been made so far in relation to small-scale wind, but I hope that the industry will respond with proposals for innovation and plans to make its technologies more cost-competitive.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that following his chaotic stewardship in DECC, the biggest barrier to the success of the solar industry in this country is him?

[Gregory Barker]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is talking absolute rubbish. We in DECC have really good engagement with the industry. The stakeholders will be in my office in about an hour and a half, and I look forward to a sensible, grown-up, constructive discussion with them.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I was grateful to the Minister for arranging a meeting just before Christmas to discuss the Harlow community scheme, which was to benefit 1,500 houses by providing them with solar panels. Will he explain how his new, revised proposals will help to ensure that the scheme continues?

[Gregory Barker]

I hope that my hon. Friend will contribute to our consultation on how we should define a community scheme. We obviously want to make the scheme as inclusive as possible, but the more narrowly it is defined, the greater the differentiation from other large-scale schemes we shall be able to offer. There is a balance to be struck. We are genuinely interested in receiving feedback, and I think that, as a real community champion himself, my hon. Friend will be well placed to help us.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Why do the Government move with the speed of a striking cobra when they are slashing support for essential renewable energy, but with the speed of an arthritic sloth when it comes to recognising the subsidies that will be essential for nuclear power in future?

[Gregory Barker]

First, we are not subsidising nuclear power. Secondly, we are introducing a very dynamic system of tariffs that I think other countries will now try to copy. I think that rather than being the slow man in Europe in renewable deployment, we shall be in the fast lane.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The Minister will be aware that in the last year of the previous Government, we were 25th out of 27 European countries in the use of renewables. I note his target of 20 GW, which seems quite heroic. Can he confirm that meeting it would put us at the top of the league and not in the relegation zone position he inherited?

[Gregory Barker]

The Secretary of State is in Cumbria today to open the world’s largest offshore wind farm, which will help to push us up the table, and I certainly believe that solar has the potential to push us higher still. Whether that will take us to the top—given the progress being made in Europe, and the severe disadvantage we inherited owing to Labour’s record in government—I do not know, but all I can say is that things are going to get better.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend knows, given the representations I have made to him, among others, about the desperate need for stability on the question of solar installations. Will he assure me that the outcome of the consultation process will represent the Government’s settled policy on this matter for the years ahead?

[Gregory Barker]

Absolutely. The good thing about this scheme is that, unlike the one we inherited from Labour, it will not depend on arbitrary decisions or interventions from politicians. Rather, it will clearly set out the mechanics of how we will degress tariffs not just this year or next, but for years to come, and will provide the stability and longevity that investors are crying out for.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

We are very lucky today in having an urgent question answered by the greenest Member of this House; nobody here is more committed to renewable energy. The Opposition attacking the Government for not leaking in advance a written statement is also novel. However, will the Minister look into the problem with the Nene valley hydro scheme? It is an excellent scheme that I know his Department supports, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is dragging its feet.

[Gregory Barker]

This package of measures is good news for hydro. We are very ambitious for the hydro sector, and I should be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to see whether we can iron out any small difficulties.

Business of the House

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

12:01

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

The business for the week commencing 20 February will be:

Monday 20 February—Motion relating to Iran. The subject for this debate has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 21 February—If necessary consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a European document relating to the remuneration of European Union staff.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.

Wednesday 22 February—Opposition day (un-allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion including on the publication of the NHS risk register.

Thursday 23 February—Motions relating to the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2012, the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2012, and the draft Pensions Act 2008 (Abolition of Protected Rights) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2012.

The provisional business for the week commencing 27 February will include:

Monday 27 February—Estimates day (4th allotted day). Details will be given in the Official Report.

[The details are as follows: Funding for the Olympics and Paralympics: Oral evidence taken before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 14 and 21 December 2010, HC689 i and ii, 17 May 2011, HC689-iii, 15 November 2011, HC689-iv, and 24 January 2012, HC689-v; Forensic Science Service: 7th Report from the Science and Technology Committee of session 2010-12, HC 855; Government Response – The Forensic Science Service, Cm 8215]

Colleagues will wish to be reminded that they will have the opportunity to pay individual tributes to Her Majesty the Queen on 7 March during the debate on the Humble Address, marking the 60th anniversary of her accession to the throne.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 23 February will be:

Thursday 23 February—Debate on cycling.

For the convenience of the House, I would like to provide additional information on the parliamentary calendar. The House will return from the conference recess on Monday 15 October. In addition to the dates already announced, the House will rise at the close of play on Tuesday 13 November and return on Monday 19 November. The House will rise at the close of play on Thursday 20 December and return on Monday 7 January 2013.

As previously announced, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement on Wednesday 21 March. As is usual, the Budget debate will continue for a further three days. I will bring forward a motion to allow the continuation of the Budget debate on Friday 23 March. This will also facilitate the Backbench Business Committee’s usual pre-recess Adjournment debate prior to the Easter recess on Tuesday 27 March.

The House will also want to be aware that the private Members’ Bills Fridays for the next Session will be: 6 July, 13 July, 7 September, 14 September, 19 October, 26 October, 2 November, 9 November, 30 November, 18 January 2013, 25 January, 1 February and 1 March. All these dates are contained in a revised version of the calendar, now available for Members and staff from the Vote Office.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and for announcing yet another packed week.

The Government’s legislative incompetence has reached new heights with the announcement the Leader of the House has just made of a Friday sitting for the Budget. Did Government business managers forget to schedule the time they needed to debate the Budget, or did the Chancellor not bother to inform them when he announced the date? They certainly know how to manage the legislative factory, although I note that once again, the House is rising on a Tuesday so the Prime Minister can dodge his Question Time.

Yesterday, the Government were defeated in the Lords on day one of the Report stage of the Health and Social Care Bill. In yesterday’s Financial Times a Conservative Back Bencher was quoted as saying:

“No Tory MP knows what the point of these reforms is”.

Let me reassure Conservative Members: they are not alone. No one—with the possible exception of the Health Secretary—understands the point of these reforms. However, what doctors, nurses, the royal colleges, patients’ groups—in fact, just about anyone working in or using the health service—do understand is that this disastrous Bill is damaging our NHS. As the massive increase in the number of people waiting more than 18 weeks for treatment shows, it is patients who are suffering.

The Health Secretary may have presided over the biggest legislative shambles and policy disaster in recent history, but apparently the Prime Minister still has confidence in him. I do not imagine he feels particularly reassured, given that one No. 10 insider is quoted in The Times as saying that the Health Secretary

“should be taken out and shot”.

That was followed by a story in The Daily Telegraph with a headline saying that No. 10 does not want to shoot the Health Secretary. Given that the Prime Minister cannot even get his story straight on whether or not he wants to shoot his Ministers, is it any wonder that they have made such a mess of running the NHS? Will the Government recognise reality and finally drop the Health and Social Care Bill?

Ever willing to help the Government out, the Deputy Prime Minister briefed this week that he thought about vetoing the Health and Social Care Bill, but decided against it “for the sake of coalition unity”. So there we have it: the Liberal Democrats in government—power before principle.

The Health and Social Care Bill has become the latest Government Bill to run into trouble in the Lords. Over the period of the Labour Government, when we lost about a third of whipped Divisions in the Lords, the proportion of Labour peers reached a maximum of 30%. Representation on the Government Front Bench in the Lords is already at 39%. Will the Leader of the House therefore rule out stuffing the House of Lords any further with Government peers?

The Deputy Prime Minister also said this week that he was asking Liberal Democrats “day in, day out” to vote for things they

“wouldn’t do in a month of Sundays”

if there were a majority Liberal Democrat Government. It might have escaped his notice, but we have not been voting for legislation “day in, day out” due to the Government’s shambolic mishandling of parliamentary business in this House. The few votes we have had were clearly too much for the children’s Minister, who fled London rather than going into the Division Lobby with the Conservatives to vote for the Welfare Reform Bill. Does the Leader of the House agree with his own Back Benchers who said that the children's Minister should have the courage to vote for the Government’s business, or the guts to resign?

Labour called for the RBS chief executive not to take his bonus; it happened. Labour called for the board of Network Rail not to take their bonuses; it happened. On Tuesday, Labour initiated a debate on bankers’ bonuses and not a single Cabinet Minister could be bothered to speak for the Government. The Chancellor, speaking to the Federation of Small Businesses, even seemed to think it was anti-business to be talking about executive pay at all. Had he deigned to come to this House on Tuesday, he would have realised it is actually about fairness.

Will the Leader of the House confirm that as a result of quantitative easing, every bank in the country has benefited from taxpayer funding, and does he agree that it is not fair for the bosses of all the banks that have benefited from taxpayer support to earn in one day many times more than most people in this country earn in a lifetime? Every time I have raised this matter, the right hon. Gentleman has ducked the question. Given that Barclays is due to announce its bonus round, will the Leader of the House now send an unequivocal message to banking bosses about what the Government consider fair?

I want to pay tribute to two remarkable women. Her Majesty the Queen has reigned for 60 years, and her commitment to the nation and the Commonwealth has rightly earned respect across the country and around the world. Florence Green, who died this week at the age of 110, was the last known surviving service member from world war one. Mrs Green was one of 100,000 women to serve this country in the great war. Will the Leader of the House now agree to schedule the traditional debate to mark international women’s day, so that we can pay tribute to the service of those remarkable women and many others who enhance our public life in this country?

[Sir George Young]

The Government are anxious that we should have the normal pre-Easter recess Adjournment debate, which is normally scheduled by the Backbench Business Committee, and that is why we are scheduling an additional day’s debate on the Friday after the Budget; if we did not do so, there would be a risk that that popular occasion would be squeezed out of the calendar.

The Prime Minister relishes Prime Minister’s questions—probably more than the Leader of the Opposition does. If the hon. Lady had been listening to what I said, she would have heard me announce that the House would be rising on a Thursday in December, not on a Tuesday. As for the upper House, the Labour party has more peers than any other party and if there was representation on the basis of votes at the previous general election, Labour would clearly not be entitled to that number of peers.

There are three principles in the Health and Social Care Bill: more control for patients; more power for professionals; and less bureaucracy. Those are three principles that the previous Labour Government were embarked on following when they were in power; they were establishing foundation trusts, they were promoting choice and they were promoting practice-based commissioning in the mid-2000s. We take forward that agenda. In addition, I say to the hon. Lady that it is called the “Health and Social Care Bill”—everyone agrees that social care must be linked more closely to the NHS, and the Bill promotes better financial and professional integration. As for the independent sector, I just remind her of what her manifesto said:

“We will support an active role for the independent sector working alongside the NHS in the provision of care”.

We are actually precluding the sort of arrangements that Labour promoted, whereby independent treatment centres were parachuted into the NHS with no powers for the NHS to compete.

On the point about the education Minister, the shadow Leader of the House was a Minister and she knows perfectly well that Ministers are occasionally away on ministerial business. That was the issue for my hon. Friend. If the shadow Leader of the House looks at the voting register, she will find that a large number of her colleagues did not take part in that particular vote.

On taxing the banks, the shadow Leader of the House will know that our annual levy on the banks brings in more each year than Labour’s one-off tax—that deals with that issue.

On international women’s day, that debate is one of the fixed events now allocated to the Backbench Business Committee, but I can say in response to the hon. Lady’s question that we will seek to allocate to that Committee a day so that it can hold the traditional debate on international women’s day roughly on the date when it occurs in March.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the purpose of confirmatory hearings by Select Committees, particularly those into public appointments? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very unwise for Ministers to disregard the autonomy and authority of Select Committees, particularly the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills?

[Sir George Young]

I am aware of the report by the BIS Committee and what it said about the proposed appointment at the Office for Fair Access. The Government will want to reflect on that Committee’s recommendations before they come to a conclusion on any appointment.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

I am sorry to say that a student present at a lecture given yesterday by a holocaust survivor has complained about the conduct during that lecture of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley). Is it not about time that the Government sorted this whole affair out by publishing the outcome of the inquiry and organising a debate on the investigation that the Prime Minister announced into the hon. Gentleman’s involvement—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase will be silent—I will brook no contradiction of that point. I assume that the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) notified the hon. Member for Cannock Chase—

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

No, he didn’t—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I require no interference from the hon. Gentleman, who will behave himself and that is the end of it. I asked the hon. Member for Dudley North for an indication of whether he contacted the hon. Gentleman in question.

[Ian Austin]

My office contacted his.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, it is preferable that there should be direct contact—[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Dudley North will finish his question, there will be an answer and we will proceed.

[Ian Austin]

I attempted to phone personally, but the answerphone was on and so I asked my office to call. Is it not about time that this whole affair was sorted out, so that we can get to the bottom of the hon. Gentleman’s involvement in a party at which people chanted “Hitler, Hitler, Hitler” and toasted the Third Reich?

[Sir George Young]

I have to say that that is not a matter for the Government—it is a matter for the party—and it would not be appropriate for me to respond to that question at this Dispatch Box.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

When my right hon. Friend had his conversations in January with the chairman of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, was he conducting them wearing his hat as Leader of the House of Commons—in other words, on behalf of Parliament—or as a member of the Government? May we have an early debate on the issue of the separation of powers and how that fits in with the operation of IPSA?

[Sir George Young]

I cannot promise a debate along the lines that my hon. Friend has requested. However, as Leader of the House, I have regular discussions with the chief executive and the chairman of IPSA, as it would be appropriate for me to do, given the responsibilities that I hold.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

We have just heard mention, both from the Leader of the House and his shadow, of the fact that international women’s day falls on 8 March and St David’s day falls on 1 March. The Backbench Business Committee received bids for both of those debates on Tuesday. The Leader of the House touches on a sore point, because it is impossible for the Committee to allocate those debates without the Government allocating us time to do so. Will he commit to meet our successor Committee in the new Session to divide up those set-piece debates on events that fall on specific days every year? Alternatively—this is much more preferable—will he allocate a set day every week in the Chamber that is specifically reserved for Back-Bench time?

[Sir George Young]

We will, of course, seek to accommodate this year the specific events to which the hon. Lady has referred: the St David’s day and international women’s day debates. On her second point, I am sympathetic to the idea of pre-allocating to the Backbench Business Committee a certain number of days each year and then allocating it a day in order to honour a commitment in respect of international women’s day, the pre-EU Council debates, St David’s day and other such events. I would be happy to have that particular dialogue. On the concept of a fixed day each week, the Wright Committee looked at that but did not actually recommend it. That Committee said that that there would be a risk of rigidity if we went down that road, so at the moment I say no to a fixed day but I am happy to try to accommodate her in the way that she indicated.

[Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)]

In 1975, five journalists died in Balibo in East Timor. In 2007, an Australian coroner’s court found that they had been deliberately killed by Indonesian troops and that this constituted a war crime. Five years on, with two British citizens having been killed in a war crime, is it not time that we had a statement from the Foreign Secretary on what our Government are going to do about it?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his concern. I will draw that matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and, of course, see whether it would be appropriate for the Government to make a statement in the light of that tragedy.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will be aware of today’s report from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service—CAFCASS—highlighting a dramatic increase in the number of children being taken into care due to parental neglect. One of the most effective programmes in assisting dysfunctional and problem families is early intervention, yet these programmes are suffering across the country because of the Government’s savage cuts to local authority funding. So may we have a debate on this issue, in the hope that the Government will think again, if on the grounds not of compassion towards our children but of reducing the astronomical costs to the nation of keeping our children in care?

[Sir George Young]

The Government have sought to protect the early intervention grant for precisely the reasons cited by the hon. Lady. It is indeed the case that, following the tragedy of Peter Connelly, more local authorities are taking children into care. Whether they remain in care is, of course, a matter for the courts, but we want to learn the lessons from what has happened, take advantage of the report that has been published today and see whether we can improve the quality of life of those children who are at risk.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

I am extremely concerned about recent developments in the Republic of the Maldives, following the forced resignation of the former President Mohamed Nasheed, who is a close friend of mine. I have also heard worrying reports of escalating violence. As we speak, Mohamed Nasheed is awaiting arrest at his parents’ home. Will the Leader of the House urgently make time for a debate on the political situation in the Maldives and on the pressing need for judicial reform?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. We are to have a debate on Somalia and, depending on the flexibility of whoever is in the Chair, it may be appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to touch on the Maldives. It is a young democracy where the President has just resigned. The high commissioner is in the capital at the moment to seek to establish what is going on. We call on the new Government to demonstrate their respect for the rights of all political parties and their members, and to ensure that the constitution is upheld. The latest reports indicate no reports of unrest directly affecting tourists. If appropriate later on today, my right hon. Friend will seek to bring the House up to date.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Leader of the House will know that Mary Portas conducted an important review of our town centres. Is it not about time that the Government helped them, in this time of recession? In particular, may we have a debate on the role of Tesco, which is ravaging our town and city centres throughout the country? It is a dangerous monopoly and it is about time that it was curbed.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. He will know that the House debated the Mary Portas report in Back-Bench time a few weeks ago. The Government are grateful to Mary Portas for her report. We will publish our response in the spring and we will take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point about the risks of too much power being vested in a number of supermarkets.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Mayor of London will end his first term in office with 1,000 extra police officers, 1 million extra patrols on the streets and crime down by 7.6%. After three years of council tax freezes, following eight years of a Labour Mayor increasing the council tax by 152%, the welcome news is that London’s council tax will be reduced for the first time in London’s history. May we therefore have a debate on the effectiveness of local and regional government?

[Sir George Young]

No one would welcome such a debate more than me, but I cannot promise my hon. Friend one in the immediate future. He makes a point. The Mayor intends for the Met to have 32,510 fully warranted police officers by the end of his first term, which is significantly more than he inherited. I pay tribute to what the Mayor of London has done in his first term.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the contribution that apprentices make to their local communities? Eight young apprentices from MBDA in my constituency are about to compete against seven other teams in the Brathay challenge. They will raise money for a local charity, raise awareness of apprenticeships and take part in an outdoor challenge. This is just one of the many commendable activities in which they take part each year, and I am sure that the Leader of the House would like to join me in wishing them good luck in the challenge.

[Sir George Young]

Indeed, I do wish them good luck. I also wish good luck to the more than 400,000 apprentices starting their apprenticeships this year. That is a record number and a significant contribution to tackling the problems of youth unemployment that we inherited from the outgoing Government.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Given that the forthcoming parliamentary timetable is unlikely to be overburdened with new Government Bills, may we have a debate on the merits of repealing existing legislation?

[Sir George Young]

I advise my hon. Friend not to believe everything he reads in the press about a light legislative programme in the second Session, but there might be an opportunity, subject to what is in the Queen’s Speech, to make progress with the repeals of certain measures that are surplus to requirement. That is part of our deregulatory initiative, which we are anxious to pursue.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

As you know, Mr Speaker, Swansea is the cultural capital of Wales. [Interruption.] In 2014, the world will celebrate the centenary of the birth of Dylan Thomas—a great literary icon and a great British and Welsh brand—in Swansea. Will the Leader of the House find time to debate a programme of events throughout 2014 to support inward investment and tourism, related to the centenary celebrations for Dylan Thomas, in the United Kingdom, Wales and Swansea?

[Sir George Young]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, Mr Speaker, during the St David’s day debate, for which I hope the Backbench Business Committee will find time. I noted some dissent from behind the hon. Gentleman when he claimed that Swansea is the cultural capital of Wales. He may have difficulty with some of his parliamentary colleagues.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

As a Swansea boy, I have to agree with the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), rather than with my Government’s Front-Bench representative on this occasion, which is most unusual for me.

Oil refineries and large chemical plants have been investing in combined heat and power units, but they face the loss of certain financial exemptions, without which an oil refinery may face a loss of £7 million a year if it continues with the CHP units. If it discontinued using them, tens if not hundreds of thousands of tonnes of CO₂ will be generated, with obvious environmental disadvantages. Will the Leader of the House arrange time for an urgent statement from the Department of Energy and Climate Change to show that it is aware of the unintended consequences of the change in the levy system and that it will make representations to the Treasury to make an adjustment in the Budget accordingly?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to an issue of which the Government are already aware. He might know that the Treasury has announced previously that it will introduce a relief from the carbon price floor for combined heat and power plants. We will bring forward the details in due course, and the Treasury and DECC are working closely together on the issue.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

May we have a statement or a debate in Government time on the high and escalating price of fuel in Northern Ireland and the Treasury’s contribution to it? According to a National Consumer Council report published this week, the price is now the highest of any region in the EU. That will have a massive effect on the economy and on household bills. Can the Leader of the House offer any hope to the hard-pressed families and businesses of Northern Ireland?

[Sir George Young]

I think we had an Opposition day debate relatively recently on the high cost of energy. I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the particular problems referred to by the right hon. Gentleman and ask them to write to him.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Tomorrow is my constituent Gary McKinnon’s birthday, but he will not be celebrating, because this is the 10th year that he has faced extradition to the United States, which, given his mental state, is tantamount to facing execution. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have a statement when the Home Secretary finally makes her decision?

[Sir George Young]

I commend my hon. Friend for the way in which he has championed the cause of his constituent. He will know that the Home Secretary has commissioned some reports and advice on medical issues. She will need time to reflect on those. I understand that the court has directed that the Home Secretary provide Mr McKinnon’s representatives with the experts’ report by 24 February and that he will then have a further 28 days to respond. The court has also directed that a hearing should take place in July, but I will pass on what my hon. Friend has just said to the Home Secretary.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I do not know whether you have seen the front page of the business section of today’s Daily Telegraph, Mr Speaker, but it refers to Vauxhall and General Motors in Europe. Against that background, you will be able to understand the anger expressed by my constituents following the Prime Minister’s response to me yesterday on public procurement. Given that police authorities are buying foreign cars and that Governments are buying products from all over the world—the leader of the Scottish Government is buying steel from China—may we have an urgent debate about public procurement and the Government’s role in leadership on it?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman will know that it is not a matter for the Government which cars are procured by police authorities, which are independent bodies. Also, he will have seen the encouraging manufacturing output information that was published today. However, I will raise with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office the broader procurement issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised and see what further steps we can take within the confines of the fair trading laws the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Last week, I attended a public meeting at which more than 100 of my constituents were protesting about the 15-year licence extension to a landfill in the constituency, which will take no waste from Warrington after 2013 but a great deal of waste from surrounding cities. May we have a debate on regional landfill strategy? Cities such as Liverpool and Manchester should be encouraged to look after their own waste and not send it to my constituency.

[Sir George Young]

For reasons that my hon. Friend will understand, I cannot comment on the specific instance to which he refers, but he will know that under the Localism Act 2011 local authorities have a duty to co-operate with one another to co-ordinate the effective handling of waste to meet their communities’ needs. I hope that the provisions of that Act will give him some comfort.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

May I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), particularly those about public procurement affecting local charities such as Erskine in my community, which looks after and provides jobs for disabled ex-service personnel? Unfortunately, in these austere times it is having to lay off ex-service personnel. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at public procurement through all Government Departments to explore whether there is any way they can help that organisation?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman might also want to raise this issue with the Scottish Parliament, but he may have heard my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office indicate on Wednesday that he wants more small and medium-sized enterprises and organisations such as the one to which the hon. Gentleman referred to be able to bid for public procurement. Of course I will share with my right hon. Friend the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised and see whether we can try to help the organisation threatened with a loss of jobs in his constituency.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am sure you are aware, Mr Speaker, that it is nearly 20 years since British soldiers were deployed Bosnia, yet the political situation there, where we put so much effort and resources and where we lost so many men, is getting worse and worse. Could we possibly have a debate about what is happening in a part of the world into which we put so much effort two decades ago?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue with which he is probably more familiar than almost anyone else in the Chamber. I can only suggest that he should apply to you, Mr Speaker, for a debate in Westminster Hall or for an Adjournment debate so we can have time to focus on Bosnia, the investment we made there and the role we have to play in tackling the outstanding problems that remain.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Is it possible to have a debate on the excessive inventiveness of the Prime Minister? I am thinking in particular of yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions in which he referred to the national health service on two occasions and got his facts completely wrong.

[Sir George Young]

I would deny that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister ever got any fact wrong. I heard the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) at the close of play yesterday and I am sure we will want to respond regarding the issue he raised.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I hope that Mrs Bone does not mind that I have been called before my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone).

Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 2695?

[That this House believes that public procurement should be used to boost the number of British apprentices; notes that the Department for Work and Pensions' (DWP) new Apprenticeship and Skills Requirements Contract Schedule, published in July 2011, has successfully encouraged contractors to hire more than 2,000 apprentices in the Department's supply chain, on a voluntary basis and that a similar scheme has been successful in Essex County Council; estimates that if this were rolled out across the wider public sector it would instantly create 120,000 new apprenticeships at little or no cost to the taxpayer; further estimates that if the normal ratio of these apprenticeship places went to young people, youth unemployment would be cut by seven per cent.; and therefore urges every Government department to bring in similar contracts to those of the DWP and to give thousands more young Britons a fighting chance of a job, a qualification and a decent wage.]

May we have a debate on apprenticeships and public procurement? Since 2011, the DWP has successfully been encouraging suppliers to hire more than 2,000 apprentices. That is different from Labour’s proposal, as it is cost-neutral to the Treasury and is voluntary for the firms involved. If that were copied across the public sector, it could create 120,000 extra apprenticeships. Will the Leader of the House look at this proposal?

[Sir George Young]

I commend the example of the organisation my hon. Friend has mentioned, which is using the supply chain to employ more apprenticeships. I understand that many public sector bodies are already doing this as a matter of good practice, but we believe that even more can be done through a non-legislative approach to promote skills through public procurement. In the light of what my hon. Friend has just said, I shall see whether the Government can give added momentum to the initiative to which he has referred.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The public do not regard a Westminster Hall debate as sufficient recognition of the level of interest shown when an e-petition reaches the 100,000 signature mark. That is especially true in the case of Kevin Williams, who died at Hillsborough. Will the Leader of the House make sure that sufficient time is given to such debates in this Chamber and not push the responsibility on to the Backbench Business Committee, which has many other pressing issues for which to find time?

[Sir George Young]

I gently make the point that there would not be a Backbench Business Committee allocating any time at all had this Government not set it up. I am not sure I agree with the premise on which the hon. Gentleman’s question was based, namely that a debate in Westminster Hall is not sufficient recognition of an issue. Some of the best debates I have attended in this Session have been in Westminster Hall, including a very moving debate on Holocaust memorial day last month. I think we need to dispel the myth that because something is debated in Westminster Hall it is not important. We should do all we can to raise the public perception of debates in Westminster Hall rather than denigrate them.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The whole House will thank the Leader of the House for provisionally publishing the dates of recess and for private Members’ Bills, which is a welcome move. If the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) does not like those dates and wants to be here on Wednesdays, she can lead the Opposition through the Division Lobby and vote against it. Indeed, I might well be with her on that occasion. Would it not be much easier and help the Backbench Business Committee out enormously if the 35 days in the next Session for Back-Bench business were allocated in the calendar? They would not have to be on the same day each week and they could even be provisional, but it would help us enormously if they were allocated.

[Sir George Young]

I can move some way in the direction that my hon. Friend advocates. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), there are a number of set-piece debates that would normally take place on or around a certain day and I am very happy to have a dialogue to see whether we can make that time available. However, it would inject undue rigidity into the parliamentary timetable if we were to allocate in advance days for the Backbench Business Committee. Given the various events that occur during a Session and the unpredictability of many of them, it would impose undue rigidity on the business of the House if we had to pre-allocate all the Back-Bench business days right at the beginning of the Session.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the definition of Government savings? The National Audit Office has said that the Cabinet Office cannot say whether the £2.6 billion comes from the reduction of public bodies or wider efficiency savings. If we cannot have a debate, will the Leader of the House kindly ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office to lay before the House a full impact assessment regarding the savings made for those public bodies that are going to be abolished or transferred under the Public Bodies Act 2011?

[Sir George Young]

I understand that my right hon. Friend has already done so in the context of the Act, but I will draw the hon. Lady’s remarks to his attention. If he has not done what I think he has done, I am sure he will do it in future.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

As Sir Philip Mawer has resigned his post and said that he believes he should have been the person who inquired into the Adam Werritty affair, should we not look at this again to make sure we have a thorough investigation into that affair because of the real possibility that the former Secretary of State for Defence was conducting his own private foreign policy that could lead us into a war with Iran?

[Sir George Young]

I have seen the evidence that Sir Philip Mawer gave before the Select Committee on Public Administration, and I have seen the exchange with the hon. Gentleman. It would make sense to await the Committee’s report before coming to a view on this issue, but he will know that the Cabinet Secretary produced his report, which led to the resignation of my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence, and we regard the matter as now closed.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am glad that the Leader of the House noted what I said in my point of order last night, because that was not an isolated incident. Increasingly, at Prime Minister’s questions we see the Prime Minister red in the face and spraying inaccurate figures about Wales around the Chamber while he attempts not to answer sensible questions.

In addition to the St David’s day debate—a tradition on which I hope the Leader of the House will deliver—may we have a debate in Government time on the NHS in Wales and England so that we can make the comparison between the Government in Wales, who are attempting to improve the service and who have the support of the people, and the Government here, who do not have a mandate and seek to bring in changes that will undermine both care and efficiency?

[Sir George Young]

I listened to the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order, and even on his own figures it seemed that the NHS in Wales was not doing as well as the NHS in England. I would welcome such a debate, which would give us an opportunity to contrast the extra resources we have provided to the NHS in England and the reduced waiting times since the election with the relatively poorer performance of the Administration in Wales.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House guarantee that the Health Secretary leads for the Government in the Opposition day debate on the NHS risk register when we return? Does he agree that the handling of the Health and Social Care Bill has been an utter shambles from start to finish? Every day we see blue-on-blue briefing against the poor, downtrodden Health Secretary. Would it not better for all concerned if the Government just dropped the Bill?

[Sir George Young]

In response to what the hon. Member for Wallasey said from the Opposition Front Bench, I explained why we need to make progress with the Bill. As for the hon. Gentleman’s question about the debate when we come back, the Government will put up an appropriate spokesman on any motion that the Opposition table. I refer him to what the Prime Minister said yesterday about the position of the Health Secretary being more secure than that of the Leader of the Opposition.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

I know that as a serious parliamentarian the Leader of the House greatly values the independence of Select Committees, but there is clearly something fishy going on with the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. Will he investigate to establish whether the Prime Minister and/or the Chancellor of the Exchequer were involved in the consideration by the Select Committee of the appointment of Mr Ebdon?

[Sir George Young]

I have looked very quickly at the report of the BIS Committee. If the hon. Gentleman is implying that somehow members of the Committee have been nobbled by people who are not members of it, I strenuously deny any such assertion.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Further to the issues regarding the Welsh NHS raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael), may we have a debate in Government time about cross-border provision between Wales and England? It is often overlooked now that we have devolved the Welsh side and have England-only Bills on the English side. It is a serious issue. There have been serious cuts to the budget in Wales and we need a debate on their impact on my constituents and others. It would also educate the Prime Minister so that he gets his facts right in future.

[Sir George Young]

The Prime Minister always gets his facts right, as I have just asserted. It may be appropriate in the debate on St David’s day to raise specific issues about cross-border trade and the NHS. I will refer the hon. Gentleman’s remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Afghanistan

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

12:42

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

Mr Speaker, with permission I will present a quarterly review of our progress in Afghanistan since October last year, representing the combined assessment of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development.

As always, I begin by paying tribute to the brave men and women of our armed forces. They have borne the brunt of the immense difficulties and dangers that Afghanistan has presented each and every day of the last 10 years and which it still presents in so many ways today. Three hundred and ninety-seven British service personnel have lost their lives since 2001, and 14 since my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary made the previous statement on 18 October. This House and our nation will never forget the sacrifices they have made to protect Britain’s national security.

Our Government’s objective in Afghanistan is shared by the Afghan Government and all 50 nations that contribute forces to the international security assistance force. We all want an Afghanistan that is able to maintain its own security and prevent the country from being used as a safe haven for international terrorists. Our strategy is to help the Afghan Government to build capable Afghan national security forces; to make progress towards a sustainable political settlement; and to support the building of a viable Afghan state.

Central to that is the gradual handover of security responsibilities from international forces to the Afghan national security forces by the end of 2014, as we agreed at the Lisbon summit in 2010. British and ISAF troops will continue to perform combat roles until the end of 2014. Our commitment in terms of aid, trade, investment and close diplomatic ties will of course last far beyond 2014. It was reflected in the enduring strategic partnership agreement signed by the Prime Minister and President Karzai on 28 January, and will play a crucial part in securing our long-term objectives.

No one in this House should underestimate the scale of the challenges that remain, but we are confident that our strategy in Afghanistan is the right one to maintain our national security, and we are making steady progress towards our goals. In December, the National Security Council reaffirmed that strategy, and agreed our objectives for the year ahead: 2012 will be an important year to consolidate progress in Afghanistan. The NATO conference in Chicago in May and the Tokyo conference on development in July will build on pledges made at the international Afghanistan conference in Bonn last December, with the aim of securing concrete financial, development and security commitments for Afghanistan beyond 2014.

The process of transition made considerable progress last year. The House will know that this is the means by which responsibility for security across Afghanistan is progressively transferred from the international community to Afghan national security forces, up to the end of 2014 when international troops will withdraw from a combat role. Transition is based on conditions on the ground; it is phased, it is gradual and it can take up to 18 months in any one area. In December 2011, transition began in the second group of areas. Approximately half the Afghan population lives in areas now in the process of transition.

The progress made in Helmand by Afghan, UK and ISAF troops is illustrated by the inclusion of Nad Ali, alongside Lashkar Gah, early in the transition process, which began in July. The security situation in these districts is unrecognisable compared with the start of British operations in 2006. Violence levels have fallen dramatically. Afghans have freedom of movement in Lashkar Gah and in all five central Helmand districts. Pupil enrolment for both girls and boys is rising, and the Afghan Government are able to provide services to the province.

British forces continue to conduct operations in Helmand, but are supporting a growing number of Afghan-led operations. In December, more than 280 British service personnel joined forces with 550 Afghan troops on Operation Winter Success. The operation was planned and led by the Afghan national army with ISAF mentoring and support. It succeeded in clearing insurgents from the area where three Helmand districts meet—Nad Ali, Nahri Sarraj and Lashkar Gah—before building new checkpoints, manned by Afghan forces, to increase security and extend the governance and development footprint of the Afghan Government.

The success of such operations allows us gradually to focus our efforts on mentoring and training. We will help to create an Afghan national officer academy to produce the Afghan army officers of the future, and it will open its doors in 2013. It is expected to accept 1,350 recruits annually, and approximately 120 British troops will be based at the academy to provide training and related support.

At the end of December, the Afghan national police were more than 143,000 strong and the Afghan national army numbered more than 170,000. They are deploying in formed units, carrying out their own operations and planning complex security arrangements. Last year, they responded to a series of high-profile attacks promptly, professionally and increasingly independent of ISAF support.

For the first time since 2006, year on year violence levels decreased across Afghanistan in 2011. This is a good indication of progress. However, the regional picture remains varied: in the east in particular the number of security incidents rose. We cannot be complacent, as gains are fragile and not yet irreversible, but we are firmly on track for the ANSF to have lead security responsibility by mid to late 2013. The ANSF will have full security responsibility across Afghanistan by the end of 2014. This means that plans for British combat troop draw-down by the end of 2014 also remain on track. The Prime Minister has indicated that there will be a steady and measured draw-down between now and then, and that British forces will be reduced by 500 to 9,000 by the end of this year. The rate of reduction will be determined by the progress of transition on the ground.

We have also seen progress on the political track. In December, I attended the international conference in Bonn. The conference signalled that our commitment to Afghanistan will continue beyond the completion of security transition and will be reinforced at this year’s Chicago and Tokyo conferences.

The Afghan Government also made commitments at Bonn. They include further efforts to tackle corruption and improve the capacity of Afghan institutions. The Government committed themselves to upholding international human rights obligations and to protecting women’s rights as enshrined in the Afghan constitution. Respect for women’s rights is a fundamental obligation, and is important for Afghanistan’s future. We agree with the Afghan Government, and regularly impress upon them, that the rights of women must not be sacrificed as part of the political process. This was emphasised at Bonn by the Minister for Equalities, the Government’s ministerial champion for tackling violence against women and girls overseas.

Britain supports an Afghan-led political process to help to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan. We know that this will take time and will require support. The Afghan Government’s approach received broad endorsement from the Loya Jirga in November 2011 and from the international community at Bonn.

There have been a number of important developments in the political process already this year. Last month, the Taliban expressed their willingness to participate in a political office in Qatar. We welcome any steps towards reconciliation but recognise that they are at an early stage and that more work will be needed to move forward. Nevertheless, the Taliban leadership have accepted the need to engage in a political process, and this is significant. If they are willing to renounce violence, break links with al-Qaeda and respect the Afghan constitution, there can be a place for them in their country’s future. A political office provides an opportunity for all Afghans to work together towards a sustainable peace, for it is only with the engagement of all Afghans that we can hope to see a durable settlement. Britain will continue to support the Afghan Government in these efforts.

In November, the International Monetary Fund agreed a new three-year programme of support with the Afghan Government, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development helped to secure. This has helped to get back on track the internationally agreed set of Afghan development and governance commitments known as the Kabul process. It also allowed donors, including Britain, to resume support to the Afghanistan reconstruction trust fund, which is helping the Government to deliver vital basic services, including education and health care.

None the less, Afghanistan remains one of the world’s poorest countries and its financial future is uncertain. A World Bank report published in November showed that the Government budget shortfall might still be $7 billion by 2021. At Bonn we agreed in principle to provide long-term financial support in line with the Afghan Government’s priorities. These plans will be discussed further at the Chicago and Tokyo conferences. We will continue to support the Afghan Government’s efforts to increase tax revenue and economic growth in order to reduce the budget shortfall and aid dependency. Our support to their Revenue Department is helping to exceed IMF revenue collection targets. In November, quarterly revenue collections increased to £322 million, an increase of 23% over the same period last year.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development launched a major new civil society programme to strengthen the capacity of Afghan civil society bodies during his visit to Afghanistan in October. This, too, will have a strong focus on women’s rights. The first call for proposals has resulted in over 200 applications, which are now being assessed.

These developments in Afghanistan are essential to the country’s future. So, too, are the actions of Afghanistan’s neighbours. At last November’s regional conference, hosted by our Turkish partners in Istanbul, Afghanistan’s neighbours gave their collective backing to the Afghan Government’s efforts to promote an inclusive political process. They also agreed to work together through a detailed set of confidence-building measures, and a follow-up meeting will be held in Kabul in June. In March, the fifth regional economic co-operation conference on Afghanistan will also take place, aiming to further economic integration. Britain will continue to support these efforts while recognising that they must be led by the region.

Finally, Pakistan has a crucial role and much to gain from improved stability in Afghanistan. It already suffers more casualties from terrorism than any other country in the world. Both countries need to work together to stem the flow of militants, who undermine the sovereignty of both democratic Governments and remain intent on killing their citizens and destabilising the region. The best way to achieve this is through regular, frank and honest dialogue. We welcome Pakistan’s participation in the Istanbul conference and its support for the commitments that were agreed. The recent visit to Kabul by the Pakistani Foreign Minister, Hina Rabbani Khar, is a positive indication of improving relations between the two countries and signals the resumption of the Afghanistan-Pakistan dialogue. I look forward to receiving the Foreign Minister in London on 21 February, when we will discuss Afghanistan and the region as well as our strong bilateral relations.

Serious challenges remain in Afghanistan. There will undoubtedly be setbacks and difficulties ahead, but we are making steady progress. This will be an important year to consolidate this progress and to strengthen the international commitments to Afghanistan and long-term partnership with its people.

12:54

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it. Of course, the context of this discussion is the number of British personnel currently serving in Afghanistan—almost 10,000—who are harnessing their professionalism and expertise to the task of securing a stable Afghanistan that will not threaten this country’s security again. Their bravery is rightly and regularly praised in the House, but each time it is a genuine and sincere reflection of the admiration on both sides of this House for the work they do on our behalf.

The Foreign Secretary knows that we supported the mission in Afghanistan in government and continue to do so in opposition. We are keen to discuss these issues in a spirit of shared support for the mission, but it is also the Opposition’s job to scrutinise, and that task is especially important when the lives of our servicemen and women are at stake. I hope that he will see my questions in that spirit.

I will divide my questions between the security situation and the diplomatic effort. On the security situation, the Foreign Secretary has just told the House:

“British and ISAF troops will continue to perform combat roles until the end of 2014.”

How is that consistent with the comments of the American Defence Secretary, Leon Panetta, who only last week said:

“Hopefully by mid- to the latter part of 2013 we’ll be able to make a transition from a combat role to a training, advice and assist role”?

Incidentally, that comment was confirmed by the Prime Minister’s official spokesman, but there was no statement to the House. Given the integrated nature of ISAF’s work, both in Helmand and across Afghanistan, is the Foreign Secretary seriously suggesting that British military personnel will be involved in combat operations for potentially between a year and 18 months after our American allies have transferred from combat operations to providing training, advice and assistance?

What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the military implications of America’s decision to wind down combat operations more than a year before the previously stated deadline for withdrawal? What is his assessment of the impact on the ISAF mission’s timetable for transition of the announcement in January by the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, that French troops will now leave Afghanistan by the end of 2013?

The statement comes shortly after the publication of a leaked NATO document cataloguing the depth of links and assistance between the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani security services. The report also details widespread collaboration between the insurgents and the Afghan police and military, so what is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the findings of the report, and how does he reconcile its bleak findings with his description today that

“we are making steady progress”?

The Foreign Secretary has just told the House:

“For the first time since 2006, year on year violence levels decreased across Afghanistan in 2011.”

How does he reconcile that statement with the report by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan only last week that indicated that the number of civilians killed and injured has risen for the fifth year running, with the majority of deaths caused by insurgents? The report documented 3,021 civilian deaths in 2011, compared with 2,790 in 2010 and 2,412 in 2009.

The Foreign Secretary said in his statement that 120 British troops will be based at the Afghan national academy. Will he reassure the House that all necessary force protection measures will be in place for them at that time? He stated that the Afghan national army now numbers 170,000. Will he confirm how large the British Government now expect the Afghan national army to be at the time of transition in 2014 and say a little more about how these force levels are to be financed in the light of the deficits he spoke of?

Let me now turn briefly to the diplomatic effort. We have expressed our concern in the past that there was not an oral statement to the House following the Bonn conference in December and that, despite the intense effort required in these critical months, the Prime Minister has not made a statement on Afghanistan to the House for many months. It is vital that the scale of our military effort is matched by diplomatic efforts. The Foreign Secretary spoke of November’s Istanbul conference, but will he set out for the House what sustained efforts are being made to co-ordinate the regional players, such as China and Pakistan, and bind them into the work of securing a stable and durable peace?

The Foreign Secretary spoke of the Taliban’s willingness to participate in a political office in Qatar. While it is suggested that only talks about talks are now under way, what progress is being made on the broader and more inclusive political settlement needed within Afghanistan for a stable state post-2014? Specifically, will he update the House on what progress has been made by the Afghan High Peace Council, established at the London conference in 2010, on reaching a consensus on constitutional arrangements and how it is ensuring that women have a proper role in Afghanistan’s future?

Finally, given the timetable for transition, will the Foreign Secretary provide the House with the British Government’s assessment of the capacity of the Afghan state to undertake, as is planned, free and fair presidential elections during 2014?

We now have an end date in Afghanistan, but it is through urgent diplomatic work that we can also have an end state worthy of the sacrifice endured during this long decade.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. He rightly pays tribute to the bravery of our armed forces and reflects how sincere those tributes always are in this House, particularly from those of us on both sides who have travelled in Afghanistan and seen the work of our armed services and what happens in field hospitals. We recognise the extraordinary commitment of all involved. He is quite right to point out again—I am grateful to him for it—from the Opposition Benches that those operations enjoy support across the House, and I certainly take his questions in the spirit in which they are obviously intended.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about reconciling what I have said today with what the US Defence Secretary has said over the past couple of weeks. The US Defence Secretary has stressed that US forces will remain combat-capable and ready in Afghanistan to the end of 2014, and he has also said very clearly:

“We’ve got to stick to the Lisbon strategy. The United States has a very strong commitment to Lisbon and to the strategy that was laid out there.”

That strategy involves withdrawing from a combat role after the end of 2014.

Sometimes, in the reporting of different comments, there is confusion between lead responsibility and full responsibility. As I said in my statement, however, we expect Afghan forces to have lead responsibility throughout Afghanistan in mid to late 2013, and I also reflected on how they have lead responsibility for many operations now in Helmand. Full responsibility—that is, full transition to Afghan security control—is from the end of 2014, so we are not conscious of any difference between the approach of the United States, and its intentions for its armed forces, and ours; nor would we want there to be any difference. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to express alarm at the idea of such a difference, which is not something that the Government intend or would accept.

The leaked document to which he refers should not have too much importance attributed to it. It was actually a collection of the views and various opinions of Taliban detainees held in custody, and it should not be taken as a necessarily accurate reflection of the overall strategic situation. I do not accept, therefore, that a leaked document of Taliban views contradicts everything I have said in this statement about the steady progress that is being made—steady progress always qualified by my saying how fragile it is in some areas, and how the picture has been varied.

That brings me to the right hon. Gentleman’s next question, because he asks about the number of incidents. It has risen over the past year in Regional Command East and Regional Command South West, but it has gone down in Regional Command South, down particularly sharply in Helmand, our own area of responsibilities, and down on average throughout the country. It is true also, nevertheless, that some of those incidents have been considerable attacks and cost civilian lives. About 80% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan are caused by insurgent activity, and that is why the civilian casualty figures are as he cites—something, therefore, that we cannot at all be complacent about.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about the academy, and I can of course assure him that the necessary protection will be in place. The academy will be on the same site as the United States academy, and full protection will be afforded to it.

On the strength of Afghan national security forces, they will be built up, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, to a total strength of 352,000. Decisions will be made—probably at the NATO summit in Chicago, which the Secretary of State for Defence, the Prime Minister and I will attend—about the strength of Afghan national security forces in later years, and about what the international community’s financial contribution will be. We certainly expect the United Kingdom to make a significant contribution to those forces after 2014.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about oral statements, but I must gently point out that we introduced the quarterly statements on Afghanistan, having called for them for a long time during the previous Parliament, and indeed a monthly report to Parliament. We will always consider requests for further statements, but we have a great deal more statements on the matter than was the case in the previous Parliament.

On regional efforts, the Istanbul meeting was important, and the forthcoming economic co-operation conference that I mentioned will be important also in binding in the partners, but at the Bonn conference it was striking how the regional partners were committed to economic and development co-operation with Afghanistan, as well as all of us who make such a large security contribution.

It would not be fair to say that a consensus on the future, which the right hon. Gentleman quite rightly looks for in Afghanistan on constitutional arrangements, has yet been reached, but the meeting of the Loya Jirga was important progress, as is the establishment of the Taliban’s political office, although that is at an early stage. It does not indicate necessarily that they have signed up to the idea of reconciliation overall, nor that they are united on it, but it is one indication of progress.

The conduct of forthcoming elections, including the presidential one, will be a very important factor in Afghanistan’s political future and in its stability. We saw in the most recent round of elections—the presidential and parliamentary elections in Afghanistan—an improvement in the holding of free and fair elections conducted in an orderly way. We look for another improvement in the next presidential election.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. I share his approach to the draw-down of troops, which depends on the conditions on the ground, and I note that the cost of the ANSF post-2015 is still to be resolved but will, I hope, emerge after the NATO summit. Will he say a little more about the ongoing negotiations with the Taliban in Qatar? Those discussions are clearly very important. Is there anything that we can do to give them more impetus?

[Mr Hague]

As I just said, it is too early to say very much about those negotiations, but the United Kingdom has, as my hon. Friend knows, for a long time supported the concept of reconciliation in Afghanistan, including the involvement of the Taliban, provided ultimately that the conditions of their breaking with al-Qaeda and accepting the constitution of Afghanistan can be met. The negotiations are at an early stage and do not necessarily indicate that the Taliban are in favour of reconciliation or have decided collectively to pursue it. It is the possible beginning of a process. We will have to see how that goes, but it is too early to say anything more than that about it at the moment.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that, while we pay tribute—I certainly do—to our armed forces, as I have said previously, and to all the innocent victims of war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the overwhelming majority of British people want to see an end to our combat role as quickly as possible and, we hope, before the end of 2014? All the indications are that the sentiment in Britain is shared in the United States, France and Germany.

[Mr Hague]

British people do want their own—our own—national security to be secured, and, yes, they very much support our troops whenever they are sent overseas into combat operations. This country has a very strong tradition of such support, but what we are doing now—setting a clear timetable, whereby by the end of 2014 we will have withdrawn from a combat role, or from having our troops there in anything like their current numbers—is something that meets the approval of the country. But we would not be doing a service to the country or, indeed, to the sacrifices of our forces there over recent years if we indulged in a precipitate withdrawal that left a far more difficult situation than the one that we hope to leave.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

I hope that my right hon. Friend will excuse me if I return to the issue of the attitude of the United States and of the French, but there is a common background. Each country is in the throes of an acrimonious presidential election, and it leads me to the conclusion that statements may be made for political rather than military reasons. If some of the predictions, based on what Mr Panetta has said and has never withdrawn, were to be fulfilled, the military position of British troops would be substantially altered. Can we be satisfied that both my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Defence are aware of that and are ready to take steps if necessary to protect the interests of British forces?

[Mr Hague]

I understand the anxieties in the House on this issue. The US Defence Secretary clarified any doubts, certainly to my satisfaction and that of my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary, in saying, as I quoted earlier:

“We’ve got to stick to the Lisbon strategy.”

The United States has a strong commitment to that. Of course, part of that strategy is that in 2013, Afghans will have lead responsibility across much of Afghanistan, as I indicated in my statement. Increasingly, the role of ISAF is to provide mentoring, training and support. I gave examples of that from Helmand. The United States and the United Kingdom have the same strategy, as do all the ISAF nations.

It is true that France has announced a change in its withdrawal. President Sarkozy has announced the withdrawal of French troops by the end of 2013, rather than 2014. No other ISAF partner, among the 50 nations, has announced accelerated withdrawal plans. The clear consensus at the NATO Defence Ministers’ meeting on 2 and 3 February was that we should stick to the Lisbon time lines, with staged troop draw-down up to the end of 2014.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The Foreign Secretary has referred to the crucial role of Pakistan vis-à-vis Afghanistan, and to the fact that Pakistan suffers more from terrorism than any other country. Will he give a detailed assessment of Pakistan’s current commitment in terms of tackling terrorism? What is Pakistan doing with ourselves and others to take forward the situation in Afghanistan?

[Mr Hague]

Pakistani leaders are determined to tackle terrorism. We will have a detailed discussion about that when the Pakistani Foreign Minister comes here in two weeks’ time. I have seen for myself on recent visits to Pakistan how much Pakistanis mourn the loss of tens of thousands of lives to terrorism. We have to accept that Pakistan is in an almost uniquely difficult situation. Its Government are not wholly in control of all their own territory and their writ does not run in all their territory. There is a long history of terrorist activity. This is an enormous challenge for Pakistan. We work with it in many ways, and we use that work to encourage its fight against terrorism. We will continue to do so, but it will remain a difficult struggle.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Unless western forces retain some strategic reserves in one or more strategic bases in Afghanistan after the end of 2014, the highly optimistic portrait that my right hon. Friend has painted will not long survive that date. Will he confirm that America, regardless of pre-election statements, is actively considering retaining some form of significant military presence in one or more strategic bases in Afghanistan?

[Mr Hague]

That is a matter to be concluded between the United States and Afghanistan. It is a pertinent question. The answer will depend on the definition that those countries together have for their future strategic partnership. Of course, the long-term presence of United States forces is a controversial subject in the region. The matter has not been settled. I stress to my hon. Friend the growing size and capability of the Afghan national security forces, which are building up to a total of 352,000. They are equipping themselves extremely well in the current conditions.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his reference to the welfare and rights of women in Afghanistan. However, he will be aware of the growing concerns highlighted in The Guardian last week that improvements for women will see a reversal. Women for Women International has asked that the allies do not pull out without insisting on guarantees for women’s rights in Afghanistan. What specific commitments are the British Government and our allies calling for to ensure that the support for women’s rights is not rhetoric and that women will stay safe in Afghanistan in future?

[Mr Hague]

We are continuing to press the Government of Afghanistan, who made important commitments at the Bonn conference on this matter, to deliver on their human rights commitments, including on the elimination of violence against women law and the implementation of the UN convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. As the hon. Lady will know, we are taking a lot of other action to entrench the concept of women’s rights and women’s involvement in Afghan society and leadership. We have funded a project to provide support to female parliamentary candidates and parliamentarians; supported a women’s legal aid centre in Kabul; and provided funding for the elimination of violence against women special fund and for a five-year women’s empowerment programme, implemented by the non-governmental organisation, Womankind. Across the board, the United Kingdom has a good record on this subject.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

My noble Friend Lord Ashdown has written a highly critical account in the The Times this week of the international community’s record in Afghanistan over more than a decade. He concluded, with typical military bluntness, that only the poor bloody infantry, with all their courage and determination, can expect to march out of Afghanistan with their heads held high. Although I do not expect the Foreign Secretary to endorse that statement precisely, does he agree with my noble Friend that alongside the political process, it is critical that we leave behind an Afghan army that is robust, professional and non-political? Does he agree that that, and not the attempted eradication of the Taliban, is the key security objective from now on?

[Mr Hague]

That is very important, as are all the things that we have talked about, such as building a viable Afghan state and creating a sustainable political process. Those things are important, as well as the security gains. Lord Ashdown is right to draw attention to the extraordinary role of our Army and other armed forces in making it possible to make progress in other areas. It is right that building up the Afghan national security forces, not only in numbers but in quality, is critical. One pleasing thing has been the literacy training programme, which 125,000 members of the security forces have passed through, greatly improving their capabilities. Such work on quality has to continue, as well as building up the size of the forces.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Now more than ever our armed forces need to know that we are supporting them. Will the Secretary of State ensure that soldiers currently serving in Afghanistan will not be made redundant as part of the latest tranche of armed forces job cuts?

[Mr Hague]

Yes. Soldiers will not be made redundant while serving in Afghanistan or within six months of coming back from service in Afghanistan, as my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has indicated.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend set out the extent of Iranian influence in Afghanistan and the support that Iran is giving to the insurgents?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is assiduous in pointing out the malign influence of Iran on its neighbours in several directions. We are concerned about that in Syria at the moment, but it also applies to Afghanistan. There have been clear incidents of practical Iranian support for insurgent activity. We absolutely deplore that. Afghanistan will succeed most effectively if it is free of such influence. We have made that point to the Government of Afghanistan.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Withdrawal in contact with an enemy is most difficult and delicate, and must be extremely well planned. I am mindful that when we went into Helmand in 2006, we had difficulties and stirred up a hornets’ nest. It is possible that the same will happen as we withdraw. I ask the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary to ensure that the generals who are planning our withdrawal are meticulous about the withdrawal plan, so that we minimise the casualties. I hope that there will be none.

[Mr Hague]

Of course my hon. Friend is quite right, and my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary, myself and the whole National Security Council will certainly be very conscious of that. Of course, in this case it is not the withdrawal of all forces that is ensuring that there is space for political and economic development in Afghanistan, since the Afghan national security forces are being built up all the time. That is different from a complete withdrawal, but of course we will be very conscious of his point.

The upside of saying that we will have come to a certain point by 2014 is that it concentrates the minds of all others concerned. Our experience is that when we say to the Afghans that they will take security responsibility in a particular town or province on such a date, it is a forcing mechanism to encourage them to organise themselves to take that responsibility. We have to ensure that it has the same beneficial effect across the country.

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

Having recently visited Afghanistan, I know that one of the key issues in the transfer of security responsibility to the ANSF is the alarmingly high churn of up to 30% in individual Afghan national army units. What plans does the Foreign Secretary have to address that, for example by ensuring that better leave arrangements are in place for ANA service personnel?

[Mr Hague]

This is still an issue. The attrition rates among the Afghan national army are still too high. The average is 2.6% a month across the army, so let us get it in perspective, but it is still higher than we would like it to be. The target is 1.5%. Afghan national police attrition rates have come down to more or less the 1.5% target, but they are nevertheless still too high. They show the importance of the better training arrangements that are now in place. Better pension arrangements are also being introduced, so a range of measures are being brought forward to deal with that very problem.

Point of Order

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

13:22

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In answer to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) in questions to the Leader of the House earlier, I may have given the impression that draft clauses had been included in the consultation paper on the registration of lobbyists. That is not so, although I repeat that it is the Government’s intention to publish legislation in draft after the consultation has been concluded. I have already apologised to the hon. Lady in private, and I now do so from the Dispatch Box. I wanted to correct the record at the earliest opportunity.

Somalia

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Relevant document: The Tenth Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Piracy off the coast of Somalia, HC 1318.]

13:22

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of how to build a stable and peaceful Somalia.

At the encouragement of Mr Speaker I shall say a word about the Maldives, at the other end of the Indian ocean, before I turn to Somalia. I know that some hon. Members have been asking about it, and I am assured by Mr Speaker that I ought to address it since there have been developments there this week and it has not been possible for colleagues to ask questions.

I wish to register our concern about developments in the Maldives, in particular the reports of attacks on members and supporters of the Maldivian Democratic party. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who is responsible for the middle east, has spoken to both former President Nasheed and the new President and expressed those concerns. It is for the new leadership to establish its legitimacy with its own people and the international community, with an independent review, we hope, of the circumstances that led to what happened earlier this week. We hope that it will demonstrate its respect for the rule of law, including peaceful demonstrations. I welcome the call for calm and order made by former President Nasheed to all his supporters. My hon. Friend will be delighted to discuss with hon. Members the situation in the Maldives, with which he is in close touch, if they wish.

As the House will well know, Somalia today is not stable or peaceful, and that is the matter that we are going to consider today. It presents the most acute symptoms of state failure seen anywhere on the globe, even relative to Afghanistan, which we have just been discussing. It has had no properly functioning central Government for 20 years now, and it is the scene of some of the worst humanitarian suffering that the modern world has known. I will say more about that shortly, but I start with the single heart-rending, staggering and deplorable fact that between 50,000 and 100,000 people starved to death in Somalia last year, half of them children. Somalia’s problems present a growing threat to its own people, its neighbours and the security of Britain and our allies around the world.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

What the Foreign Secretary says about the situation in Somalia is absolutely true, and his interest in it is greatly appreciated not only in this country but, I am sure, worldwide. Will he take the opportunity to clarify the situation with regard to Somaliland, about which there is sometimes misunderstanding? As he said, there has been no effective central Government in the former Somalia for more than 20 years, but there has been a very effective Government in Somaliland, albeit that it has not been recognised as a separate state. Will he take the opportunity to acknowledge that difference between the situation in the north and the south?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, of course. The right hon. Gentleman has been a great expert on, and friend of, Somaliland for a long time, and we can indeed make that distinction. I spoke to the President of Somaliland last week to encourage him to come to the London conference, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has visited Somaliland. We give it a lot of assistance in many ways and welcome the fact that it has become a more stable area within Somalia, and we will welcome its participation at the London conference. I will come back to Somaliland later. I have been giving a general introduction to Somalia as a whole, but the right hon. Gentleman is certainly right to make that distinction.

Somalia as a whole not only cries out for compassion but is a point of great weakness in the long-term security and prosperity of the wider world. The people of Somalia deserve their country to be more stable and peaceful, and we in this country need it to be so. For reasons of national interest and our common humanity, we need to help Somalia get on its feet. We need to do so to reduce our vulnerability to terrorist attacks, to maintain the free flow of trade on which our economy depends, to limit our exposure to the effects of uncontrolled migration, to increase the support that we can give to education and economic development in Somalia and to support the stability of a part of Africa where our country has a great many interests and our nationals have been shown to be vulnerable.

Nearly $1 trillion of trade to and from Europe travelled through the gulf of Aden last year. Some 20,000 British nationals live next door to Somalia in Kenya, and a further 200,000 travel there every year. They would be deeply affected if the violence in Somalia spread to its neighbours.

All those interests are undoubtedly threatened by many factors in Somalia, including piracy and terrorism. The House will be familiar with many of the risks, so I will not list them in detail, but just one aspect of the crisis in Somalia brings home the problem dramatically. Large parts of south central Somalia are still controlled by the group known as al-Shabaab, which until recently occupied Mogadishu. Al-Shabaab has publicly declared sympathy for al-Qaeda’s aims and methods, and elements of its leadership welcome foreign fighters and sympathisers from around the world who have swelled its ranks and coffers and used Somalia as a base for terrorism.

Attack planning linked to extremist networks in Somalia has been thwarted from Sweden to Australia, and the Kampala bombings of July 2010, which killed 74 people, were planned and executed by individuals with links to Somalia. Al-Shabaab’s violent tactics inflict suffering on Somalis, including through its known forced recruitment of children, and its embrace of al-Qaeda imposes a concept of global jihad and violent extremism that is alien to most Somalis, highly damaging to their country and dangerous to us.

In the face of such threats, our Government contend, as did the previous Government, that we do not have the option of disengaging from the problems of Somalia. We cannot afford simply to continue to treat the symptoms of those problems without addressing the underlying causes such as the fundamental lack of governance and security across most of Somalia. We believe that a stronger and more united international approach is needed if we are to achieve a stable and peaceful Somalia over time that combines political will with practical measures to boost security and development. We also judge that recent positive developments in Somalia mean that the time is right for a new international effort. This moment of opportunity is why, in two weeks’ time, we will host the London conference on Somalia, bringing together 50 countries and organisations.

[Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the conference on Somalia, but is there a danger that the country’s humanitarian needs will be sidelined if there is too much emphasis on political and security concerns?

[Mr Hague]

There would be such a danger if we constructed the conference in the wrong way. I am talking about security concerns, but the UK makes a huge contribution to addressing humanitarian concerns —we were the second-largest bilateral donor in the recent humanitarian crisis. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will host, alongside the conference, an event to discuss humanitarian needs. As I will describe, one of the conclusions that we hope for from the conference is to highlight those humanitarian needs.

This is about much more than security, as I will describe.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

I very much welcome the conference in London, but how will it differ from the one that is being held in Turkey? What are the differences between the objectives of the Turkish conference and the UK-based one?

[Mr Hague]

They will be integrated. I have discussed that a couple of times with my Turkish counterpart. In recognition of our conference in February, the Turks have moved their conference back a little to later in the year. Both Turkey and the UK hope that that will follow on from the progress we make in London. The conference in London is largely at Head of State level—it will be hosted by the Prime Minister, and many Heads of State and Heads of Government will be coming—and will address the whole range of issues affecting Somalia. It is therefore one of the most ambitious conferences that has been held internationally on Somalia. I believe it will help to establish momentum for all the conferences that will follow, including the one in Istanbul.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way on that point and I welcome the conference and all discussions that take place on Somalia. It is past time that there was detailed involvement. Can he envisage a day when a conference on the future of Somalia will be held in Somalia, which would show real movement and a real advance?

[Mr Hague]

I can envisage that day, but we are not there yet. As the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) said, there are stable areas in Somalia and some stable regional and local Governments. Based on what I saw on my visit last week, I would not say that the conditions are right to hold an international conference there yet, but the improvement has been great in the last year—I could not have visited at all a year ago. I can envisage that time if we do all the things that I shall describe.

It is because of that moment of opportunity that I mentioned that we have appointed a new ambassador to Somalia for the first time since 1991—I took him to present his credentials to the President of Somalia last week—and we are working to reopen our embassy in Mogadishu. All of that is consistent with our interests in Somalia and the increased emphasis that we place on conflict prevention as a priority in British foreign policy.

We do not take on that task lightly or without humility. The international community has not succeeded in turning Somalia around, but that is not for a lack of effort by other Governments and this one in recent years. We supported the important initiatives of the previous Labour Government, but we have not succeeded so far largely because the problems are so vast and complex, and because international policy is fragmented.

We must always be clear-sighted and realistic in setting our expectations for what we can achieve. We cannot transform any of Somalia’s problems overnight or impose a political solution on it. Britain cannot achieve any of the goals I am discussing without working with a broad range of countries across the world and Somalis themselves, but we can aim for the long-term goal of a Somalia that is more stable; that is able to meet the basic needs of its population; that can begin to build its economy with international support; that is able to govern its territory; and that can work with us to prevent terrorism flourishing on its soil. To do that we must try to change the dynamic in Somalia, from the trends of recent years of inexorable decline to an upwards trajectory of gradually increasing stability and security.

To achieve even that is an immense challenge. Our recent experiences of rebuilding states after conflict are that the international community has a tendency to set unrealistic goals that are not fulfilled, disappointing the expectations of the people we are trying to help and weakening the impact of our efforts. We must not make the same mistake with Somalia. We have a responsibility to match ambition with resources, our expectations with a good understanding of realities, and our hopes for quick results with the likely need for patient and long-term engagement.

Somalia today is a nation still at war with itself and without a sustainable peace. Its conflict has taken many forms over the past 20 years, from clan-based regional insurgencies, which overthrew the ruling regime in 1991, through warlordism, to the current violent insurgency of al-Shabaab. There have been 14 peace processes in that time, culminating in the current UN-led Djibouti peace process. Somalia’s problems are compounded and fuelled by geography, such as the fact that it has the longest coastline in Africa—it is more than 3,000 km long—and yet has no functioning coastguard or navy.

The scale of the human suffering is unimaginable and the number of victims so large as to be hard to fathom by people in this country. To put it in terms that would hit home here in Britain, more people in Somalia are dependent on emergency assistance than the entire populations of Edinburgh, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds and Liverpool put together; the number of people displaced in Somalia is seven times the population of Nottingham; and the average life expectancy in the 21st century is 48, which is roughly the same as life expectancy in Britain in 1880. An entire generation of children in Somalia has grown up with guns, not school books, knowing nothing other than insecurity and deprivation.

Even against that sober background, however, we can see a glimmer of hope for Somalia today. There are three compelling reasons why the time is right for a major push on Somalia, the first of which is that Mogadishu has been liberated by African Union Mission in Somalia forces, thanks to the skill and courage of the Ugandan and Burundian troops that form the backbone of the African Union contingent in Somalia. I saw that myself when I visited Mogadishu a week ago today. It was encouraging to see people going to the shops and markets. The road to the airport was crowded and some were looking forward to going to the beach on Friday. Those are semblances of normal life compared with what they have experienced in the past few years.

Nevertheless, it is hard to see many buildings that have no bullet holes in them, or that are not scarred by the effect of war. Today, almost all of Mogadishu is controlled by AMISOM and the transitional federal Government forces, and other regions are more stable, making it possible to make progress on Somali governance. Djibouti has sent troops further to strengthen AMISOM, and Sierra Leone is expected to provide a battalion in July, making further progress a possibility.

The second reason for optimism is that those operations and successful counter-terrorism work are putting pressure on al-Shabaab. We need to seize the opportunity to intensify that pressure and not allow al-Shabaab to regroup. Its guerrilla tactics inflict huge suffering on ordinary Somalis and it harbours foreign extremists, as I have described.

Related to that, the international community has made progress in diminishing the pirate activity that is a symptom of, and contributor to, Somalia’s conflict. There have been no successful hijacks in the gulf of Aden since November 2010. The number of vessels and crews currently held by pirate groups is at its lowest since 2009. Twenty-two ships were hijacked off the coast of Somalia between November 2010 and January 2011, but in the same period in the past year only two ships were hijacked.

The third reason for optimism is that there is an opportunity to create a broader and more representative political arrangement when the transitional federal Government’s mandate expires this summer. That gives an opening to launch a broader political process that embraces all Somalis, and that places emphasis on supporting regional governance as well as better and more representative government from the centre.

I pay tribute to the Governments and parties that have played a part in bringing that about; to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who has made two visits to Somalia this year; and to staff from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, who have all played an important role.

Those changes on the ground give the international community a window of opportunity to unite behind a clear strategy; to support a new political process that has greater legitimacy in the eyes of the Somali people than the current elite does; to help people to return to Mogadishu and rebuild their lives there; to strengthen the African Union forces in Somalia; to put in place a plan to build up Somalia’s own security and justice sectors; to introduce more effective arrangements to tackle piracy and terrorism; and to work better to support the pockets of stability that are now emerging in parts of the country.

That is what the Somalia conference will aim to do. We have invited Government and multilateral organisations that are active and influential on Somalia; representatives from Somalia, including the transitional federal institutions; the Presidents of Puntland and Galmudug; and representatives of Aluh Sunnah wal Jamaah. We welcome the participation of the President of Somaliland, with the experience that Somaliland can provide of peacebuilding in the region.

We have secured senior attendance from the region, including from Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda, as well as from the United States, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Nigeria, Sweden, the United Nations, the African Union and the European Union. I am delighted to say that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will attend the conference.

We hope to agree practical measures in seven key areas, all of which I discussed on my visit to Mogadishu and Kenya last week, and which are the subject of extensive discussion with our partners all around the world ahead of the conference.

On the political track, the current transitional institutions in Mogadishu run out in August. They must not be extended. The Somali political process must become broader and more representative. That might involve a constitutional assembly drawn from all of Somalia’s communities.

On security, African Union forces have pushed al-Shabaab out of Mogadishu to create political space there, and Kenyan action has put al-Shabaab on the back foot. However, African forces have insufficient funding for UN Security Council-mandated actions. We therefore hope that the conference will consider how funding can be made sustainable for African troops willing to put their lives on the line.

The success stories in Somalia are in the regions. Puntland and Galmudug have established local peace deals and set up administrations. The conference should agree a co-ordinated international package of support to Somalia’s regions that complements work on peace and stability at the national level.

Piracy off the Somali coast is the affront to the rule of international law that I described. We must break the piracy business cycle. We hope the conference will strengthen arrangements to catch, try and imprison pirates, and continue to develop regional maritime capacity in Somalia and across the region.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

As one knows from the UN court in Sierra Leone, imprisoning people is quite expensive. Does my right hon. Friend or DFID have any suggestions for how the international community can ensure that sufficient prisons are built to hold these pirates and make sure they do not disappear? Secondly, and related to that, one argument put forward to explain this piracy is that too many of the fisheries have been taken. What can we do to enhance fisheries protection off Somalia?

[Mr Hague]

The United Kingdom is very active on the provision of increased prison places in the country and the region. The Department for International Development is helping to fund the construction of three prisons; in fact, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has been to see the construction of one of them, so we are involved in that.

My hon. Friend is right about the fishing issue. The Minister for Africa—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham)—and I have been engaged in encouraging the transitional federal Government in Mogadishu to claim their exclusive economic zone, and we will encourage their successors do the same, because that will give them the necessary rights to the waters off Somalia. They will, of course, then need a coastguard, naval and maritime capability of some kind to enforce those rights, but, as I mentioned earlier, that is one of the issues we also want to address. These things are therefore part of the longer-term solution to piracy, and my hon. Friend is quite right to ask about them.

I was just listing some of the aims of our conference. We intend to make it harder for terrorists to operate in and out of Somalia. We hope the conference will agree the areas we need to develop to disrupt terrorism across the region, including stopping the movement of terrorists to and from Somalia, disrupting the flow of their finances and supporting the Somali criminal justice sector so that it can detain and prosecute terrorists in a human rights-compliant manner.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

There are disturbing reports that about 50 British nationals are involved with al-Shabaab. Has my right hon. Friend heard such reports, and are they justified?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, they are justified. It would, of course, be difficult to put a precise number on these things, but we are concerned about foreign fighters, in general, going to Somalia, and there is certainly evidence that they include British fighters. Wherever that occurs, and wherever we are aware of it, we work in various ways with the authorities in the region, including in neighbouring countries, and with the emerging authorities in Somalia to try to contain that threat. That is why the defeat of terrorism in the area is an important national objective for the United Kingdom.

On the humanitarian front, the conference provides an opportunity to highlight the need for donors to continue to respond generously and on the basis of needs, to invest more in livelihoods and basic social services, to increase the resilience of households in Somalia to future economic shocks and to help reduce the likelihood of future famines.

We want London to be the start, not the end, of a new process—the process I have described. We want the conference to agree on how we handle Somali issues in future, on a revitalised international contact group, on UN and African leadership and on more countries deploying diplomats and staff into Somalia, not just basing themselves in Kenya, as many, including ourselves, have had to do in recent years. Those are all practical but meaningful steps that will have an impact on the ground.

We hope to emerge from the London conference with a stronger common understanding of the way forward and a renewed political commitment for the long haul. Beyond the conference itself, we will continue to be an active member of international groups on Somalia, including the international contact group on Somalia and the contact group on piracy off the coast of Somalia, and we will maintain our strong bilateral engagement.

Through the Department for International Development, Britain is providing substantial development support over the next four years, working on longer-term programmes to address the underlying causes of poverty and conflict and helping Somalis to take control of their lives and rebuild their communities and livelihoods. That involves working with local and regional governments in areas such as Puntland, which the Development Secretary visited last month, where we will help build democratic institutions that can respond to the needs of their citizens, help the police and justice systems work so that people can feel more secure, and increase access to health care, education and jobs, which are absolutely critical to Somalis and to breaking the cycle of piracy.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

Will the conference look at giving people in Somalia access to humanitarian aid, which has been blocked by al-Shabaab? One million people were being supported by the International Committee of the Red Cross and others. Secondly, what steps have been taken to involve and engage the British Somali diaspora, which has many members in my constituency and elsewhere, as part of the discussions and the build-up to the conference?

[Mr Hague]

Humanitarian access is a critical issue that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has pursued for a long time. Part of our objective in doing most of the things I have described is to improve humanitarian access and the ability to encourage sound development across parts of Somalia, including those that are currently under the control of al-Shabaab.

The diaspora in this country has an important role to play. Yesterday, Chatham House held an excellent conference with many leading figures from the Somali diaspora in the United Kingdom. I spoke to the conference to set out the objectives of the London conference in two weeks’ time, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Africa spent many hours there. The views expressed at the conference are now being fed into our preparations for the London conference. We look to Somalis in this country to assist as actively as they can with engagement with Somalia. Somalia is partly dependent on the remittances it receives from the diaspora overseas; in fact, those remittances amount to more than $1 billion a year, which is more than the total assistance from foreign Governments. The diaspora therefore plays a crucial role in the future of its country, and we recognise that in the preparations we are making for the conference.

We want to help ensure that last year’s tragic humanitarian crisis is never repeated. Britain has been one of the most generous donors to the relief effort, having provided £128 million to the relief effort across the horn of Africa since July, including £57 million for Somalia alone, in addition to our main development programme and on top of the £72 million raised by the Disasters Emergency Committee from concerned people in this country. British aid has reached more than 1 million vulnerable people, saved the lives of thousands and contributed to lifting 750,000 people out of famine and the risk of imminent death.

We are proud of the role that we play and the example we set to others. The UK also contributes 14% of all European Union spending in and on Somalia, including on development and humanitarian aid, and we actively support all three international naval operations in the waters around Somalia, including by providing the operational commander and the headquarters in Northwood near London for the EU naval mission Operation Atalanta. All that work will continue beyond the London conference on Somalia, because it is only through such a sustained and co-ordinated effort that we can play our part in helping to build a stable and peaceful Somalia.

That will be the Government’s approach. We will pursue a policy that is realistic, based on our national interests as well as our international obligations, conscious of the enormity of the problems and aware that only Somalis can resolve their political differences. It is a policy based on partnership with other nations, because it is only by working with others that we can address the scale and international dimensions of the conflict in Somalia, and it is a policy that is broad and comprehensive, that recognises that it is not enough to treat the symptoms of the problem without addressing its underlying causes, and that encompasses development, human security and the rule of law, human rights and political participation, as well as counter-terrorism and counter-piracy. That is the approach that we will urge the international community to maintain, through the London conference, and which I hope will have the full support of the House.

13:51

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I was a little surprised that the Foreign Secretary chose to mention the Maldives without the courtesy of prior notification, but I have noted all that he said on the matter.

I welcome the opportunity to debate Somalia this afternoon. Although I obviously welcome the conference on 23 February, it is necessary to put the changes of recent months within the broader context of the decades of conflict, poverty and violence that Somalia and the horn of Africa more widely have endured. Somalia’s crisis did not begin with the poor rains of 2010 or the collapse of the Somali dictatorship in 1991; the tragedy in Somalia has been the inevitability of the cycles of despair from which, to date, it is has been unable to escape.

It is right to begin by acknowledging, as the Foreign Secretary did, the significance of Somalia to the United Kingdom. Somalia’s trajectory of decline poses real threats to our security and continues to draw on British resources. The threat of piracy, kidnapping and terrorism, and the potential radicalisation of British youth in terrorist training camps across the country, all directly threaten the security and stability of the region, as well as posing an immediate risk to British interests at home and abroad.

Alongside the security threat, the United Kingdom is also deeply affected by the inevitable burden of responsibility that it rightly shares with the rest of the international community to protect and provide for those affected by the ongoing humanitarian crisis and seeking refuge, aid and sanctuary during these desperate times. Given all those factors, I support the Government’s stated intention to affirm Somalia as a key priority of British foreign and development policy in the years ahead.

Although Somalia’s decline goes back much further than the past few months, the timeliness of this debate reflects the fact that the situation on the ground has changed dramatically in recent months, as the Foreign Secretary made clear. Al-Shabaab has suffered several military setbacks that have seen it pushed out of parts of the southern border areas of Somalia and most of Mogadishu, creating an opportunity for the Government to strengthen their hold in these crucial areas. In the second half of last year, famine struck six regions of southern Somalia, and although the United Nations has, I am pleased to say, declared the famine officially over, the situation remains fragile and millions more could still die if international support is not maintained.

The changing situation in the country provides an opportunity, but no more than that—I respectfully suggest—because the causes of state failure lie much deeper than the recently changing dynamics on the ground. For many years, the state in Somalia has not existed in any meaningful sense. It has failed to secure its borders, monopolise force within the territory and even to provide basic services to its people. As a result, Somalia faces challenges of security, governance and corruption that would test even the strongest of states.

That is the context of the conflict with the Islamist terrorist organisation, al-Shabaab, and of a famine that has put 4 million people in crisis and caused the displacement of about 2 million people and the spread of violence perpetrated by terrorists and pirates who terrorise the local population and destabilise the region as a whole.

It is vital that we can distinguish between symptom and cause in relation to a state that has failed as comprehensively as Somalia. The structural failures of widespread violence, endemic corruption, weak governance and a state unable to maintain a monopoly of force over its own population in turn contribute to desperate poverty, the rise of non-state terror and violence, and the Government’s failure to deliver basic goods and services. It is vital, therefore, that the London conference and the work that follows from it address not simply the symptoms but the causes of Somalia’s decline—at root a profound failure of politics and, more broadly, of governance.

Each of us inevitably brings our own perspective and experience to this debate. For myself, this involves not only being a Member representing a constituent, a merchant seaman, taken hostage for some time by Somali pirates but my work as International Development Secretary in the previous Government working to find ways to deliver aid and support development in what is undoubtedly one of the most challenging environments on earth during some of the most desperate years of violence and famine that the country has experienced.

Aid to Somalia increased from just over £3 million in 2002 to more than £30 million by 2009, which meant that we could achieve limited but real progress in dealing with some of the most acute challenges facing Somalia, including helping to deliver basic health care, treatment for malnutrition and improved clean water and sanitation facilities. I say with genuine humility, however, that notwithstanding these sustained efforts, progress was limited. This was not a failure of will but a testament to the scale of the challenge that we faced then and that remains today.

Then, as now, it is important to acknowledge that a response to the pressing humanitarian crisis is a necessary but not sufficient condition for dealing with the broad spectrum of challenges that face Somalia. Circumstances on the ground, specifically the changing security situation, provide new opportunities for action, so I shall first address some of the symptoms of Somalia’s recent decline before addressing the root cause.

I shall begin with the most immediate level of human suffering that has added such an immense sense of urgency to this crisis. The humanitarian situation in Somalia has been described as a chronic catastrophe. The horn of Africa has experienced one of the worst droughts in 60 years and the most severe food crisis in the world since Somalia’s famine in 1991. The situation in Somalia is deteriorating so rapidly that for the first time in 10 years, the UN last year announced a famine across the country. Almost 4 million people—more than half the population—are living in crisis, with 750,000 of them living in absolute famine. That is an increase of 46% from July last year.

The situation is made all the more severe as a result of the deteriorating security situation in parts of the country and the stranglehold of the Islamist organisations that continue to hold sway in parts of the country. Since the first failed rains in 2010, international aid efforts have been in place, but from the outset they have been beset by challenges, particularly al-Shabaab’s decision to ban some aid organisations from operating in the country. An immediate task, therefore, is to alleviate the suffering resulting from the famine declared by the UN. When the Minister winds up this debate, will he share with the House some of the Government’s thinking about how the immediate humanitarian needs can be better addressed and international efforts better co-ordinated in the critical months ahead?

I turn to the piracy off the coast of Somalia, which was mentioned by the Foreign Secretary. Somali piracy has recently grown into a major international problem, exacerbating many of the underlying challenges that we face in promoting the rule of law and in helping Somalia to recover from conflict and famine, not least because many argue that some of the ransom money paid to Somali pirates is finding its way back into funding groups like al-Shabaab.

Somali piracy also threatens vital trading routes and poses significant risks to international security, which makes it an ever-more pressing aspect of the crisis which must be addressed if significant progress is to be made. I welcome the limited progress of which the Foreign Secretary spoke, but there are currently thought to be between 1,500 and 3,000 pirates operating off the coast of Somalia. Some 49 of the world’s 52 hijackings last year took place off the coast of Somalia, and the global annual cost of piracy has been estimated at between $7 billion and $12 billion. Despite nine United Nations Security Council resolutions, three multinational naval operations and a counter-piracy policy that has been taken forward by a number of different international bodies, progress remains limited. The number of attempted attacks, the cost to the industry and the cost of ransoms have all increased significantly since 2007.

In addressing the issue of piracy, a co-ordinated international response is therefore key. NATO, the European Union and the combined maritime taskforce have all thankfully established naval operations to counter piracy, and we welcome the fact that the UK has contributed naval assets to all three operations. We also support the Prime Minister’s recent announcement that armed guards will be allowed to be used in protecting UK ships, although I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the terms of engagement for those armed guards have been agreed. Although tackling Somali piracy cuts across a number of Departments, will the Minister also indicate which has the overall lead on countering piracy?

Let me turn more generally to terrorism and criminality, which continue to plague Somalia and pose an increasing risk to British security and British interests. Large areas of Somalia are today still controlled by militants, and Somalia has become a haven for some of the worst criminality and terrorism to be found anywhere on earth. As early as 2010, the MI5 director general warned of the threat posed to Britain from the rise of terrorist training camps in Somalia, one of the gravest security threats that our country faces, not least because there are now steady numbers of UK nationals known to be receiving training in al-Shabaab camps in Somalia. We are right to be concerned that those who are today fighting alongside al-Shabaab could some day redirect their focus back towards the population in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister give an updated assessment from the agencies of the scale and character of the Somali-based threat to British interests?

Alongside the threat from al-Shabaab-affiliated camps, there is also growing concern about the spread of al-Qaeda-inspired jihadists across the country. Somalia today is showing many of the worrying characteristics that made Afghanistan so dangerous a seedbed for terrorism under the permissive regime created by the Taliban. Strengthening counter-terrorism co-operation in Somalia—and, indeed, across the region—is of vital national interest to the United Kingdom, and will be a crucial step on the path towards securing peace and stability for Somalia. I hope and trust, on the basis of the Foreign Secretary’s remarks, that it will therefore find a place on the agenda of the London conference.

I have spoken of the symptoms of decline that have plagued the people of Somalia and threatened the vital interests of the UK and the wider international community. It is right that tackling those symptoms should remain a high priority for the Government, but let me turn to what I believe are some of the underlying causes that must be addressed if we are to make genuinely sustainable progress on other fronts. Military efforts—although welcome, and significant in recent months—will not alone bring a lasting peace to Somalia. Structural political reform is the only sure foundation for progress. The depth of the failure of governance has to be understood in order to understand the depth of the crisis still facing Somalia today. Somalia has not had a functioning Government for 21 years. Since 2004, the country has, at least in name, been governed by the transitional federal Government. Beset by corruption and institutionally weak, Somalia’s transitional Government now have only six months before their mandate expires. However, in these crucial few months, the situation on the ground has changed dramatically. For the first time in years, Somalia now has a Government who can hold and control a portion of Somali territory beyond the borders of Mogadishu. That is a significant advance, but the fundamental question remains whether the TFG are in a position to benefit from, and capitalise on, the military progress being made, and thereby fully assume responsibility for security across the country.

The international community cannot ignore the reality that the TFG are seen by many Somalis as inadequate and ill-equipped to deal with the immense task at hand. For many Somalis, the record of the TFG is marred by allegations of corruption, embezzlement and state-sponsored violence. For others, the TFG are still largely seen as a Government made up of the victors of Somalia’s bloody civil war. Many struggle to see the current leadership as representing Somalia as a whole. In August, even as the United Nations agreed to extend the TFG’s transitional mandate for one more year, it noted that the TFG had failed to accomplish a single one of their previously agreed goals in the seven years since they were created, including completing a Somali constitution and holding local elections.

In less than six months, the transitional period is due to come to an end. Neither allowing a political vacuum to develop nor simply continuing with business as usual is sufficient under the circumstances. A key challenge for the London conference, therefore, is to encourage the development of a political process that is deemed legitimate and judged inclusive, and that allows all those Somalis who wish to play a constructive role in their country’s future to take part. For durable progress to take hold, the transition stage must end and the task of establishing permanent representative government structures, based on robust constitutional processes, must begin.

Alongside the pressing need for an effective transitional political arrangement in Somalia, establishing effective political structures will also be a crucial step towards enabling the people of Somalia to engage with the ongoing demands and struggles for representation and self-determination that communities in the country have long been seeking. On that issue, I praise the work that many colleagues across the House have done to promote the cause and facilitate the genuine progress that has been achieved—in particular, the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael). In government, we were clear in acknowledging the unique and distinct character of Somaliland and Puntland, and continue to defend their right to appropriate representation. However, we must be clear that the task of securing legitimate representation must not be divorced from the broader task of developing the inclusive national political structures that are a necessary part of Somalia’s development into a stable and secure country.

The case for focusing sustained effort on Somalia is clear. However, there have been many attempts—which, to be fair to the Foreign Secretary, he acknowledged—by the international community that have so far failed to resolve the underlying tensions that have had such devastating consequences for the people of Somalia in past decades. Given that, we would like to ask the Minister some specific questions about the approach that he plans to take at the upcoming conference on 23 February and what steps he will take to ensure that it is not a missed opportunity, but the start of real progress. Given that the strength or weakness of the TFG will prove to be as decisive for the future of Somalia as the strength or weakness of Al-Shabaab, how will the conference progress without either guarantees of security on the ground or a credible partner in the TFG for the task of political reconciliation and reform? It is clear that the problems of Somalia will not be solved by a single conference, but will require a continued process of engagement and reform. Given that, what measures are being put in place now to ensure that the outcomes of the conference are sustainable over the long term?

In order to be sustainable, the outcomes must be closely linked to the existing United Nations structures—the Djibouti process has been mentioned—that are already in place. Given that, what measures are being taken to ensure that the decisions taken at the conference are effectively linked to the existing goals, strategies and objectives of the United Nations operation in Somalia? Given that part of the task of the conference must be to tackle the root cause of so many of Somalia’s problems—a chronic failure of governance—what steps has the Minister taken to ensure that civil society groups from across Somalia are engaged at all stages of the process of political transition? Finally, will the Minister set out how the goals and objectives of the conference are expected to tie in with the existing timetable, set out in the road map on political reform that is already in place?

It is clear that Somalia today stands at a critical juncture in its history: 2012 is a crucial year for the political process in Somalia, and 2011 saw significant security progress on the ground. It is right, therefore, that we must seize this opportunity to make real progress and deliver a better and more secure future for the people of Somalia. However, our broad experience of supporting countries emerging from conflict—as well as our more recent experience of state building—demonstrates that changes in the security environment in Somalia will not alone be sufficient to bring real hope for development. Instead, what is needed is an approach to reform the governance structures that lie at the heart of so many of the more visible symptoms of state failure that we see on the ground in Somalia today. The challenge is one that will take years and decades to tackle, not weeks and months; but this should harden, rather than weaken, our shared resolve.

14:09

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his speech, on the work that he is doing in this regard, and on the establishment of the conference. I congratulate the Secretary of State for International Development on his many visits to Somalia. I also congratulate the shadow Foreign Secretary on his speech, and particularly the passage on piracy, which bore a close resemblance to the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report on the subject.

Somalia is a country of violence, insecurity and human tragedy. The recent famine resulted in thousands of people being displaced, suffering and dying. In its wake, the famine has brought conflict, insecurity and a slow response from the international community. The cause is weak political leadership. There have been 15 internationally sponsored peace talks but, at the end of the day, their conclusions have failed to produce a settlement. In the view of Saferworld, an excellent non-governmental organisation that spends a lot of time on the ground, that is because the debate revolves around exclusive processes between Somalia’s political elites and foreigners. Local Somalis feel shut out, and a trust deficit has opened up between them and their leaders. It is important that the conference does not go down that route. I quite understand that civil society groups will not be attending a conference of Heads of State, but I hope that there will be close contact with that particular group in the build-up to the conference.

Without security, we cannot address the humanitarian situation or promote longer-term development. Defeating al-Shabaab and piracy will not be enough; we must eliminate local grievances and conflicts within parties. This is not only about peace with al-Shabaab; it is about lower-level conflicts, and I welcome the focus on local areas of stability. We must be careful, however, not to derail the process by putting in too much by way of resources and making unrealistic bureaucratic demands without having a good understanding of local power dynamics. We must promote legitimate representation, which is often different from what is expected internationally. It is grounded in traditional processes, which are sometimes more successful than local elections. This is not easy—even Somalis disagree about it—but important issues of human rights, democracy and the role of women are involved.

I would be interested to hear from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), about the two-state solution that was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael). I have to confess that I have an open mind on that question, but I find it slightly ironic that a Welsh MP who believes in the United Kingdom should be calling for such a separation in Somalia.

[Alun Michael]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Ottaway]

Yes—I asked for that.

[Alun Michael]

In Wales we believe in the value of being part of the United Kingdom as well as having certain devolved matters. Were that choice available to the Somalilanders, it would be acceptable, but it should be their choice.

[Richard Ottaway]

My comment, made in jest, has produced a serious response from the right hon. Gentleman. Countries that function well should stay together, but those that do not function well obviously do not want to know about each other. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on that matter.

We have a long way to go before we achieve stability. The famine conditions are ending, but tens of thousands have died and 1.5 million have been displaced. Al-Shabaab has banned contact with the International Committee of the Red Cross. At the same time, African Union troops are conducting a major offensive, and the Kenyans are establishing a buffer zone on their southern border as they try to cope with large numbers of refugees. Even they are now pausing, however, and trying to find out whether they have the backing of the international community.

As the Foreign Secretary said, there will be an opportunity, when the transitional national Government’s mandate ends, to look at a broader base from which to conduct policy. The essential needs, however, are to deny terrorists a base from which to operate, and to establish stability. The conference must look at the root causes: poverty, human rights issues, security and the need to work with civil society. It must also focus on conflict prevention, the elimination of famine and hunger and the improvement of health. I am the first to recognise that Rome was not built in a day, however, and I think that this will take a generation of input and influence.

The Foreign Affairs Committee recently published a report on piracy, which is one of the headings for the conference. It might seem self-centred to talk about something that affects British interests: shipping comprises 1.8% of our gross domestic product. None the less, piracy is a component part of Somalia’s instability, and it clearly needs to be addressed. As the Foreign Secretary pointed out, 40% of world trade passes through the Indian ocean and the Gulf of Aden. Globally, the annual cost of piracy runs at between $7 billion and $12 billion. The extra costs to shipping include the extra premiums, the ransoms, the extra staff required, the higher wages and the danger money; they all add up to a substantial sum.

Piracy perpetrates instability in Somalia and threatens other economies. Nairobi has seen an increase in criminality, for example. There is a threat to international security, and rumours of links between the pirates and al-Shabaab. There is also the human cost. Some 3,500 hostages have been taken, 62 of whom have been killed. There are up to 3,000 pirates operating off the coast of Somalia. They are a mixture of fishermen and maritime criminals. They are all aged between 15 and 30, and they are uneducated and unskilled. Their operations stretch far into the Indian ocean.

The pirates’ behaviour is the complete opposite of the traditional role of the pirate that we read about in books when we were kids. Then, the pirates captured the ship, threw the crew over the side and sold the cargo. Today, the crew is the valuable item because the cargo is hard to sell. The pirates operate by sailing a single skiff alongside a ship, throwing up a hook and hopping on board. They operate out of mother ships that have a range of some 1,400 miles. They behave in a violent manner; some 15 crewmen were killed in 2011.

The impact of piracy specifically on the UK has been limited. We all know of the case of Paul and Rachel Chandler and their yacht, the Lynn Rival. I am pleased to say that they are now free, and that their yacht is back in their custody. Two ships were affected in 2009—the MV St James’s Park and the Asian Glory—and Judith Tebbutt was snatched from a Kenyan beach. She remains in custody. It is therefore right and proper that the UK should play a leading role in the international response to piracy, and we are all very much involved in that.

The response from ship owners has been good. They recognise the need for self-defence and for best management practices to minimise the risk of attack. Some nations have put vessel protection detachments on their ships. They are troops from the nation state in question. Many ship owners have also started to use private armed security guards. It is a fact that no ship with armed guards on board has ever been pirated; it is a significant and effective deterrent. The Foreign Affairs Committee therefore welcomes the Government’s announcement that private armed security guards will be allowed on British ships. The Government have published interim guidance, but it is thin on detail. It has been left to the ship owners to draw up the rules, and—dare one say it—the responsibility for the outcome has been offloaded on to the shoulders of the owners. The guidance advises use of the minimum force necessary. There is a question to which everyone needs an answer, however. If a skiff is approaching a ship at high speed carrying pirates with rifles or rocket-propelled grenade launchers, can the armed guards on board the ship open fire? The Government must provide clearer direction on this. If Royal Navy troops were on board these ships, they would be given guidance on what to do. That guidance should be made available to private armed security guards.

Some 60 marine security companies operate in the area, and it is very difficult to tell which of them are good and which are bad. We must give some consideration to the question of licensing weapons. We must also liaise with port and coastal states surrounding Somalia, to establish an agreement on the transit of weapons used by private armed security guards.

The naval policing of the Indian ocean has been good, but patchy. In response to UN calls, there are now three ongoing international operations. NATO Operation Ocean Shield and the EUNAVFOR—European Union Naval Force Somalia—Operation Atalanta both operate from Northwood, where they are based in adjacent rooms. There is also the combined US multinational taskforce, operating from the Gulf. Several other countries also have their own regimes. There should be a greater degree of co-ordination. Do we really need three different organisations, all regularly travelling to the Gulf to discuss operations? We accept that this is not an immediate priority, but it must be addressed.

The naval response has been effective. Although the number of attacks has risen, the proportion of successful attacks has fallen. This year alone, however, there have been two successful hijackings and Somali pirates have taken 28 hostages. The Royal Navy Fort Victoria engaged in a highly successful intervention, in which 14 pirates were arrested and taken to the Seychelles. It is right that we adopt a cautious approach to military operations, but there is more work to be done in this area.

International co-ordination is particularly important in one respect. There have been nine UN Security Council resolutions and we have established a contact group on piracy, in which the UK is playing a prominent role, but we must now address how to get the pirates to justice. Nine out of every 10 pirates taken are released without trial. The failure to prosecute has been criticised by industry. The Baltic Exchange has said that the

“UK has gained a degree of notoriety”

for failure to prosecute. In the past two years, 21 pirates have been transferred to other nations, but recently there have been practical difficulties in the implementation of such transfers. There are also difficulties in respect of the presentation of evidence at trial, and we must review how we collect evidence.

International maritime law allows pirates to be prosecuted anywhere, and former French Minister Jack Lang has suggested to the UN Security Council that an international piracy tribunal might be established. The Government were right to reject that proposition, which would have been very expensive and complicated, and to focus instead on the transfer agreements to Kenya. Given that such transfers have recently stopped, however, I would like to know what steps the Foreign Office will take to restart them.

The ransoms that have been paid have been eye-wateringly high. In 2007, the average ransom was $600,000, but that figure had grown to $5 million by 2011. The total ransom sums paid in 2011 were $135 million. They are paid by air drop, and owners see them as the price of doing business. Ransom payments are not illegal under UK law but, rightly, Government policy is that ransoms should not be paid and they have nothing to do with ransom payments. However, one is left with the slight feeling that they have been turning a blind eye to the practice.

I have no better suggestion at present, however, other than that we should take a harder look at financial tracking. We have little information about where ransom money goes. Some goes to the pirates, some goes to Somali officials, and one suspects that some goes to terrorist groups and international criminals. We need both more information and more action on tracking. The Serious Organised Crime Agency might investigate the flows of ransom money through the UK financial system, and the Government should establish a mechanism to collect data.

I apologise to the House for having focused almost exclusively on piracy, but it has been a particularly difficult problem. In truth, the Government have not been doing badly, but there is much more to be done. Somalia remains a very troubled region, and I wish the conference well and hope the outcome will be successful.

14:25

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s speech and his enthusiastic engagement with these issues. He is being very ambitious, and I applaud him for that. I also applaud the Secretary of State for International Development. He has visited Somaliland, and so, too, has the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), the Minister with responsibility for Africa. I wish them well in their endeavours. I roundly applaud the energy that is being put into the British engagement in Somaliland and Somalia.

I also congratulate the shadow Foreign Secretary on his contribution to the debate. When he was International Development Secretary, he took a great interest in this subject, and that came across in his speech. He met the Somali community in Cardiff, as did the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband). There has been a Somali community in Cardiff, in the docks area of my constituency, since about the 1830s. It is now a community that is passionately committed both to Wales and being British, and to Somaliland. I shall talk about that shortly.

The Foreign Secretary highlighted the issue of security. That sometimes comes very close to home. In just the past few days, three men from Cardiff have appeared in court on terrorism-related offences, and I believe that they will be sentenced today. Only a few weeks ago, two young men from Cardiff went to Kenya with the intention of travelling across the Somalia border to join al-Shabaab. Fortunately, they were detained and returned. That is a positive outcome for them, as well as for the community in Cardiff, which, with strong Somali leadership, realises that it has to engage more with the young people growing up in the city and ensure that the temptation of being drawn into terrorism is guarded against. A recent Home Affairs Committee report on radicalisation in the UK is of relevance in this regard. I mention these events as they underline a point that the Foreign Secretary made: security in Somalia is not just about what happens in the horn of Africa and to ships sailing in that region. It can also come very close to home.

The Foreign Secretary stressed security and common humanity as the twin motivations for this fresh engagement. That is absolutely right, but we must also add development to the list.

Unless the vacuum is filled by jobs and opportunity, education and improved health standards in these fragile regions, any gains that are made will be temporary. Military intervention alone is not enough to change the situation in the south. There is also a need to develop democratic institutions. As I shall make clear in a moment, that is one of the big differences between the situation in Somaliland, which wishes to be separate, the situation in Puntland, which wants to be part of a single Somalia, and the situation in the south, where those democratic institutions are lacking.

[Laura Sandys]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know from his experience of the Somali community, in all the chaos and difficulty that Somalia faces we should not lose sight of the fact that Somalis are extremely entrepreneurial, and have a fantastic sense of business and international trade. While there are few positive things to say about Somalia at the moment, we must bear in mind their potential to use such assets to enforce and underpin long-term security for the country.

[Alun Michael]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I am glad to say that those characteristics are reflected in the Somali community in Cardiff. One of the problems of that community, however, is that it is invisible. In recent years, we have organised an event to celebrate Somalis who have achieved some success, such as gaining a PhD in chemistry or developing a proficiency in art or sport, in order to encourage and motivate young people. I am certain that such skills exist even in the most disastrous parts of Somalia, and will be evident if they can only be nurtured and developed through proper institutions and a degree of stability that is absent at the moment, particularly in the south-central part of the country.

[Bob Stewart]

My wife started a camp in South Sudan, which by 1991-92 contained 100,000 people. While I was preparing for this debate, she warned, “Remember when you start these big camps that they become a focus for people to come to, and they cannot really sustain that number of people.” We should bear her words in mind when we are considering humanitarian problems. When she was setting up that huge camp she suddenly realised, once she was on the ground, that trying to ensure that the surrounding area could sustain so many people in the long term would involve huge problems—and we have to look at the long term. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is thinking along those lines as well.

[Alun Michael]

The hon. Gentleman is right, and again it is interesting to observe the contrast between the north and the south. After the end of what was known as the hidden war in the north, there were very large refugee camps. Some were over the border in Ethiopia, some were in parts of Somalia, and some were further south in Kenya. In the north that situation is history, because of the development of democratic institutions and stability. Those things are closely interrelated.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that giving humanitarian aid cannot in itself create a sustainable situation for the long term. One of the main issues raised with me by representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross was the problem of providing humanitarian aid at a time when al-Shabaab is preventing it from being delivered, as well as preventing free communications and preventing people from living where they want to live. That must be tackled.

A problem highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) was the failure of the transitional federal Government. It is very transitional, it is not very federal, and it is not really a Government; otherwise it is fine. I do not say that in a spirit of negativity, because I think we all want it to succeed. We want the individuals there to make something of their Government. However, it would be foolish not to recognise that the necessary change has not happened. Somalia does not have a Parliament, although some people have been nominated as parliamentarians. For that reason we, as parliamentarians here, have very little capacity to help directly.

The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in the United Kingdom did give assistance to a group of Members who visited Somaliland a few years ago, and has welcomed parliamentarians and clerks to the UK to learn more so that they can develop the institutions that they have in Somaliland. It is, of course, as much in the interests of Somalilanders as in anyone else’s interests that there should be an effective Government in the south. It is not a good thing to have instability in the general neighbourhood. I hope that the Foreign Secretary’s initiative will succeed, and that the CPA and the Inter-Parliamentary Union will be able to work with elected representatives in the future. I applaud the fact that the IPU, of whose UK branch executive I am a member, plans to visit Somaliland in the coming year, and indeed hopes to visit both parts of Somalia.

Piracy has changed in that, at one stage, it was a substitute for fishing and other ways of earning an income; it is clear that it has become far more organised. Interestingly, many of those arrested came from the south-west of Somalia, rather than from the coastal regions, which rather encourages that view. That issue certainly needs to be tackled in breaking down and undermining the infrastructure of illegal activity within Somalia.

I particularly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Mogadishu a few days ago and his appointing an ambassador to that country. That signals confidence that progress can be made, and confidence is enormously important, given that for 21 years there has been none in that regard. The appointment did raise a frisson of concern in Somaliland, which thought that in some ways this might symbolise a belief on the British Government’s part that diplomatic channels should be concentrated through that avenue. I was grateful to the Minister for his Department’s confirming that the arrangements for Somaliland will continue to be made through the deputy ambassador to Ethiopia, who has specific responsibility for relations with Somaliland.

I also welcomed the Foreign Secretary’s acknowledging, following my earlier intervention, that the situation in Somaliland is different. I understand the reasons for his policy of not formally recognising Somaliland as a separate country. The last Labour Government looked at this issue on a number of occasions, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, as Foreign Secretary, took the same view not because he lacked sympathy for Somaliland or did not respect the wishes of its population, but because, if recognition is to come, it must start in Africa and come from Somaliland’s neighbours, rather than from a former colonial power.

The Foreign Secretary was of course right to put the main emphasis on tackling the disastrous state of affairs in the south-central regions of the former Somalia, because that is where the threats lie to the local people—for whom the situation is truly disastrous—and to the international community. Again, that situation has been underlined by the International Committee of the Red Cross. However, it is understandable that people in Somaliland feel they are being ignored. The newspapers and the media in general cover the problems; it is not a headline to say that a country is living at peace and nothing excessively exciting is happening.

However, I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary underlined that distinction. Such a distinction could be made on the Foreign Office’s website without compromising the Government’s position—for instance, by indicating that security is greater, or that the dangers are less, in Somaliland than in the south. It would be like making the distinction that London was not subjected to regular violent incidents when such things were taking place in Belfast. We got pretty annoyed when, on occasion, some Americans did not make that distinction. The Indian Government certainly got irritated when, after the bombings in Mumbai, the problems were treated as if they were the same right across that very large country.

The Foreign Secretary’s emphasis is right, but I make no apology for wanting to say a few things about the situation in Somaliland in particular. I summed it up a few years ago by saying that

“Somaliland has not been recognised—but it has become respected—as a beacon of democracy.”

That remains true, and in fact those words have been used by the Prime Minister. Following the elections in Somaliland, I asked the Prime Minister his views on 7 July 2010. In effect, he said that Somaliland has earned respect through elections. A transfer of power had taken place from the outgoing President to President Silanyo, after a fairly narrow election victory. The new Government took a mature view, saying that they wanted to be recognised but their top priority was meeting the needs of their people. Engaging with the international community, trying to work with neighbours on things such as economic development, and seeking the development of parliamentary institutions, education and health were even more of a priority than recognition, which they prize greatly.

It is worth while highlighting the history. In 1960, the former British Somaliland gained its independence and shortly after joined the former Italian Somaliland to form Somalia. The early hopes had been that Djibouti, the former French Somaliland, would join to create a single Somali nation, but that did not happen. Sadly, the rule of President Siad Barre became increasingly oppressive towards the north, leading to the emergence of the opposition Somali National Movement, which became increasingly successful in the late 1980s. The fighting mainly took place in the north and there was little international coverage of it, but the coverage increased as the civil war progressed and affected Mogadishu, where most of the diplomats and foreign correspondents were based. Thus, as has happened so often in the past, the concentration in the international diplomatic and media spotlight was on events in the south. As the civil war progressed, the south descended into instability, with increasingly vicious conflict between various war lords. We all know how unsuccessful the international attempts were to intervene and support the development of proper government in the south.

In the north, without any great help from the international community, Somaliland has developed over the past 21 years to have local government elections, parliamentary elections and presidential elections. They are not perfect but, given that it is a country without international recognition, they are certainly remarkable. The creation of an independent electoral commission, which played a considerable part in leading to the presidential elections, was very important, as was the support that we have given in trying to work with the Somalilanders, Parliament to Parliament.

It is also worth remembering the history because there have been Somali communities in the UK for more than 150 years, and Somalis have made a particular contribution to the merchant navy, the Army and the Royal Navy, and to our traditional industries. The roots of my constituency’s Somali community are in the north and sentiment is strongly in support of Somaliland; there is increasing strength in the plea to Britain and to the international community to recognise Somaliland. That requires a process, as I think it is in the “too difficult” box for the African Union and for individual African countries, many of which fear precedent. The precedent of having a democracy for 21 years without recognition would be a pretty high hurdle for anyone else to imitate, but those fears nevertheless exist.

Recognition requires a process that will allow the people of Somaliland to say whether they wish to continue to assert, as they do now, their right to independence or whether they wish to enter into a loose confederation or some other arrangement. This should be for Somalis to decide and I simply plead that we continue to recognise—perhaps I should say “acknowledge”, given that “recognition” is so difficult—the success of Somaliland in maintaining a democracy over a period of time. I wish to make one point about this, which is that they have the legal right to independence. There is nowhere they can assert it, because that is not the way things work in international diplomacy, but as this country was once independent, however brief the period before it entered into coalition with the former Italian Somaliland in the south to create Somalia, international law and precedent gives them the right to assert it.

We need to create the environment in which Somalis can talk to Somalis in an atmosphere of mutual respect, but part of the responsibility of the international community, and of Britain in particular, is to insist that there must be no assumption that the development of a successful Government in the south would give that Government automatic rights over the north. That should not be the case. It should be a question of a process—a proper discussion—and of the right of Somalilanders to determine their own future.

In the meantime, the Government of Somaliland chose not to spend all their time arguing about constitutional issues, but to look to development. I want to make two points. The first is about the encouraging fact that President Silanyo has taken the unprecedented step, which I welcome, of deciding to attend the conference in London. I believe that the Minister for Africa’s willingness to engage directly in understanding the sensitivities has played a great part in making that happen. It would have been unthinkable to have had this conference and for it to have been successful without having Somaliland at the table, but the process has been difficult and risky. Somaliland was left out of the Djibouti process and felt unable to join international processes that would have given it a seat only on the assumption that it came under the aegis of the Government in Mogadishu, so agreeing to be at the table involves considerable risks for the President. It is a tribute to his leadership that he has agreed to do so and that he has involved the two opposition parties, as well as his own, in saying that it is the right thing to do. That in itself demonstrates a strong willingness to co-operate in seeking a solution to the instability in the horn of Africa. It is also to the credit of the Somaliland Government that they have provided humanitarian aid to the south. Again, that gives one hope for a period of proper engagement. That is important because the Somaliland model of peace building, based on people sitting down and working out what they want in a constitution, contains useful lessons, which I hope will be shared at the conference. Will the Minister assure us that Somaliland will gain respect as a result of that?

Will the Minister give comfort to President Silanyo and those who have supported him in his difficult decision by agreeing that the conference communiqué should contain explicit references to Somaliland that welcome his participation; note Somaliland’s achievements in building peace and democracy; draw attention to the relevance of the Somaliland experience to the problem of securing peace in Somalia; note the assistance through humanitarian aid that I have mentioned; thank it for its co-operation in the fight against terrorism and piracy; and encourage Somaliland’s wider economic interaction?

My second point is that I know that the Minister has already welcomed one initiative, namely the establishment of the Somaliland Development Corporation. It is being established because of the lack of recognition that makes involvement in international trade and business difficult. It will be launched on 22 February, the day before the conference, which Ministers will host. The point of the corporation is to facilitate international investment in Somaliland and economic interaction for the benefit of the Somaliland people. As an unrecognised state, it is isolated. Despite its extraordinary achievements in stability and democracy, international donors cannot deal directly with its Government, and foreign investors face uncertainty about whether contracts—the basis of secure business—can be enforced. The point of the corporation is to establish an entity to circumvent that problem. Indeed, I hope that it might lead the Foreign Office, through our trade arrangements, to be able to underpin some of the potential for business development and trade with Somaliland, which is difficult at present.

The development corporation will deal with donors such as Governments, aid agencies and international financial institutions; individuals, including enhancing the contribution that is made by many members of the Somaliland diaspora, as the Foreign Secretary rightly said; philanthropists and foundations; and foreign companies that wish to invest for profit. The founding directors are co-operating with the Crown Agents on the provision of banking services, and the intention is to develop a business plan with aims and objectives in the short, medium and longer term that will be available on the corporation’s website. The plan would be influenced by the development priorities of the Somaliland Government, the decisions of the two boards and the Somaliland development corporation trust. The launch on 22 February will show the confidence of the Somaliland Government in engaging with business and economic development as well as being a participant at the table at the conference.

I greatly applaud the Foreign Secretary for initiating the conference. By acknowledging that Somaliland’s participation is a positive way of coming into the international community, I hope that the UK Government’s lead in these matters will be acknowledged in return.

I hope that the Minister will cover some of these points in his response. I return to my initial point and congratulate the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Minister not just on this initiative but on their personal commitment to making it work. I hope they achieve success.

14:51

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) because we, together with the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), are officers of the all-party group on Somaliland and Somalia. We have been working very closely on all these issues and very much welcome the initiative being taken by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister in organising the London summit later this month.

This is a tale of two countries. In 2004, the Select Committee on International Development, which I chaired at the time, paid a study visit to see how DFID development assistance was being used in Ethiopia. On that trip, we had a free weekend, but ambassadors do not like it when Members of Parliament have a free weekend because they are never quite sure what the MPs are going to get up to, so they like to keep Select Committee teams busy. Myles Wickstead, our excellent ambassador in Addis Ababa at the time said that he had recently been to Hargeisa for Remembrance day for the Somaliland Scouts. We should remember that during the last war many from Somaliland served in the armed forces. There is in Hargeisa a Commonwealth graves war memorial to the Hargeisa Scouts, to which he had been. He said, “Look, no one has been to Somaliland for a very long time. Would you be interested in visiting it?” To be totally honest, with one exception I do not think that any of us on the Select Committee had ever heard Somaliland. We knew nothing about it, so we said, “Yes, of course, we’d be interested in going to Hargeisa,” and we flew there. We were the first parliamentary delegation to have visited Somaliland for many years and the scene at the airport was one of crowds the like of which I have rarely seen, holding banners saying “We love our Queen”, “We want to come home”, and “Support the Commonwealth”. It was amazing. From the airport to the hotel in Hargeisa, the crowds welcoming members of the Select Committee were about 10 deep.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Does that ever happen in Banbury?

[Tony Baldry]

Alas, the only time we see such crowds in Banbury is when the Queen comes to visit, and I am glad to say that when Her Majesty came to visit Banbury to celebrate our charter, we had similar crowds.

The people of Hargeisa saw the parliamentary delegation as very much representing the UK, the Commonwealth and this Parliament. They made it clear that they identified with us, and wanted to identify with us. That caused me to look a bit at history.

The crown of the British empire was of course India, and to protect the sea routes to India the British occupied Aden, and to protect Aden we occupied what became the British Protectorate of Somaliland. Interestingly, the British Protectorate of Somaliland, unlike many other countries in colonial Africa, had well defined boundaries that in the last century the United Kingdom negotiated by treaty with Ethiopia, France and Italy, and there has never been any dispute about them. Indeed, some fantastic British Protectorate of Somaliland postage stamps from the reign of the late King George VI show the map of that territory, which is now Somaliland, clearly marked by treaty. Its boundaries are clearly marked and defined.

To the south of the British Protectorate of Somaliland was what was called Italian Somalia, practically the only legitimate Italian colony in Africa. After the second world war and the defeat of the axis powers, responsibility for Italian Somalia fell to the United Nations and a UN mandate. Understandably, the UN was keen to release itself from the mandate at the earliest possible opportunity, and so in 1960 it was agreed that Italian Somalia would be given independence. As the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has already explained, the Somalis generally hoped to see a greater Somalia, involving Italian Somalia, the British Somali protectorate and Somalis living in Djibouti, Kenya and Ethiopia. The British Protectorate of Somaliland was given independence on a Sunday, and for a number of days it was an independent de jure state. Later in the next week, what was the British Protectorate of Somaliland, which had been granted independence by the United Kingdom, joined Somalia to become what is now known by the international community, and recognised by the United Nations, as de jure Somalia.

What had been the British Somalian protectorate and Italian Somalia sought to work as a single sovereign state. However, it floundered as a consequence of the activities of the Government of Siad Barre, and things become so desperate that in 1991 the Government of Siad Barre actually bombed Hargeisa. As BBC journalist Mary Harper comments in her recently published book:

“The authorities’ response to the rebellion was extraordinarily vicious; Siad Barre’s ground and air forces carried out such heavy bombardment of the regional capital, Hargeisa, that it was known as the ‘Dresden of Africa’. Barely a wall was left standing and almost every roof of every building was blown off or looted. The city was smashed and stripped; its population eventually left, walking all the way to Ethiopia in a biblical-style Exodus, as described by Mark Bradbury in his book Becoming Somaliland: The flight in 1988 was one of the fastest and largest forced movements of people recorded in Africa.”

If one goes to Hargeisa, one still sees the bomb damage inflicted on the city, which it has been impossible to rebuild.

I also think that it would be impossible to rebuild the trust between the Somalilanders and Somalia, between Hargeisa and Mogadishu. The people of Somaliland want independence. They have now been independent for more than 20 years. They have had contested parliamentary and presidential elections and, in contrast with many other African states, peaceful and democratic transfers of power without any difficulty, as with the recent transition from President Rayale to President Silanyo.

Somaliland is in exactly the same position as the Gambia. For a while the Gambia was part of Senegal, but that did not work and the Gambia decided that it wished to be independent again. It was granted independence and recognised by the international community. I suggest that Somaliland is in exactly the same position in international law. If so, that prompts the following question: why has Somaliland not been recognised as a de jure state? I think that it has been really bad luck for Somaliland that some of the key players in the region, for their own reasons, have not wanted to recognise it.

First, one would have expected the other Arab nations in the region to support Somaliland, because it is primarily a Muslim and Arab nation. However, Egypt has for a long time been in dispute with Ethiopia over the Nile waters, and I think that it has suited Egypt for there to be as much uncertainty, difficulty and turbulence as possible on Ethiopia’s borders. As Egypt has not been prepared to recognise Somaliland for that reason, neither have other Gulf Arab states.

Secondly, I think that many other African Union member states regard Somaliland as being a long way away; it is not a sub-Saharan nation, and they see it primarily as an Arab nation. It really has not been sufficiently high up the agenda in African Foreign Ministries, such as that in Pretoria. One of the things that will be good for the Somalilanders about the London conference, and for others, is that it will for the first time bring together in the same place all the key players, including the senior representatives of the African Union. It is a matter of fact that President Silanyo has so far not met the key players in the African Union, so the conference will be a good opportunity for that.

Having visited Somaliland on a number of occasions, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has, I can report to the House that, notwithstanding the lack of international recognition, it has striven to build itself into a decent country. The banking system does not work, because of course it only has a central bank and the only currency is the old Somali one, which is constantly being devalued, so people have to move around wheelbarrows full of money. What they do have, however, is a sophisticated system of remittances from the very supportive diaspora community here and elsewhere in the world, so this afternoon we could go to various places in London and hand over cash for recipients in Somaliland, who could collect it later on this afternoon. The system is even more efficient than Western Union.

Somaliland is not that far from Dubai and the United Arab Emirates, so its potential to do significant back-office work, if it had the opportunities, is immense, but it suffers from not being recognised by the international community. As President Silanyo said recently:

“We need foreign recognition because that is the only way we will become a fully fledged member of the international community. We cannot attend conferences organised by the United Nations and other organisations. We cannot benefit from programmes of the World Bank and other international bodies. We miss out on a lot by not being recognised. We have been very patient about this and we hope our patience will be rewarded very soon. If we are granted international recognition during my presidency, we would put on the biggest celebration the world has ever seen.”

We have seen other countries, such as Kosovo and states from the former Yugoslav republic, emerge in recent times.

The British Somaliland protectorate, now Somaliland, was part of the empire and of the Commonwealth. It has incredibly strong connections with the UK, and, although I fully understand the Foreign Office’s reticence, feeling that if Somaliland is to be recognised it must be recognised first within Africa, I do not think that we should ever forget, or for a moment be seen to be forgetting, Somaliland.

I am very pleased that, of the development assistance that DFID now allocates to Somalia, a significant proportion goes to Somaliland, which has phenomenal potential. It has a fantastic port, at Berbera, with enormous potential, and its access to the sea could, if it were developed, be used by countries such as Ethiopia. But it has just been incredibly difficult for Somaliland to take forward any such developments without international recognition, and because international companies are reluctant to enter into contracts there, where they could never be sure what status in law, recognition in law and system of law they would experience if there were ever a dispute about an investment or contract.

That makes life hard for Somalilanders, but Mary Harper, whom I quote simply because she has spent much more time in Somaliland than I have and has all the objectivity of being a BBC reporter, says:

“The reason why so many Somalilanders have returned home and have been able to embark on such exciting projects for themselves and for the territory as a whole is that, unlike Somalia, Somaliland has since 1991 been rebuilding its economy, society and government. It has been doing this slowly, in its own way, with a careful progression from a clan-based political system to what should ultimately be a Somali-style multiparty democracy. Because western models of peacemaking and state-building have not been imposed from the outside, Somaliland has in many ways saved itself from the fate of Somalia. The example of Somaliland has demonstrated that, when left to themselves, Somalis can form a viable nation state.”

I am therefore delighted that President Silanyo is coming to the London conference. It is excellent that UK initiatives are being taken by the voluntary and other sectors to set up a Somaliland development corporation, so that we here can give Somaliland whatever help we can with investment and job creation. They are all really good initiatives. However, those on the Treasury Bench need to understand that the Somalilanders are willing to give the London conference their full support, but do not want to prejudice their claim to be an independent state. They support it because they see themselves as neighbours of Somalia. Like Ethiopia, Kenya and other neighbouring states, they see that they have an interest in certain issues, such as in ensuring that piracy off the coast of Somalia stops and that the Mogadishu regime becomes more stable. They are coming to London co-operatively and supportively, but want to make it clear that they, like many others in the past in Africa, wish to assert their right to self-determination. I suggest to the House that they have international law and history on their side.

I will make two concluding comments about the conference. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee said, one reason the London conference is being held is that the international community and the seas around Africa have been bedevilled by Somali piracy for some time. If the international community is to succeed in bearing down on piracy, it will have to bring prosecutions and imprison people. Someone will have to accept the responsibility for the cost of running those prisons. Understandably, African countries are often not prepared to do so. One reason Charles Taylor, the former President of Liberia, is being tried for war crimes in The Hague is that no African country was willing to have him tried in Africa, because they were concerned that if he was convicted they would be liable for the lifelong costs of detaining him in prison, notwithstanding the fact that formally he is being tried under the jurisdiction of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone. If we expect African states to imprison pirates from Somalia and elsewhere, there must be agreement on the long-term funding of the prisons and on how the prisoners will be looked after. This is not something that we can start and then forget about and abandon once the problem has abated.

My second concluding remark is about fisheries. Fisheries are an essential natural resource for Africa. For many coastal countries, the potential income from their fisheries is greater than that from their oil, minerals or mineral deposits. Tragically, far too often the fisheries around Africa have been raped and pillaged by much more sophisticated countries, and African countries have not had the wherewithal to protect their exclusive fishing zones. It is said that one historic reason Somalis took to piracy is that it was no longer viable for them to make a livelihood from deep-sea fishing. The Foreign Secretary was right to make it clear that one objective of the London conference is to help the Somalis assert their national exclusive fishing zone. If that is to happen, they must be given help with fisheries protection vessels and fisheries management schemes so that they can defend their fisheries. If they can do that, those vessels and systems will help to bear down on piracy.

Everyone will wish the London conference every success. We all want Somalia to cease being a failed state. Far too many people have starved to death there as a consequence of its failures as a state and its ongoing humanitarian difficulties. I hope that in seeking to improve the plight of its people and bring stability to it, we do not lose sight of the considerable achievements of the people of Somaliland, notwithstanding all the difficulties that they have experienced over the past 20 years, in creating a stable and potentially extremely viable state. They wish it to have independence and, I am sure, in due course become a member of the Commonwealth of nations of which we are all so proud to be members.

15:15

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

Somalia is one of the places that are seen most often through the lens of conflict, famine and humanitarian disaster as failed states. Today’s debate has echoed some of the big challenges that it faces.

Somalia has often been spoken of in relation to international terrorism and the threats posed by al-Shabaab, along with the challenges of piracy. However, I and many other Members know that there is another story, which is often depicted by our constituents from the British Somali community. It is a story of aspiration and of the heritage and history of Somalia before the ongoing conflicts.

From speaking to many members of the British Somali community in my constituency, I know that they are proud of their cultural and religious heritage. They do not want Somalia to be portrayed by the current negative images. They are also proud of the contributions that they make to the people of Somalia through remittance and support, through family connections and more widely. They aspire to see a Somalia that is stable, secure, democratic and economically sustainable, in which people can live free from fear, conflict and famine. The decent majority both in Somalia and outside want to see an end to the conflict and terrorism that have damaged the reputation of their country and led to its often negative portrayal. Our job is to do everything we can to ensure that we somehow make that aspiration a reality.

The humanitarian crisis in the horn of Africa has only made that job harder. No conflict-affected or fragile state will achieve the millennium development goals, which means that large swathes of the world will be left further behind. Today’s debate and the Somalia conference, which I welcome along with other hon. Members, provide an important opportunity to talk about not only security issues, which are vital to our interests as well as Somalia’s, but the challenges of development, economic progress and stability facing the people of Somalia. I hope that development will genuinely be a central component of the conference later this month alongside those other issues.

As other Members have pointed out, there has been no effective government in Somalia for more than two decades, and the impact is all too clear to see. The internationally recognised transitional federal Government control only the capital and a small area in the centre of the country. Puntland and the de facto independent Somaliland both have more effective, if unrecognised, governments in the north and north-west of the country. Despite the recent setbacks for al-Shabaab, it continues to control large sections of the south and engage in constant conflict with the TFG.

Somalia today is a country with some of the worst human development indicators in the world. Average life expectancy is only 48 years, and approximately 1.4 million of the estimated population of more than 9 million have been displaced. As other Members have pointed out, piracy also remains a major problem, not least because a large proportion of food aid—90% of World Food Programme aid in 2010—arrives by sea. As well as the wider costs of piracy, therefore, a wider challenge is posed by it in respect of getting aid and support to people affected by the famine.

A concerted effort from a coalition of African forces is, as has been said, pushing al-Shabaab back. Its withdrawal from Mogadishu last August provided some hope, for the first time in a long time, that it can be defeated. There is some evidence to suggest that its support from sections of the population is beginning to wane, which clearly needs to be encouraged and supported. In the interim, the international community must prioritise protecting civilians, and encouraging reconciliation and a political solution. I am encouraged by the fact that the conference will focus on such issues, which are important because conflict costs not only lives, which is tragic enough, but prospects for the country.

More than 1.5 billion live in countries affected by repeated cycles of political and criminal violence. As the “World Development Report 2011” shows, a developing country in the middle of a conflict does not grow or create jobs for its people, and does not invest in the next generation. There is currently no formal economy in many parts of Somalia. Although I am aware of positive examples, they are clearly not enough. The conflict is not conducive to economic investment or growth, so the resolution to the conflict is a priority. There must be reconciliation, but that must go hand in hand with the development challenges in creating the climate in which we can ensure that there is humanitarian assistance, support for medium and long-term development, and a pathway to progress to stability for the country and its population.

Those living in conflict or fragile states are twice as likely to be under-nourished and more than three times as likely to be unable to send their children to school. Child mortality is twice as high in conflict states. Worse, conflict in one country affects neighbouring countries. As we have seen, the effect of Somalia on neighbouring countries such as Kenya in the form of refugee flows has led to huge aid challenges. I welcome the contribution that our Government have made to supporting those affected by the famine, but greater action is clearly needed for those still suffering in the aftermath.

The conflict in Somalia continues to cost lives—it is virtually impossible to estimate exactly how many—and makes it harder to tackle the problems that can help to resolve it. Hospitals and feeding centres have been hit by artillery and civilians continue to be killed in the fighting. Protecting them and the vital services they need must be central to our programme in Somalia.

Understanding and tackling the drivers of the conflict is essential. For example, resource scarcity and natural disasters, which are clearly drivers of conflict, have affected Somalia greatly.

Conflict in such countries is also—critically—about development, as I have mentioned. Political security and economic dynamics all play their part, but lower gross domestic product per capita is also associated with large-scale political conflicts. Alongside work to resolve the conflict, which is vital, we must address the humanitarian and long-term development challenges.

Crises such as droughts are drivers of conflict, so supporting the people of Somalia who are affected by the famine and getting aid in are critical. As I stated earlier, removing the barriers to the delivery of aid through organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, which was reaching more than 1 million people and is now being prevented from doing so by al-Shabaab, must be a priority for the conference agenda. I hope the conference will address that issue and make much more progress than has been made so far, because al-Shabaab has prevented one non-governmental organisation after another from getting aid into parts of Somalia.

The UK has a good track record. Despite the difficult climate and the conflict, it has worked to try to get aid into Somalia through different organisations and through the means available to us. However, there remains a huge challenge. It is estimated that at least a quarter of the Somali population—one of the highest proportions in the world—is still in urgent need of relief and assistance, and 60% of the population live below the poverty line, on less than $1 a day.

As the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), said, the previous Government increased aid to Somalia from just over £3 million in 2002-03 to £34 million, and that money made a huge difference to people’s lives. For instance, 650,000 people in south-central Somalia received basic health treatment, including vaccinations, deworming tablets and nutritional screening, and more than 120,000 children were treated for acute malnutrition in the same region. Water points and sanitation facilities were created for about 50,000 people, and much more was done. Leaving aside those achievements, however, it is clear that we have to do much more, given the challenges Somalia faces and the nature of the conflict. Given the current climate, we have to focus on where and how we can get support to people in conflict zones to ensure they do not face a continued crisis.

When the Foreign Secretary visited Somalia last week—we are pleased to see the beginning of new, more normalised relations with Somalia—his focus seemed to be particularly on security and piracy. Although that is crucial, and although it is in our interests and those of the region, it is critical that we move beyond the rhetoric about development and supporting countries facing conflict to ensure they have the appropriate support and assistance to make the transition from being failed and fragile states facing conflict to being more independent, sustainable societies, where our aid effort genuinely can make a difference.

The February conference is an important development and a chance for the Government to show the international leadership that is vitally needed. Many of us will be watching closely, along with our constituents, to see whether progress is being made. We will be willing the international community on to ensure that this opportunity is not missed and that there is lasting peace and security in Somalia. Although the military dimension and the regional co-operation dimension are vital, the humanitarian dimension must be integral to the discussions and the actions that follow the conference. Long-term stability in Somalia will be about finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict and a political settlement that includes addressing Somaliland’s independence, as well as about achieving sustainable development.

As the worst of the famine passes, we cannot forget that 4 million people, including 2 million children, are still in need of immediate food security and livelihood support. Britain must remain committed to helping that group of people, who desperately need our support. That means having a stronger focus on food security. The international community had warnings of imminent drought and famine in Somalia but it did not act early enough, as was shown by the recent Oxfam and Save the Children report.

Alongside the need for democratic and functional state institutions, I hope that we can consider how countries such as Somalia can gradually attract and build a viable economic environment. Although it is a challenge, we must consider the medium and longer-term aims, if we are to ensure that a failed or fragile state can make the transition to economic and social development and if we are to secure lasting progress.

I hope that the conference will focus on how to get humanitarian assistance to those still affected in Somalia and that a concerted effort will be made to build strong, democratic institutions. It might feel premature now but we have to aspire to ensuring that Somalia has institutions and governance arrangements fit to serve the people of the country. To prevent future disasters and learn from what has happened, the international community must focus on building resilience within both the international systems and the country itself, and we must help Somalia to respond more effectively than it has in the past year to disasters, famine and the humanitarian challenges that it is likely to continue to face. It is also important that the most vulnerable people, such as women and children, who are often the first to suffer in conflict and humanitarian disasters, be supported.

In conclusion, I look forward to progress being made at the conference. I and other hon. Members with a passionate interest in Somalia will follow the conference closely to see that it makes a genuine difference, and we will support the Government’s efforts to bring the international community together to ensure that the concerns and interests of the Somali population are addressed alongside our interest in a secure and stable country.

15:29

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

May I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s initial remarks and say that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and so many other well-informed and constructive contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House? This has been the House of Commons at its best, because there is a great deal of cross-party agreement and expertise. I join the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who is no longer in his place, in playing tribute to Myles Wickstead, our former ambassador in Addis Ababa, who, as well as taking the hon. Gentleman to Somaliland, has been a great source of advice to me. I am happy to put on the record my gratitude for his expertise.

For decades, it seemed almost as though the international community had given up on Somalia and, by neglect, been prepared to sacrifice its people to an almost endless cycle of war, deprivation and violence. War is often described as development in reverse, and I am afraid that Somalia is possibly the best example of that in the world. It is identified by the UN as having the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. As hon. Members have mentioned, there are nearly 1 million Somali refugees in other countries, 1.5 million internally displaced people there and millions more in crisis and, in many cases, at immediate risk of their lives. We see the whole population’s resilience to natural crises, such as the recent, repeated failed rains, reduced to the point where natural disasters immediately mean an humanitarian disaster, in a way that does not now happen in neighbouring countries such as Ethiopia, where there are grain supplies, reserves and so on, and where the Government are managing the natural crisis. We see humanitarian assistance being blocked by the conflict, and we see the conflict itself causing death, destruction and dislocation—the terrible euphemism of so-called collateral damage—with thousands and thousands having lost their lives as a direct result.

It is absolutely fantastic, therefore, that the British Government have taken such an exceptional lead on Somalia. The Foreign Secretary and all his colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence should be congratulated on taking the lead and hosting the forthcoming London conference. However, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Foreign Secretary should also be congratulated on visiting Mogadishu, which not many international politicians may have done yet, and seizing the opportunity to open an embassy there again, which is a positive step and a sign of confidence in Somalia’s progress; on reflecting in our policy towards Somalia the emerging Government policy on building stability overseas, which is an important reflection of the overarching strategy in our international policy; and on the commitment significantly to increase aid to Somalia over the next four years, which is now set to average £63 million a year.

Labour Members were quite right to point to their record in government on supporting Somalia. It is terrific to see the coalition Government increasing that aid, and trying to increase its impact and effectiveness wherever possible. In particular, it is important that the London conference is going ahead and that we are hosting it. It is a tribute to the diplomatic skills of the FCO that such a broad-based conference has emerged, with 40 Governments, the United Nations, the African Union, the European Union, the World Bank, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League attending, as well as representatives from the various territories and Governments in the wider area of Somalia. That is an important step forward in trying to secure co-ordinated international action.

The conference has seven headings. I think it was originally suggested that the conference might focus overwhelmingly on piracy, so I very much welcome the much broader approach that it is now taking to Somalia as a whole, reflecting the fact that piracy is in many respects a symptom of Somalia’s problems, not a cause. Security is there as a heading right at the start. We should pay tribute to the African Union forces, in particular those from Uganda and Burundi who over many years have made extraordinary sacrifices to help to bring security to Mogadishu and the surrounding areas, and to Somalia as a whole, and also now to the Kenyan and Ethiopian troops present in the country. The fact that different foreign military forces are present emphasises the need for a co-ordinated international approach to security and, indeed, the need to support the Somali security and justice sectors.

However, as in many other places in the world, the military solution will never be the ultimate solution to Somalia’s problems. It is therefore absolutely right that the conference will focus on the political process.

[Bob Stewart]

Military solutions are of course not acceptable in isolation, but what we require in this situation is first-class military command and control on the ground in Somalia. That is crucial—perhaps we will even have to give some guidance to African nations that might be involved—but I am quite sure that this is what the Foreign Office has in mind as well.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. AMISOM—the African Union Mission in Somalia—has made genuine efforts to limit civilian damage and the use of certain armaments in built-up areas, for instance, yet there have been criticisms of some of the impacts on civilians and, perhaps, of the application of international humanitarian law. As part of the international co-ordination of the security effort, it is important that AMISOM operates to the very best international standards of peacekeeping and military intervention.

The political process is absolutely critical. The mandate for the current transitional Government expires in August this year, and it is important that we take the opportunity to build on their achievements. I think that my briefing states that this is the 15th attempt to form a Government in Somalia over the past 20 years, but it is one of the most successful such attempts. The Government have established a reasonable degree of control, at least over the capital city and some surrounding areas. It is important not only to build on that success but to take the opportunity to make the next incarnation of Somali government even more inclusive and broad based, and to build a political process.

The conference is also going to discuss local stability, counter-terrorism and, of course, piracy. The Select Committee’s contribution to that debate will be important. The hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) referred in passing to ransoms. The British Government have taken a clear position on that matter: we are opposed to ransoms, as they feed the pirate economy. It would be good if that was an internationally agreed position that could be properly enforced. We need to take real action to address that source of funds for Somali pirates.

The humanitarian effort is also extremely important. It is most welcome that the Department for International Development is already co-ordinating its efforts with the European Union to reduce duplication and maximise impact. There will be an opportunity to do that more widely, with the United Nations and other representatives who will be present at the conference.

Non-governmental organisations are concerned about the way humanitarian aid is being affected by the conflict in Somalia and, to some extent, by international policies. It is important that the international community draw a distinction between non-political humanitarian assistance and the military and political strategy. NGO staff are endangered when they become associated with the political and military approach, and that can also lead to the delivery of aid becoming a controversial part of the conflict. That inevitably leads to the aid not getting through. The international community needs to draw that distinction and protect that non-political humanitarian space for the delivery of aid. In planning the international approach, and the military approach, it is also important to factor in a respect for human rights and for international humanitarian law.

One topic is not on the conference agenda although I think it should be. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow talked about economic development. Aid will always be valuable for a country in humanitarian crisis, but in the end it is economic development that will lift people out of poverty. I will illustrate the problem to the Minister by citing a report that appeared recently in New Scientist. It concerned work by Anja Shortland of Brunel university, who has tracked the economic development of various villages in Somalia using satellite images. She discovered that two villages in particular had made spectacular progress. Tracking such features as electric light, she found that, over the past 10 years or so, those villages had prospered and that the wealth had spread among the community.

Sadly, the reason was that those two villages were closely associated with one of the clans most implicated in piracy. Anja Shortland concluded that piracy had proved quite effective in stimulating economic development in those places, although that is obviously not a statement that any politician could comfortably make. Piracy is clearly illegal, as well as divisive. It helps only one clan, rather than the whole of Somalia, and it undermines the entire peace and political process. Nevertheless, this does set a challenge for our approach to development. We must tackle what makes piracy attractive to clans and warlords. The economic development we deliver must be at least as effective as piracy at spreading prosperity to poor communities.

[Alun Michael]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point. Of course, economic development is also important for long-term stability. Does he agree that we must find mechanisms to allow investment in Somaliland in the absence of recognition, in order to make sure that what is a successful self-governing area—or independent country, if that is one’s view—is not penalised? The people of Somaliland should not be penalised in respect of economic development.

[Martin Horwood]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point, one I was going to address in due course. He has highlighted the importance of the establishment of the Somaliland Development Corporation, and I certainly welcome that.

I also particularly welcome one of the four priorities DFID has identified for its development programme. It says that it will

“boost wealth creation through supporting investment climate reform, skills development and job creation.”

It is essential that we help young Somalis to prosper. In some respects, promoting economic development may seem like a hopeless task, but we must seize all opportunities to help to increase prosperity.

The hon. Member for Banbury emphasised the importance of fisheries. Around the world, fisher folk are often disadvantaged populations, but the survival of their communities becomes utterly unviable if international fishing fleets are coming through and simply removing their sources of livelihood. That will serve only to hand them, once again, into the clutches of the warlords and the pirates. Trying to protect and promote the future prosperity of the Somali fisheries is, therefore, a very important task.

Somewhat counter-intuitively perhaps, some bits of infrastructure have survived almost untouched through the conflict. I understand that the mobile phone network in Somalia works extremely well, and that many Somalis have two mobile phones. Sadly, there is an obvious reason why pirates and warlords would tell their fighters not to attack the mobile phone masts: they are rather important for their operations. We must seize all opportunities, however, and try to build on the bits of infrastructure that still work.

It may seem even more hopeless to talk about the prospects for tourism, but a former diplomat has told me that Somaliland is a relatively peaceful and prosperous country that is safe for visitors and apparently has beautiful beaches. If it was recognised and had the status of a separate country, and then began, as it were, to build its brand separately from Somalia and the areas still affected by war and conflict, Somaliland could become quite a positive economic development story, and tourism could be a key sector. We must seek out opportunities to help Somaliland to develop. It is absolutely right that 40% of DFID’s development aid is focused on Somaliland and that we are taking steps such as establishing the Somaliland Development Corporation, because that example of prosperity and stability could send a very powerful message in the region. It is precisely the kind of message that will gradually begin to persuade communities in Somalia proper to think about pursuing a rather different path from the one that some of them have been pursuing. It would also undermine al-Shabaab’s claim to offer the only route to salvation for the Somali people. It is, therefore, very important that we promote the development of Somaliland.

Political recognition is a difficult issue. It would clearly be somewhat tactless if the UK were to be the first country to recognise Somaliland. It would probably be equally tactless for Ethiopia to be the first country to do so, as it also has a complicated political history with Somalia. We should try to encourage those states that are traditional leaders in pan-African politics, such as Ghana, South Africa and Nigeria, to move towards recognition of Somaliland. That example of prosperity, stability and democracy could prove very powerful, and could help countries throughout the region and the continent to tackle what has been a running sore for a long time.

[Alun Michael]

I am happy to endorse what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree, however, that it may well be that that single point of recognition is what is too difficult, and that what is needed is a process that will lead us from the present situation, which does not seem to offer the hope of recognition at any point in the future, to a number of possible conclusions, one of which might be the recognition that he recommends?

[Martin Horwood]

That is a fair point—I think that it has to be an iterative process—but the point I am making to Ministers is that I consider recognition to be a part of that process. It cannot really start with the UK, but I think that we could involve ourselves in a very positive way by encouraging other African states to think about the legal arguments and the fact that the old colonial boundaries will not really be threatened—that is obviously a sensitive issue in many parts of Africa—and to make the case for that prosperous democratic example as one that should lead to recognition, which, in turn, will help the economic development of the country.

I think that, in many respects, the British Government are doing exactly the right thing in regard to Somalia, and I think that the Foreign Secretary, in particular, should feel very proud to be hosting an important international conference that offers a real prospect of—at last—some progress towards prosperity and peace for the people of the wider Somalia.

15:51

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

Let me begin by adopting what is rapidly becoming the custom today and pay tribute to every Member who has spoken so far. I cannot possibly list all their constituencies, but everyone has spoken with great eloquence and knowledge—much more eloquence and knowledge than I shall be able to muster, although I shall do my best.

Let me also say at the outset how pleased I am that we are having this debate. Three weeks ago during business questions I suggested to the Leader of the House that he should find time for a debate on Somalia, and I was pleasantly surprised when he took me up on it. I hope that Ministers will convey my gratitude to him—

[Alun Michael]

And take note of all your future suggestions.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

Indeed.

In my Leicester constituency I represent a significant Somali diaspora community, many of whose members will be watching the debate with great interest. I am sure that I speak for a large number of them when I pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary for the tone of his opening remarks, and welcome the fact that there is a degree of bipartisanship in the debate.

Many Members have described the situation facing Somalia extremely well. It is a country with no effective central Government, notwithstanding those in Somaliland and Puntland, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) pointed out; a country where the terrorist group al-Shabaab occupies much of the centre and south; and a country which, for all the reasons mentioned, has been one of the largest generators of refugees and internally displaced persons in the world. A symptom of that instability is the piracy off the coast of Somalia, of which the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), spoke with great knowledge. Let me develop some of the points that he made.

Even after the United Nations Security Council resolutions and the various multi-naval operations, piracy has increased over the last five years or so. In 2010, 4,185 seafarers were attacked by Somali pirates and 1,432 were on ships boarded by pirates. Estimates suggest that the ransom take has increased significantly: in 2006 the average ransom was $150,000, whereas in 2011 it was $4.5 million. According to the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report, the total ransom amount has reached $135 million. I understand the UK’s position on ransoms, and I think that it is right, but perhaps the Minister could tell us whether other nation states think that they should be made illegal. I believe that the United States has been considering that. I agree with the Committee that it is not a good idea, but I should be interested to hear the Minister’s view.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) talked about the economic development of parts of Somalia near where piracy is prevalent. Those areas may well have developed economically, but inflation has been stoked and commodity prices are increasing hugely, which brings all kinds of social problems. Then there is the tragic humanitarian crisis in Somalia, which many Members have spoken about. In 2011 it experienced the worst drought for 60 years and the worst food crisis for 20 years. Four million people are living in crisis conditions, and child malnutrition rates are the highest in the world.

I welcome the fact that the Government are convening this conference, which meets at a time when there are signs of progress. The UN Secretary-General has said that

“the prospects for positive change appear greater than they have been for many years.”

The transitional federal Government are arguably in their strongest position for some time. Al-Shabaab has been driven out of Mogadishu almost entirely, and as the Foreign Secretary said, the photos of Somalis enjoying Lido beach in Mogadishu in recent weeks contrast hugely with the photos we are all used to seeing of burnt-out buildings.

Such progress has been recognised internationally. The Foreign Secretary visited Mogadishu a few days ago, and yesterday the EU special envoy for the horn of Africa was there. However, we should remember last year’s suicide bomb, which killed 70 teenagers. Just yesterday a café was bombed, and guerrilla warfare continues. So although it is right for us to be ambitious and to have high hopes for this conference, that backdrop—along with 15 failed peace processes in 20 years—is the sobering reality against which the conference is convened.

The international community should try to find a solution not only because that is the right thing for Somalia, but, as the Foreign Secretary said, because it is in our national security interest. Finding that political settlement is very important, but I am well aware that the conference is only part of the process. I should be interested to hear how the Minister expects things to develop, and what he sees as the Foreign Office’s role, post-conference.

There are a couple of issues that I hope the conference will turn its attention to in detail, the first of which is the humanitarian situation. Somalia’s humanitarian needs will never be fully met until the violence, political instability and insecurity are addressed. We can all agree that the drought and the famine were a total tragedy, and that the international community’s response was perhaps too slow, although I do praise the work of the International Development Secretary and DFID. We can all agree that al-Shabaab’s banning late last year of a number of aid agencies has not helped matters. Thankfully, the rainfall this winter has been the best in years. However, it could be argued that the humanitarian situation is deteriorating in parts of southern Somalia as a result of increased military intervention in support of the transitional federal Government.

I hope the conference discusses and explicitly promotes the protection of citizens and compliance with international humanitarian law, and that the role of children is considered. We know that, too often, children are recruited to fight in these conflicts. Although we should welcome the TFG’s commitment to working with the UN on this matter, more needs to be done to convince them properly to monitor the use of children in their forces. Perhaps the Minister can touch on that issue.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am sure my hon. Friend, like me, will have read of Amnesty International’s concerns about child soldiers in Somalia. Does he not think that a very useful outcome of this conference would be a specific, in-terms declaration, signed up to by all parties, that no more children will be involved in any conflicts by any party?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I absolutely agree, and I hope that the use of children in these conflicts will be explicitly referred to in any communiqué resulting from the conference.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

I understand that Somalia has not ratified the UN convention on the rights of the child. Perhaps the Minister might comment on that later, but such ratification would achieve the same end.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

The hon. Lady makes a good point and she is quite right. I hope that the Minister listened to both those interventions and will comment on them.

I wish to make a few points about refugees. We know that 1 million Somalis have sought international protection in the region, many of whom are residing in Kenya. To pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), the camp at Dadaab was initially designed for 90,000 refugees but it now holds about 440,000 registered refugees, as well as a number of unregistered refugees. I hope that the conference will discuss how to ensure that refugees are registered as quickly as possible. In coming up with any solution that deals with mass displacement, we need to consider the role of the Kenyan and Ethiopian Governments. I particularly hope that the Kenyan Government will ensure that Somalis who seek refuge in Kenya are not prevented from doing so, and I would be interested to know whether the Foreign Secretary is making representations to the Kenyan Government on that matter.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) spoke about economic development and building resilience in Somalia. That must be a central objective of the international community. As we know, Oxfam and Save the Children have said that the world did not respond fast enough to the crisis, although I pay tribute to the work done by DFID. We knew that the warning signals were there; we knew that the rains had failed and that commodity prices were escalating; and we all knew of the lethal consequences of the political instability in that part of the world. Instead of reacting when it is too late, we have to do more to address the underlying issues and to support investment in local food production, sustainable livestock production and agriculture as we try to build political stability in Somalia.

I hope that the conference also considers climate change, because in the conversation about that we do not always think about Somalia and the horn of Africa, because other parts of the world take more of our attention. We know why the short rains failed, but emerging scientific thinking suggests that the long rains failed and will continue to fail as a result of climate change. We need to examine and discuss that, and I hope that the conference will have a chance to start deliberating on the issue. If climate change is also affecting that part of the world and its long rains, we will need to do more to invest in better irrigation systems and we will need a strategy to deal with the problem.

I represent a significant Somali community in Leicester, one that has settled in Leicester from all over Somalia and Somaliland; some members of the community like to refer to themselves as “mini Somalia”. It has much expertise, and much good sense is talked by many of those in Leicester’s Somali community, many of whom attended the conference yesterday. The Somali community in Leicester recently raised funds to send an ambulance to Mogadishu in the next few weeks. People in the community tell me that they want this conference to succeed, but they are weary from having seen too many conferences and initiatives fail in the past. They want the international community to do what it can to help foster a solution, but they are well aware that any solution has to be Somali-led. Crucially, they want the Foreign Office to continue to engage with them, not only in the run-up to this next conference, as happened in respect of yesterday’s very successful event, but beyond. I am sure that I speak for many in the Somali community on the St Matthew’s estate in my constituency when I invite the Foreign Secretary, the International Development Secretary or the Minister for Africa to come to that estate. They would get some very good coffee and some very fine food, and such a visit would send a very good signal as to how the Foreign Office, or perhaps DFID, is engaging with the Somali community in Leicester.

16:04

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

We have either the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) to thank for this debate—we are grateful to him—or perhaps the lack of business, because a Bill is being discussed in the other place before it comes back here. Sometimes we are too self-absorbed and it is good to have a few weeks to look beyond our own horizons and think about what is happening elsewhere in the world, where often there is great suffering.

I warmly welcome what my hon. Friend the Africa Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary have achieved in their proactive stance on Somalia. It is clear that we have a Foreign Secretary of stature—of course we knew that already—and a Minister for Africa who has tried to push the process forward. He said recently that he wanted a “strategic approach”, but Somalia defies strategy. Nostrums of liberal unitary democracy do not work with Somalia. It has tinges, shades, gradations and distinctions that evade a simple solution. We have to learn to work with that reality rather than try to defeat it with our own notions of what is right.

[Alun Michael]

I do not think we should be quite so defeatist, given that the Somalis themselves have a model that has worked in Somaliland. It has dealt with what was a clan situation and has engaged with the elders through the Guurti. I think that the hon. Gentleman is right about the current situation, but I do not think we should write off the capacity of Somalis to build democracy, especially if they can do so with our help.

[Mr Leigh]

I agree entirely and apologise if my opening remarks had a defeatist tone. I did not mean to convey that at all. I just wanted to be realistic. I will, as have many who have already discussed Somaliland, pay tribute to what it has achieved. There is a model about which the right hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), so we should not despair of the situation. I was leading up to saying—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with this—that there is no single solution or governmental process that is right, because Somalia is a patchwork of sub-national entities: some, such as Somaliland, are large, some are small, and some are clan-based.

Somaliland has developed governmental structures that exercise authority in a relatively normal and competent way, despite or—dare I say it—because of almost total non-recognition by outside powers. Perhaps we should learn something from that. Elsewhere in Somalia power can shift rapidly as clans align, separate and shift alliances. I suspect that progress can be made only by encouraging the peaceful institutionalisation and regularisation of the clan structures. That is not being defeatist; it is just recognising reality. That is why I believe that any kind of imposed solution or attempt to create one out of this conference would be a mistake.

At least, in my view, we have learned some lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan. I strongly opposed both those ventures, because I believe they were badly planned and because they involved western troops on the ground. Thank God we have learned the lessons and British coffins are not returning through Wootton Bassett from Somalia. We are, however, engaged and not a great deal has been said about this so far. We are, apparently, training, equipping and supporting Kenyan and other African Union troops. I am told that British Army officers can often be seen in Nairobi doing that. Not a great deal is disclosed about it by our Government—perhaps that is right and it should be under the radar—but I think that Parliament, which pays for it, needs to know what is happening on behalf of our taxpayers.

We have to acknowledge the limitations of foreign intervention, even if we are being cleverer about it this time and using troops from the African Union effectively as proxies. The fact that troops are from Burundi and Kenya does not mean they are not resented as interloping Christians and foreigners by many in Somalia. We have to recognise that and we must not be over-optimistic about their ability to change events there. I still believe there are worrying comparisons with Afghanistan. There is foreign intervention for a start, there is the resurgent Muslim al-Shabaab—read the Taliban in Afghanistan—and there is a weak, corrupt central Government who are too reliant on aid from the west. I think we have been too kind to the Mogadishu Government in this debate. It might be difficult for the Foreign Secretary to say this—I went to the Somali conference yesterday at Chatham House, at which he gave an excellent speech—but the failure of the transitional federal charter and the transitional federal Government, whom we support, is almost absolute. They are virtually a failed entity, apart from in Mogadishu, where they operate only with foreign intervention.

The corruption in that Government, whom our Government support, is absolutely appalling, and taxpayers here should know about it. A confidential audit of the Somali Government suggests that in 2009 and 2010, 96% of direct assistance to the Government from outside powers simply disappeared, most likely into the hands of corrupt officials. Billions of pounds and dollars from the west have therefore simply disappeared. I am not attacking international aid, and I will say something about the vital importance of humanitarian aid in a moment, but it is appalling that, according to a confidential and authoritative audit, 96% of aid from our country and others has simply gone down the drain—into the pockets of corrupt officials.

I believe the transitional road map should be abandoned. If possible, another road map should be agreed that is more flexible and able to develop in response to the implementation of changes—bending to them rather than being broken by them, as has happened in the past. In that part of the world, as in many others, a strict road map is unlikely to succeed in practice. It is clear that the presidential system of a central Administration is inappropriate for Somalia. That has proved to be unworkable and it might be wise to propose a confederal solution to the problem. The country could be arranged into a number of cantons that bestow authority upwards to the national Government rather than there being a system that works downwards from the centre, as with most unitary states.

[Martin Horwood]

I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman about having a federal organisation of the possible state, which would reflect the history of Somalia, but may I question him about the report that so much aid has been wasted? That is rather counter-intuitive given that a high proportion of our aid goes to Somaliland, which is relatively well governed and where structures are well in place. Quite a high proportion goes through NGOs, with which that kind of exercise of being siphoned off by officials should not apply. Will he give a little more detail about this report and its sources?

[Mr Leigh]

I am not attacking aid to Somaliland. I am talking about aid that goes directly to the Somali Government, not about aid that goes to Somaliland or NGOs. I will happily send my hon. Friend the report, which is very clear, explicit and authoritative. There is undoubtedly a failed state in Mogadishu. We have to be aware of and recognise that.

A report from the Council on Foreign Relations in New York suggests there should be recognition of the reality on the ground with the creation of a council of leaders to replace the bloated and ineffective transitional federal Government and Parliament. That would surely be a step in the right direction. I believe that if a political process begins to succeed in stabilising Somalia, the issue of Somaliland, as we have said again and again in this debate, will need to be addressed. Somaliland has demonstrated its ability to function as an independent state; it is the only part of Somalia with a Government who function properly, and they do so with some democratic legitimacy, which is all the more commendable. All of Somalia, apart from Somaliland, is committed to the idea of a united state; for example, Puntland, while functioning separately, participates in negotiations for the creation of a recognisable national Government and seeks to be a state within Somalia. On the contrary, Somaliland has decisively demonstrated the desire to add de jure sovereignty to its de facto independence, and it should be granted. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office says that self-determination is right for Falklanders, so why is it not right for Somalilanders?

One way forward would be an offer to Somaliland that it sign up to a confederal Somalia, with a guaranteed time frame for an independence referendum, as happened in South Sudan. Nobody doubts what the result would be. If there was a fair referendum in Somaliland, its people would vote for independence, which, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, they had in the past. That would give Somalilanders a realistic prospect of achieving the international recognition that their state currently lacks, while retaining national legitimacy at a Somali-wide level, even if only transitionally. I suggest it as an idea for the conference, as others have done.

Much of the piracy stems from Puntland, which is one of the poorest areas in an already poor country. Given the lucrative nature of piracy, its financial attraction is understandably strong, but it should also be noted that Somalia’s fishing industry has collapsed over the past 15 years. Its waters have been overfished, not by local people but by European, Asian and other African ships. Lack of maritime security in Somali coastal waters means that they provide a safe haven for people smugglers and arms smugglers, in addition to illegal fishing.

In Britain, we suffer from the common fisheries policy—a thoroughly counter-productive strategy that our Government are forced to accede to. We should therefore sympathise with the position of Somalis who are being ravaged by an immeasurably worse depredation of their fishing stocks by outsiders. While the pirates—until now—seem to be in it simply for financial enrichment, we must be aware of the potential convergence of terrorist groups in the area.

Worse things could happen. For instance, the sinking of a large container or tanker in the approach to the Suez canal would be a propaganda coup for terrorists. Insurance premiums have already risen more than tenfold since the first flourishing of Somali piracy in 2008. Although the pirates obviously keep most of the ransom funds they obtain, we can assume that a significant amount provides local factions with an injection of cash that helps to finance warfare and escalates conflict in the area.

I shall not repeat the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, but there is some confusion about exactly what ships can do when pirates approach them. We heard what my hon. Friend said; there must be clarification of the law of the sea, and I am sure the Minister will provide it when he winds up the debate.

There has been much good progress. Operation Atalanta is an impressive effort involving 23 of the 27 EU member states. We provide the operational headquarters at Northwood. A combined naval taskforce—CTF 150—has been undertaken by a coalition under US co-ordination. It involves the UK, Canada, Denmark, France, Japan and Germany, with participation from Australia, Italy and the Netherlands. It is very impressive and we should pay tribute to it.

As my hon. Friends who took part in the defence debate pointed out, all these things show the importance of the work of our Royal Navy and that it is increasingly over-stretched: in the Falklands, where we have had to send a Type 45 destroyer, in the strait of Hormuz and in anti-piracy control. We cannot rely on others. An authoritative report from the Defence Committee underlines the fact. In recent years, people have said that there is not enough for the Royal Navy to do, but actually it is extraordinarily important and it should be a national priority. We of course have allies for counter-terrorist and anti-piracy purposes—let us not doubt it—but perhaps we should remember Lord Palmerston’s warning, which applies to us just as it does to others, that nations have no permanent friends or allies, only permanent interests. We do not necessarily have permanent allies, but we have a permanent interest in maintaining maritime security. That is why I take every opportunity I can in such debates to pay tribute to the Royal Navy for the important work it does. I hope that when my hon. Friends succeed in catching your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, they, too, might make that point.

Let me end my remarks by talking about humanitarian intervention, because I did not want my earlier remarks to sound defeatist about the importance of international aid. I condemn the libertarian approach that says we should sit by and let the problem solve itself while hundreds of thousands of people go hungry and die, which I think is completely counter to our history of humanitarianism. Therefore, I warmly commend what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is doing and the help he has given. I often talk about the need for strict controls on public money, but occasionally one has to cut through Treasury controls and get the aid out there. I would like to echo the concern expressed in a Chatham House paper: if the international community does only one thing, ensuring the safe delivery of food aid should be the priority. I have no argument with that. When between 50,000 and 100,000 people are dying, it is right that we should be prepared to take action.

So much of this issue concerns the lack of interest. There is a lack of interest in many parts of the west. Perhaps up to 100,000 people have died in the past year, but this debate has not been overwhelmingly well attended. There is the lack of interest, the divided counsel and the violence. None of this is new. I will end with a quotation I recently read from Shakespeare’s “Henry VI, Part I”, Act I:

“Gloucester: Is Paris lost? Is Rouen yielded up?...

Exeter: How were they lost? What treachery was used?

Messenger: No treachery, but want of men and money;

Among the soldiers, this is muttered—

That here you maintain several factions,

And whilst a field should be despatched and fought,

You are disputing of your generals:

One would have lingering wars with little cost;

Another would fly swift, but wanteth wings.

A third man thinks, without expense at all,

By guileful fair words peace may be obtained.

Awake, awake, English nobility!”

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Nine Members are trying to catch my eye. The winding-up speeches will start at 5.36 pm, so if hon. Members take roughly between seven and eight minutes each everyone will have an equal footing. If Members cannot show self-constraint, I will help them.

16:23

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am not prepared with a suitable Shakespearean quote to follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), but I want to pick up on his last point about humanitarian assistance. Somalia, of course, was the country worst hit by the famine in the horn of Africa. Just as one cannot deal with the famine without looking at the underlying security issues, one cannot approach the security issues without taking into account the famine and the circumstances that led to it.

I want to make a couple of points on the famine in the horn of Africa. It has been said time and again that it was both predictable and predicted. I am sure that Members will have seen the excellent report recently produced by Save the Children and Oxfam, which concluded:

“There were clear early warning signs many months in advance, yet there was insufficient response until it was far too late.”

There was a failure to respond at many levels—by international organisations, international agencies, countries throughout the world and countries in the region. The UK Government were one of the first to respond, and their role was very positive, but together the world community did not act, in spite of the repeated warnings that many Members will have read and heard about over the past year.

The question must be: why was there such a failure to act in time when there were such clear warnings? Several features had their role to play, including a lack of flexibility among the system in place to respond to the crisis and, in Somalia in particular, the non-existence of state organisations and a lack of security for NGOs and other actors, but the report from Oxfam and Save the Children makes another important point: when such information from early warnings systems is produced, action has to be based upon those early warnings, and it has to take place at that point, not when one is certain that there is going to be a crisis. If we wait until there is certainty, we will find that the crisis is well upon us and much harder to deal with.

Governments and NGOs have a difficult issue to deal with in their approach to crises. The resources of countries and NGOs are of course limited, and I can well foresee the criticism that would be made if emergency supplies were put in place and then not fully utilised, but we must accept the conclusion is that, if necessary, a risk must be taken by making early preparations to avert such famines. That is why the proposals in the recent humanitarian emergency response review, the Ashdown report, are relevant. Its recommendations on stockpiles of supplies and the means to deliver them have to be considered and put in place in Somalia and elsewhere, so I should be interested to know how the Government will apply the report’s conclusions in their approach to the conference in a couple of weeks’ time.

We are focused on Somalia, but there are increased warnings of another hunger crisis breaking out elsewhere in Africa, in the Sahel region. This debate is of course about Somalia, but it is noticeable and concerning that many features that are described as contributing to the potential crisis in the Sahel are similar to those that we heard about a couple of years ago in relation to the crisis in the horn of Africa. We are told that there were late and poor rains in 2011, that food prices are now too high for people to afford at markets and that instability is arising both from internal factors and from the knock-on effects of developments elsewhere in Africa. I should therefore be interested to know also how the Government will ensure that the international community responds in advance of any crisis in the Sahel.

That point relates to the Somalia issue, because, as we have seen in the horn of Africa, famine can destabilise a much wider area than the one most badly affected. Given that we face also a worrying increase in the tension between South Sudan and Sudan, we in the world community could well be faced with a massive area, stretching from west to east Africa, of hunger, disease and instability, which, as well as damaging the countries and peoples directly affected, is bound to have effects on neighbouring countries, including those that have recently made substantial economic, developmental and political progress.

Those are big issues, and there are limits to what the UK can do. This country has been a major provider of emergency aid under this and the previous Governments, but we have to get the world to mobilise and to focus consistently on the issues. The Save the Children and Oxfam report makes the point that one reason for the international community’s lack of response to the developing crisis in the horn of Africa might have been other events, such as the Arab spring, the global recession, and the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, and I am sure that that is right, but there are certainly as many—if not more—crises affecting the world now as there were two years ago, so there has to be some way of providing a continued focus on the long-term solutions that are required to prevent such crises from developing in the first place.

I do not have time to develop all the points that I would have made. However, we need to consider the kind of proposals that were outlined in the Save the Children and Oxfam report, such as the proposal for a charter to end extreme hunger. That would look at longer-term solutions to ensure, above all, that countries have resilience so that when crises and natural disasters happen, they can respond internally without having to rely on emergency assistance on every occasion. There is obviously also a need to resolve the security issues.

Finally, the role of the African Union is extremely important. It should not be seen just as a proxy by which richer, western powers can get forces in on the cheap; it must be something much more than that. At the end of the day, African countries, leaders, peoples and organisations, such as the African Union, will have to provide the long-term support to deal with immediate security crises and other crises. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what further support the UK can give the African Union, both in its organisation and for specific missions, so that it has the ability to respond to crises, such as those that we are seeing in the horn of Africa and that we may see in western Africa. Clearly, it will not provide the sort of development assistance that comes from richer and more developed countries, but its role can be important, and should become increasingly important, in providing security, technical and political support. I hope that it will have the full support of the UK Government as it develops that role.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am extremely grateful to you for taking note of the time constraints, Mr Lazarowicz.

16:31

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

We live in a time when one can feel the tectonic plates of geopolitics move. In and out of this Chamber, Parliament is rightly engaged in debates about our nation’s role in the world. The demands on our armed services in Afghanistan, where we are working with our allies, and in countries around the world are increasing. Our diplomatic and humanitarian effort is being stretched even further. With so much going on, it would be all too easy to forget Somalia, and to think it less important than it is.

I think that it is essential to work with nations around the world to continue to provide support for Somalia. Many of my constituents ask me why that is so. Fundamentally, it is because it matters to the security of the UK. More than 350,000 Somalis live in the UK and we ignore Somalia’s problems at our peril. We should heed the words of the mayor of Mogadishu, who said to the BBC that disaffected young British Somalis were leaving to train in the al-Shabaab terror camps before returning to the UK with “revenge in their hearts”. In 2010, the MI5 director, Jonathan Evans, warned that it was

“only a matter of time”

before terrorists trained in Somali camps inspired acts of violence on the streets of the UK.

Points have been made about the importance of keeping our shipping routes open and free from pirates.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am interested in what the hon. Lady is saying about the Somali community in Britain. She is correct that there are at least 350,000 Somalis living here. Will she for a moment pause and reflect on the hard work and contributions of that community in developing businesses and opportunities, and on the positive role that a lot of young Somalis play within their community and the education system? We should not allow a message to go out that denigrates an entire community of ambitious and hard-working young people.

[Sarah Newton]

I do not believe that my point reflected negatively on the vast majority of Somalis living in our country, who make a very positive contribution. That point has been made well by Members this afternoon and I concur with it. However, we must not put our heads in the sand and ignore professionals who are accountable to this Parliament and the professional advice that they give us.

I welcome what the Government are doing to re-establish an embassy in Somalia and the efforts of the UN to re-establish its base in Mogadishu.

In the weeks around the forthcoming major conference on Somalia, hosted by the Prime Minister, I hope that our media play their part in helping people up and down the country—especially people in places such as my constituency, who do not have day-to-day contact with the Somali community—to understand why it is important that they support Britain’s continued involvement in Somalia. As we are all in the Chamber today, it is clear that all parties understand that, but a large percentage of the people who have sent us here do not really understand it and have reservations about why we are continuing our support. That is quite understandable, because people are often susceptible to compassion fatigue, especially when their standard of living is being squeezed and some people are losing their jobs. Many fear that good money is being wasted. With so many conflicts erupting around the world, they might tire of even trying to keep up with what is going on. As taxpayers’ money is being spent, it is vital that we all do our bit to make the case for support. I believe that people will want to support our efforts in Somalia if they understand the risks to our national security and believe that we are really making a positive difference on the ground.

Today, I want to share with colleagues the positive difference that humanitarian aid is making to thousands of people in Somalia, who, we must not forget, are among the poorest and longest-suffering on the planet. I have mentioned ShelterBox in the House before. It is a great Cornish emergency humanitarian aid charity that provides boxes containing shelter, basic cooking equipment, water sanitisation equipment and tools. Its ingenuity in responding to different situations has enabled it to deliver a remarkable array of services in Somalia in its sturdy boxes. The boxes are all packed in and distributed from Cornwall, and enabled by donations and volunteers. Over the past few years, several thousand boxes have been sent to Somalia, and nearly a further 500 boxes, including 50 classroom boxes, are currently en route. That shipment of direct aid is enough to provide shelter for about 1,000 families.

Due to the security risks of working in Somalia at the moment, ShelterBox does not actually have any volunteers on the ground there. It is instead working with a partner agency, a French medical charity called Women and Health Alliance International, which has a long history of working in Somalia. At the main displacement camp in Mogadishu, it has already set up a health centre, where there is a hospitalisation facility using the disaster relief tents donated by ShelterBox. It is providing primary health care consultation rooms, a delivery suite and even a small hospital. The ShelterBox tents not only provide a clean, sterile area for the medical staff to work in but allow patients to be hospitalised while staying with their families rather than being separated. Pregnant women also have privacy while they are having their antenatal consultations and giving birth. The facility has been described by the doctors on the ground as having made

“a dramatic difference to the well-being of hundreds of Somali families in dire need of assistance in Mogadishu.”

ShelterBox’s success in helping people in Somalia is a result of having worked around the world for many years building effective working relationships with local organisations that do not have the bureaucracy and inefficiency of some of the multinational agencies. Wherever it works in the world, it works with locals and, in doing so, it tries to build capacity in those nations to deal with future disasters.

Working in partnership with other countries’ aid efforts and with people in the countries that we are supporting, so that they can develop their own capacity, is rightly at the heart of the Government’s humanitarian aid response. That theme was echoed in a recent report published by Oxfam, which stated that the UN and international non-governmental organisations provided only part of the answer to crises from Haiti to the horn of Africa.

When the Minister responds to the debate, I would appreciate his reassurance that the Government’s admirable plans to publish information on how taxpayers’ money is spent in Somalia will be implemented so that all can see it, just as donors to ShelterBox can go online and see how their money is being spent so well. Publishing that information would go some way towards reassuring my constituents that their money was being well spent and, as a result, build public support for the essential work that Britain needs to continue to do in Somalia.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you for your time restraint.

16:39

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate, and I add my congratulations to the Foreign Secretary and his team on their leadership on Somalia. It is excellent that he visited Somalia to see first hand the challenges in rebuilding the country. The Secretary of State said last week:

“For the security of the UK, it matters a lot for Somalia to become a more stable place”.

I echo that, and I am pleased that the UK is hosting the Somalia conference.

Feltham and Heston has a small but significant Somali population. My experience is of a hard-working community looking to develop a life for their families, and of parents encouraging their children to do well at school and take up the opportunity of education that was denied to so many. Many make a positive contribution to the local community through voluntary and other work.

The leaders of the Darussalam Masjid and Cultural Centre in Heston have also shown a lead in helping fellow Somalis who have settled here to deal with the consequences of experiencing two decades of conflict and famine. I should like to build on what my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) said about the aspiration of so many in the Somali community. The conference in two weeks’ time is an opportunity to highlight that other side of the story of Somalia and to keep it centre stage as a symbol of hope.

In my short contribution I shall deal with three matters: the engagement of the Somali diaspora, the situation of Somaliland, and developing systems and livelihoods, which is a theme of the conference. First, on the engagement of the Somali diaspora, I wanted to mention the helpful comments by the Secretary of State during the Chatham House event, which other Members have referred to, and the pledge that members of civil society and the Somali diaspora will have the opportunity to contribute positively to the conference outcomes. Will the Minister say more about that in his winding-up speech? Will members of the Somali diaspora in this country, including those from my constituency, be engaged in future activity? The conference will be the start of a new phase of work and its legacy is important. It would be a lost opportunity indeed not to build on some of the relationships and engagement that develop in the run-up to the conference.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful case for the diaspora community in her constituency. I have a diaspora community in Swindon, and I should like to reinforce to the Minister the hon. Lady’s point about the need for the mechanisms of engagement to be made clear so that my constituents, like the hon. Lady’s, can make a positive contribution to, for example, the future of Somaliland.

[Seema Malhotra]

I totally support the hon. Gentleman’s comment.

[Jane Ellison]

When those mechanisms are established, can we make it clear that we want to engage both men and women from the community? Too often when we talk about community engagement, we do not mean men and women equally.

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Lady will probably be aware of my commitment to the engagement of women in all aspects of political and public life, and I totally concur with her comments.

On the situation of Somaliland, I simply want to add to comments made so eloquently by Members on both sides of the House. Somaliland will be represented in its own right at the conference. Will the Government continue to acknowledge the separate and successful development achieved by Somalilanders, who have turned Somaliland into a beacon of democracy in Africa? There is a fear among Somalilanders that Somaliland could be dragged into the quagmire of the south-central region. We want a secure and democratic south and the continuation of a secure and democratic Somaliland, so that Somalis can together decide their future.

Finally, will the Minister further highlight developing systems and livelihoods, which is one of the themes of the conference? I extend that request to the powerful comments made on economic development by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). To what extent will access to education and jobs be part of the agenda at the conference? How can we help to develop an environment in which young Somali men, who might otherwise be more vulnerable and who might be drawn into terrorism, have an alternative and a new hope for themselves and their families? Creating an alternative life so that the next generation can live peacefully would surely be a tremendous legacy for the conference, and one of which we would all be proud. I am grateful to the House to have had the opportunity to make this contribution.

16:45

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to participate in the debate.

I am not going to pretend for one moment that I know an enormous amount about Somalia; the nearest I have been to it was probably when, as a member of the Addis Ababa division of the barmy army, I flew down to South Africa to watch some cricket. Waking up at six o’clock in the morning to the sound of the imam certainly gave the whole place an enormous cultural feeling.

A lot of the issues we are dealing with at the moment, especially in Somalia, are very much a legacy of the cold war. When the cold war came to an end, it was clear that there were no longer two superpowers that could argue the case, so places such as Somalia ended up falling through the cracks a bit.

If the walls of this Chamber were able to talk, they would no doubt tell us that similar debates took place 175 years ago. After the Napoleonic wars, there was a sense that a great deal of piracy was taking place in north Africa, as well as in the Mediterranean.

In 2008, nearly $1 million of trade travelled to the EU through the Gulf of Aden. The UK therefore has a keen interest in making sure that we support and look after our maritime position in the world, and it is important that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government are playing the part they are in leading the great debate on this issue.

Our shipping industry is worth about £10.7 billion to the UK’s GDP. I am told, however, that piracy could cost as much as £12 billion a year. Surprise, surprise, I will be speaking for the Navy in a moment or two, as hon. Members would expect, given that I am the Member of Parliament for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, which I would claim is one of the Royal Navy’s major homes, although others might disagree.

Some 23,000 ships go through the gulf of Aden each year, and that is a good example of how important it is that we, as a nation, do not become sea blind. I am reminded of the story of a frigate that went into port in Sierra Leone and out again. For six or nine months after it left, the terrorists and people in Sierra Leone who wanted to create lots of trouble were convinced that if they started misbehaving, it would come straight back into the port to make sure they did not have another opportunity to create trouble.

Can hon. Members imagine what it would be like in this country if we no longer had any petrol or any groceries in our food stores? That is why the Royal Navy has a significant part to play and why I want to make sure that Somalia is seen as an international issue, and one that we are looking after.

Last summer, I travelled on one of the Type 23s travelling from Malta to Majorca. I had an opportunity to talk to the crew and to see how they operated. They had just come back from dealing with piracy issues off the coast of Somalia. It was very interesting. The first thing I learned was that all naval ships now have a legal officer on board to make sure that any decisions that are taken are compliant with international law. That is a very different story from the days of Captain Bligh sailing around the south Pacific. He would not have worried about such things. Nevertheless, it shows how much things have moved on.

The crew were concerned that their Royal Marines could not go on land to take out terrorist and piracy camps. I hope that Ministers will consider that point at the welcome Somali conference, although it must be taken forward on a firm United Nations basis when a lot of people are around.

[Bob Stewart]

I was spurred into action by my hon. Friend’s comments about Royal Marines going ashore. As part of our initiative, I think we should plan to put anti-piracy headquarters, protected by Royal Marines, in Somalia, perhaps Mogadishu, so that we can get a grip on piracy along the coast. That is the only way to do it. At the moment, we are fiddling around in the large ocean. We want to get a base onshore and sort it out. If possible, that should be considered at the London conference.

[Oliver Colvile]

In the main, I agree with my hon. Friend, although it is important, if we are to do that kind of thing, that we take with us the people who are in a position to make those decisions. There would be nothing worse than putting troops on the ground, only to find ourselves in a similar position to that in Iraq and other places where we have not been welcomed.

I pay tribute to the Royal Navy and Royal Marines based in my constituency, especially HMS Cornwall and HMS Chatham, both of which were port-based Type 22s that unfortunately have had to go. They did an excellent job and I was incredibly impressed when I had the great opportunity to go to the Mediterranean last year. The other big issue was people’s concern at not having the opportunity to earn a medal like those in Afghanistan and Iraq. I urge the Minister to take that point onboard because they make a significant contribution to protecting this country’s trade routes.

If we are to be in the business of nation building, which potentially we should be, we must give advice to potential new leaders. Our universities could provide opportunities to would-be leaders to learn about international relations and, more important, about creating structures of government, such as the judiciary, policing and governance. That would be an effective way of exporting our knowledge.

This country has a proud—in my opinion—reputation for empire, and we still have structures in many countries. As we all know, Somaliland used to be a British dependency, and in seeking to work with it would it not be wonderful if, in the year of the Queen’s jubilee, Somaliland could be encouraged to rejoin the Commonwealth and thereby continue this great relationship?

16:53

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am pleased that we are having this debate on Somalia. It is the first debate on this subject for a long time—if not, the first ever—on the Floor of the House, although there have been Adjournment debates. It is a major step forward and I welcome it.

There is a clear need for peace, reconciliation and social justice, which I hope the London conference will help to provide. As I said in my intervention on the Foreign Secretary, I hope that instead of lots of international conferences all over the world, we will witness, observe and hear reports of proper, open political dialogue in Somalia by all sections of the community, indicating the development of a democratic and free society. That is what we want.

I represent Islington North, which includes the Finsbury Park area, where a large number of Somali people have made their homes. They have a strong, vibrant and hard-working community, with ambitious groups of young people trying to achieve. My intervention on the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) was not intended to be critical of the points she was making; it was intended to ensure that we get the message out that there is a big Somali community in Britain that is making a great contribution to our society, with young people—just like young people anywhere else—who want to achieve the best in life. We should support them and applaud what they do, rather than allow an entire community to be denigrated, which is what some of the media have unfortunately done to Somali people over a considerable period.

This morning I chaired a large meeting at the Finsbury Park mosque that, I am delighted to say, the Minister attended as the guest speaker. We had more than 70 people present, with many questions asked about what will happen at the conference and how things will develop from there, and also about support and recognition for the community in Britain. I thank the Minister very much for being prepared to come along. It was much appreciated by the mosque and by the community that we had that open dialogue and debate. I hope that such dialogue and debate can be held in other communities, because the point that we all made this morning was that there is a big diaspora community and a lot of links between the communities in Britain and in Somalia. Much money is sent home, and also people go back and forth, to exercise their skills and pursue their wish to see the development of their society. We should see that as an asset and a contribution for the future. Also, the local community in my area has raised a great deal of money for famine support. Interestingly, One True Voice, the Somali women’s organisation, organised an evening concert for famine support in a Catholic church, to emphasise that participation in the local community, which is something we should all applaud.

We are dealing with the consequences of a colonial past, the cold war and, in many ways, the history of Africa—all those straight lines between countries drawn on the map to describe boundaries that were utterly meaningless to the communities, except that in Somalia things are slightly different, because it is the only country in Africa that is linguistically unified and where only one language is spoken. Every other country in Africa has a multiplicity of languages—[Interruption]—although I am about to be corrected by many Government Members. However, if they can just contain themselves, I will be brief and then they can speak. Let us say “one of the few countries in Africa”, okay?

Saferworld has sent an interesting briefing for today’s debate, which says that

“it will only be through addressing the factors that underlie Somalia’s conflicts that the country will ever move from repeated crises towards lasting peace and prosperity.”

Saferworld outlines a whole lot of issues surrounding that instability—lack of political cohesion, corruption, the power of warlords, the fear that many people feel, and, of course, the ready supply of arms and guns—and the inability of any effective civil society in much of the country, although not all of it, to do anything about it.

I have also received an interesting briefing from the National Union of Journalists about the killing of journalists. Indeed, I tabled early-day motion 2638 on the issue. The latest to be killed was Abdisalan Sheik Hassan, who was shot dead on 18 December 2011, although I listed a number of other journalists who were killed in 2011. “Lives and Rights of Journalists Under Threat”, a report by the National Union of Somali Journalists, goes through, in gruesome detail, the number of journalists who have been killed for trying to report what was going on or have been harassed by officialdom, in all parts of Somalia, for trying to report the “unreportable”—the things that it did not wish to be reported. We want to know what is going on in Somalia, so I hope the Minister will assure us that one outcome of the conference will be a reference to the right to know and protection for those who are reporting, because if authorities of any sort—I am talking of illicit authorities, as well as legitimate authorities—kill journalists, they do it for a reason: they do not want the news to get out. We have to recognise that and be as supportive of journalists as we can be.

The issues of children’s rights and child soldiers were raised earlier. Amnesty International’s recommendations on those matters are important. They state that all elements should verify that children are not among the Government forces and that no person under 18 is recruited into any such forces. They also stress the importance of the demobilisation and reintegration of child soldiers. This is not some esoteric liberal argument being pursued from afar; if we do not do anything, or encourage something to be done, about the use of child soldiers and the brutalisation of children in that conflict, they will grow up, post-conflict, into adults who know nothing other than the use of a gun and the assertion of force to get their way. That would result in all the horrors of criminal gang cultures such as those experienced in post-conflict societies in Guatemala and El Salvador, and in parts of South Africa after the end of apartheid. It is in everyone’s interests to ensure that the rights of children are respected. I fully endorse the point made earlier that the United Nations convention on the rights of the child should be recognised by the conference; I hope that it will be.

The conference is being held in a former colonial capital. There are some awful European traditions, and one involved the congress of Berlin in 1884, which decided most of the borders in Africa. I hope that this is the last time that this kind of thing happens. I want to see progress in Somalia and the development of an open and democratic society. I also want to see a recognition of the poverty among many of the people there, and of the deaths from wholly preventable conditions and illnesses. I also want to see a recognition of the way in which a great deal of aid does not reach the people that it should, because gangs, corrupt officials and others get hold of it, so that no benefit whatever is derived from it.

In a briefing that I have received, I note that the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs has published an assessment of the situation in Somalia. That assessment is a couple of months old, but I suspect that the situation is not very different now. It echoes what the Foreign Secretary said. Based on food supply figures, it is estimated that 4 million people—53% of the Somali population—are in crisis, countrywide. Of those 4 million people, 3 million are in the southern region of Somalia, which represents an increase from last summer, and 750,000 are seriously suffering in the famine, which has worsened.

Yes, we must provide food aid and support for those people who are suffering, and let us also recognise that the situation has become very bad in Somalia. The rest of the world has finally woken up to that fact, and to the need for aid and recognition. Fortunately, so far in this debate and the others that I have heard, no one is talking about an Iraq-type or Afghanistan-type western military intervention. People are talking about a process to bring about political change, recognition and respect for all the different traditions in Somalia.

I am proud to represent a large Somali community in Britain. It breaks my heart when I hear about my constituents’ relatives being stuck in refugee camps for years on end, or about people being killed on the streets of Mogadishu and their relatives here being unable to go home to attend their funeral. That is not the future that my constituents want for Somalia; they want a Somalia that is based on political recognition and democratic institutions, and on an understanding that we have a responsibility to do our very best to end this crisis and help the people to realise the dreams that we all have, for a long life, for fulfilment for our children and for a fair and secure society. That, surely, is what the aim of the conference should be.

17:04

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate, and I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I echo the sentiment expressed in his final comments. One of the saddest pieces of casework that I have had to undertake in my short time as a Member of Parliament was to try to help a constituent to find out whether his family were dead or alive; it was extremely sad. The hon. Gentleman has also rightly urged us to dwell on the positive contribution of the Somali community in this country. I have a large Somali community in my constituency, and I strongly echo the positive comments that have been made about the contribution of such communities. Unfortunately, I must focus on a negative issue. It is in part a health issue, and it has not thus far been raised.

As some Members may be aware, Monday was international day of zero tolerance to female genital mutilation. About 140 million women worldwide have undergone FGM, and it is estimated that each year a further 3 million girls in Africa are at risk of the practice. Somalia has one of the highest prevalence rates. According to a 2006 UNICEF study, as many as 98% of all Somali girls undergo it. Although there are signs of progress in some parts of the country, the vast majority of girls undergo what is a brutal practice that has no health benefits and leaves irreparable long-term damage. I particularly want to raise this topic now because Puntland will be represented at the forthcoming conference and its Government are seeking to pass legislation that would enshrine FGM in law. We must try to stop this very bad law being passed.

I understand from local campaigners on the ground working against this practice that the original aim of the legislation, which is referred to as the circumcision law, was to outlaw all forms of FGM. It has since been diluted by some Puntland politicians so that it now allows for—indeed, legislates for—a less extreme, but still invasive and serious, form of this very harmful practice to girls and women. The law even offers indemnity to parents who force FGM on their daughters, and it promises that no action will be taken if the procedure goes wrong.

The President of Puntland, President Farole, has yet to assent to the proposed circumcision law. I believe that he was the original proponent of the law to outlaw the practice completely. The new, changed law seeks to criminalise the worst, most severe kind of FGM—infibulation, which is sometimes known as pharaonic circumcision. However, it would also make legal type 1 FGM, which is, in effect, a clitoradectomy—I apologise for the necessarily graphic language—and which in Somali is called “sunna”.

I welcome, of course, any moves to make the most extreme forms of mutilation illegal, but to enshrine in law a measure that makes it possible to do type 1 FGM on little girls is deeply regrettable, as that would both normalise and medicalise what is a serious human rights abuse—it is recognised as such by the World Health Organisation—potentially on a massive scale. It would also undermine the efforts of DFID and local and international NGOs working in Puntland and across Somalia to eliminate this practice. Worst of all, it would undermine the astonishing and brave work of local women, in particular campaigners going from village to village to get the cutters to put down their knives and to change hearts and minds. This law must not be passed, as that would undermine all the good work that is being done.

The ratification of this law would send the wrong message to the rest of Somalia and the wider region, where there are some signs of progress. It would also undermine efforts here in the UK. FGM has been illegal in the UK since 1985, and in 2003 a loophole allowing families to take girls abroad to have them cut was closed. However, there are close links between the homeland and the diaspora community, and if this law in Puntland were passed it would send a strong negative signal to women here and elsewhere in the diaspora. That, in turn, would make the job of eliminating FGM in the UK—which is, in fact, on the rise—much harder. No one should doubt that it is on the rise. Earlier this week, I spoke at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists conference specifically on this matter, so great is the problem now being presented in maternity departments and specialist units around the country.

We should back the Puntland President’s original opposition to all types of FGM. He issued the presidential decree in November 2011, and I hope we can support that stance. Our Government in general, and DFID in particular, have been excellent at focusing on the prevention of violence against women and girls in their international strategy. This is an uphill struggle, but it would be made much harder if this law were passed.

We are a major supplier of aid to Somalia, and, like all who have spoken today, I strongly support that. DFID has placed the health, well-being and education of women at the heart of its overseas aid programme. I am pleased to say that tackling FGM is specifically mentioned as a “gender priority” in its strategy on Somalia. However, I fear that that aspect of its work would be hugely undermined if this proposal were adopted. I urge Ministers to use meetings at the imminent conference as opportunities to raise the issue with Somali and Puntland representatives, to put it on the agenda for discussion, and to register their concerns.

Like every other Member, I want the conference to go well—that is enormously important to members of my local community—but eradicating FGM around the world and here in the UK is a tough enough task already, and it would be made more difficult if this law were ratified. I urge Ministers to put the human rights of girls and women firmly on the conference’s agenda.

17:10

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison). I want to praise her for raising the issue of female genital mutilation, and not just in today’s debate. I am sure that all Members are aware of her considerable work on the issue, which is incredibly important and a credit to her.

The first principle of a stable state is the rule of law. Our most famous expression of that is arguably found in Magna Carta, which states:

“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful Judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.”

Without that foundation, there can be no sustainability and no democracy.

Somalia has spent two decades in the grip of a lawless malaise as its people have been borne on the violent ebbs and flows of competing warlords, yet there is a break in the cloud. The Foreign Secretary spoke of the window of opportunity which currently exists in the country, and that opportunity must be taken. Mogadishu has recently been forsaken by al-Shabaab; the strengthened African Union and transitional federal Government forces have been acting to force out the remaining guerrilla operatives, and are even poised to tackle al-Shabaab in its crucial port stronghold of Kismayo, from which it runs the kidnap, drugs and piracy operations which are its lifeblood and which sustain it in control of swathes of central Somalia.

While those struggles for control rage, the Somali people suffer unbearable degradations. Lamentations at the decline of law and the collapse of civil structures and infrastructure are easily forgotten when supplanted by a daily struggle for simple survival. The bald statistics of the famine suffered in that part of the world have already been spoken about, and I shall not repeat them.

It is clear, then, that the prevailing conditions in Somalia are not conducive to the establishment of a viable nation state. However, the challenge to the forthcoming London conference is at least to show that there is a pathway to a stable Somalia, secure in the rule of law and representative of its people, who are reconciled to the systems of regional and federal government that are put in place. An end to famine, the rule of law and democracy are the ultimate objectives. The prerequisite for the achievement of those objectives is security, and in that respect Britain is again in the lead.

The Royal Navy leads the joint European Union enterprise Operation Atalanta, is in overall control of NATO’s Operation Ocean Shield, and supports the separate US-led Combined Maritime Forces. Away from the “pointy end” of the Royal Navy is Maritime Trade Operations, a capacity-building organisation that trains merchant seamen. The Royal Navy has been at the forefront of the development of counter-piracy operations, including most recently increasing the speed of access to plans of merchant ships that have fallen foul of pirates. It has also played a great role in advising companies on how to keep their crews safe. It was as part of the NATO operation that the Royal Navy, operating from Royal Fleet Auxiliary Fort Victoria, captured 13 Somali pirates last month.

It is, of course, all to the good that apprehended pirates are no longer at large. However, in the absence of a legal structure making it possible to prosecute them in Somalia, neighbouring countries have had to take on those cases, with the Royal Navy tasked with providing much of the damning evidence.

My hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) have already spoken about the difficulties the Royal Marines face with rules of engagement and the requirement to have a legal officer on board. This is not just some bureaucratic problem; it is leading to people being hurt and killed. When the Royal Marines or the Royal Navy come across a pirate vessel or an act of piracy, there is a time delay affecting their ability to act, which means that hostages are often taken out on deck and tortured. As a result, it is often not possible to undertake an assault.

I have often rehearsed in this Chamber the point that the work of the naval service—the Royal Navy and Royal Marines—is not well understood by parliamentarians. At last year’s Trafalgar event, one of our colleagues approached a member of the Royal Marines and asked him why he was there, as he was not aware that the Army had a role in Trafalgar. I am happy to say that he walked away from that exchange with no limbs broken. We expect the Navy to be there when the Falklands must be defended or Libyan tyrants contained, almost as though Her Majesty’s ships are moored in Portsmouth—or indeed Plymouth—waiting for the call. The fact is that the Navy is constantly working, constantly advancing and protecting British interests. Day and night—while we go about our daily business and while we sleep—the men and women of the Senior Service are at work, keeping the fuel flowing and the shelves stocked, tightening the grip on terrorist activities and undertaking counter-piracy operations to help keep trade routes open.

If the Navy is to fulfil these tasks it must be properly resourced, so I rejoiced when I heard the Prime Minister speak enthusiastically of the Royal Navy yesterday. The new Type 26 frigates—the global combat ships—will be a vital tool in the protection of British interests around the world. The 13 that will enter service will be the workhorses of the fleet and will complement the six Type 45 destroyers currently doing such a good job in demonstrating Britain’s instinct for resolute defence. The qualities of the Type 26 will be directly applicable to the Somalia operations. It is ideal for service in the Indian ocean to tackle piracy and illegal trade, keeping our trade routes open, cutting off the supplies of terrorists, and protecting British citizens home and abroad.

The Royal Navy’s contribution to Somalia is considerable, and I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport: the Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel involved in those operations really do qualify for a medal. They are often in harm’s way.

[Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech and is rightly praising the role of the Royal Navy. Does she agree that former members of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines play an important role in private sector companies in protecting shipping? Many of the companies are members of the Security Association for the Maritime Industry, which plays a really important role—perhaps the greatest role—in world shipping.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. The former head of the Royal Marines said on this subject that it is a big ocean and we will have to work much more with private companies and navies in order to protect those trade routes. It is positive that many of the people working in the private sector know how the Royal Navy and Royal Marines work.

The Foreign Secretary has articulated Britain’s will to bring Somalia within the comity of nations, and in so doing we will not only be doing the people of Somalia a service but advancing our own interests. It is to the Prime Minister’s and the Foreign Secretary’s credit that the forthcoming conference will be held in London, at which we hope some light can be shone on the shadowy path leading to the clear objectives of stability, rule of law and democracy. I hope that the participants in the conference, and the British contingent especially, will bear it in mind that these ends cannot simply be willed; they must be brought about by the investment of time, resources and effort. The Royal Navy is ready to supply all three, and I trust that its critical role will provide yet further evidence of the need for a strong, well-resourced, and large Royal Navy.

17:19

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

In my lifetime, Somalia has probably been the biggest and most tragic basket case in the world. It has had severe problems since well before 1991—indeed, I can recall them from when I was a boy living in Aden. However, the 2011 drought, which, as the Foreign Secretary has explained, caused the deaths of between 50,000 and 100,000 people, did, to use a pun, “take the basket”. Half of those who died may have been children, and it is time that we did something about this. Somalia’s government simply is not working and it has not worked at all since 1991. Given those sorts of conditions, it is hardly surprising that piracy flourishes; it flourishes in anarchy. Somalia’s long coast offers the perfect opportunity for attacks on shipping. Of course, shipping is vital to our nation and to many others.

On top of all that, al-Shabaab started to take over Somalia in 2006. Someone born a Somali in Mogadishu must curse. Thankfully, last August, al-Shabaab was ousted from Mogadishu but it is still a huge force in the south. That terrorist organisation imposes very violent rule. As we know and as has been mentioned, it is blocking aid to many starving Somalis. It has unrelenting belligerence, it rejects any possible peaceful political settlement and it is imposing a brutal sharia regime on the people of Somalia. It seems that Somalis are getting very tired of all this and are beginning to turn away from these people, so perhaps opportunity knocks.

With the London conference on 23 February, we must push as hard as we can to try to make a start on sorting this basket case out. The main aim of the conference must, of course, be to try to start on the road to peace and security, and getting some form of decent living standards for Somalis. The situation in Somalia is very difficult, but we must do all we can to help our fellow human beings who are unlucky enough to have been born into it. We are so lucky and they are so unlucky, so let us try to do what we can to help them.

What is really needed in order to help Somalia? What steps shall we try to aim for at the London conference? I see the Minister looking at me and wondering where this is going, so I will do my best to be on message. First, the Security Council resolution we already have does require reinforcing. The international community must show its determination. We already have a chapter VII enforcement action Security Council resolution, but we need the international community to have the courage—I was going to use a different word—to do something about it. We need enforcement action to be taken, in some form or other, to sort out Somalia and we need effective funding for all aspects of that action. I have seen what happens when we have unpaid UN battalions in the field—they flog their petrol and sell their food. There has to be proper funding and the humanitarian operations have to be supported by international action.

A timeline for action is already in place, as the end of the interim Government arrangements are scheduled for August. That gives us five months and, as I know from my own experience, quite a lot can be done in that time. However, quite a lot of that time is needed to sort out a plan. First-class leadership by international organisations and military forces on the ground is of course required. The military forces that go into Somalia must have effective, well-thought-through, practical rules of engagement. The one thing they must not do is back away from a confrontation; they must deal with any confrontation. If they back away once, they will destroy their mandate. We have to be robust about imposing a solution. First-class leadership is required, particularly on the ground, and it must be supported internationally by all Governments.

The initiative also has the continuing problem of piracy. One solution—I am not suggesting it is ideal—might be for the international anti-piracy efforts to be put on the ground in headquarters located in a port in Somalia. That might be considered during the conference, as I said when I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile).

What we require most of all at the London conference is what the Germans call a schwerpunkt, which is a Clausewitzian term that I learned in the military. It means a point of concentrated effort, and the point of concentrated effort of the London conference is to make sure that, internationally, we establish determination to sort out the problem of Somalia. That requires everyone to attend with the determination to apply the Security Council resolution to which they have already signed up and to provide the assets, resources and money to help the poor, wretched people in what is, as it stands, a dreadful country. Somalia is not blessed by God, but, my goodness, we must do our very best to try to sort things out for the people who live there and help them.

I wish the Foreign Secretary the very best of luck at the London conference. He will need it. Right now, with al-Shabaab on the back foot, this is probably the best opportunity that the international community has had for a generation to get in and help the people of Somalia. I wish the best of luck to our team at the London conference.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I call Laura Sandys and ask that she sit down no later than 5.36 pm.

17:27

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). One thing that Somalia has—it would be a great asset if it had peace—is, apparently, the best beaches in east Africa. I declare an interest, because my husband was the head of the United Nations in Somalia eight years ago, during some of the more difficult periods of its history. I have lived through many of the ups and downs and many of the political and diplomatic initiatives that have taken place over the years.

I would say that this is a special period. There is much greater optimism for this conference. We are starting from a low base, but we have progressed and some of the conditions and elements are ready to create a little more stability, greater co-operation and movement forward. I very much welcome the conference and hope that it will represent a proper step change in the security and stability of the area.

I commend the Government for their dedicated and focused attention on Somalia. The previous Government did a lot of work in Somalia, but I think that we have seen a change in our relationship and engagement. The Minister, who represents North Norfolk— [Interruption.] I apologise—that is a Liberal Democrat constituency—but King’s Lynn is at the heart of the Minister’s constituency. He has done a lot of work on this issue and on the appointment of our ambassador.

The conference is important, but I am concerned about certain elements. A group of political leaders are coming to London and this is the 14th transitional Government with whom we have had to deal. Thirteen have failed and we have three or four months before the 14th come to the end of their mandate. Politics, Somalia and politicians have not been a very successful combination. Of course we have to deal with the politicians and we have to deal productively with the parts of Somalia that have developed much greater stability. However, we should also look at the strengths of Somalia and Somalis. One of their greatest strengths is their entrepreneurial business acumen. One could say that even with piracy they were early adopters of a new economic model. There is nothing that stops a Somali trading from Mogadishu right the way to Cape Town or across to Nigeria.

Despite the fact that Somalis place more trust in their business community and business leaders than in their politicians, we are not engaging with the business community there. Certain business men, who are well known, are invested in conflict. That is not unique to Somalia: the same is true of every other country where there is an economy based on conflict and insecurity. However, there are also leading Somali business men who are trying hard and who would and will be invested in peace. Economic stability will be crucial to any settlement, and the business community has the ability to make a difference. There is a large diaspora, and competent business men who are seen as being party to the conference and to the overall settlement will be able to link that diaspora in and procure a lot of the investment that is currently coming in as remittances for humanitarian response. In a more stable environment, that money could be invested in greater economic development.

I have nothing to add to the great strategies and the approach the Government are taking except to say one thing to them: do not forget that there is an important part of civil society out there—the Somali diaspora and the Somali business sector. They are agents for change and, in many ways, they are counterparts that can help to secure change once we establish it through political mechanisms. Sadly, I have less confidence in the transitional Government. I hope we are successful in the next couple of weeks but I think we need to broaden our horizons and our networks.

17:32

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

I thank all those who have contributed to the debate, in which we have all learned something, ranging from people’s membership of the barmy army to people’s reaction to Select Committee visits to Somaliland. It has been very interesting and I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I also welcome the UK Government’s decision to host the international conference on Somalia, and I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and his team on bringing forward the important discussion that is to take place.

We have heard much about the scale of the task facing the conference. We know that Somalia has not had a properly functioning Government since 1991 and that it is the world’s most failed state. It has been the object of failed military intervention and has received tens of millions of pounds of UK aid and international aid, and it is the source of the world’s most serious piracy problem. We all know the difficulties and that there is a transitional federal Government, and I think we all accept that they have failed in their role. It is key to the future of Somalia that some form of functioning Government is established. It is for the Somali people to solve the tremendous problems they face, but unless and until there is a mechanism in the form of a Government to provide sustenance and security for the people of Somalia, I fear that despite the best efforts of countries around the world and of the people in non-governmental organisations who contribute so much on a day-to-day basis, this problem will continue. It is important that we as parliamentarians have the opportunity to present our experiences and our different opinions about what needs to be addressed at the conference.

We have heard contributions based on an enormous wealth of experience. We heard from the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), the Chairman of the Select Committee, whose important report was used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) in the composition of his excellent speech. Like me, he learned a great deal from the report. I thank the Committee for the maps that were included; they were very useful in my preparation for the debate.

The key issue of piracy is a symptom of the political situation in Somalia and we need further clarification from the Government about the rules of engagement, which cause practical problems for those who have to face incidents of piracy.

We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael)—a very good friend—from whom I benefited in private discussions about Somalia and Somaliland. He explained the diplomatic approach of the all-party group on Somalia and Somaliland, and why its title has both names—a useful tactic that the Minister might adopt. It is vital that we look at Somaliland, as there are clearly lessons to be learned from that part of Somalia, which has managed to construct, albeit over a protracted period, a functioning form of government. That point was well made several times during the debate.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), in his interesting speech, referred to the people of Somalia using their own institutions to develop governance in their country. That is crucial. It is clear from my reading around the subject that there is distrust of, and disbelief in, Governments among the people of Somalia—not surprisingly—particularly Governments imposed from outside, whether from countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States or from African countries, even those who are offering help and assistance in the form of troops.

We should use examples from Somaliland in discussions between the parties who will meet at the conference. It is good news that the President of Somaliland will attend and that there will be dialogue. There can be no substitute for people coming together to try to find a way forward.

The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) gave us great insight into feelings in Somalia. We heard an interesting contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). She talked about development. We need a governmental framework to bring it about. No matter how hard the charitable institutions and the NGOs try, they need a functioning Government to create a positive future.

A range of issues were raised, and I shall not have time to refer to all the contributions. I highlight the speech of the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who spoke about the important issue of female genital mutilation. That is another example that shows the need for a governmental structure that can address a particularly horrific practice. If there is no Government, it cannot be confronted. The problem is very hard to deal with and the hon. Lady explained interestingly and clearly the difficulties, even when there is a Government, with legislation achieving the opposite of what was intended. That is sadly familiar, as it has happened once or twice in this place.

It is important that we recognise that Somalia needs a functioning Government if it is to address the problems it faces. It is for that reason that we have this window of opportunity, to use the Foreign Secretary’s phrase, and I think that it is important that we seize it.

It is also important at this stage to clarify the Government’s intentions. We are holding the conference now because we have this window of opportunity, but I would like more detail on the format of the conference—if not today, perhaps in writing. For example, who will attend, why will particular people attend, and what are the Government’s expectations and goals? It is important that we manage those expectations. This is a hugely difficult problem, as we all know, and there is a danger of creating expectations that are too high and that, if dashed, could make the present situation, as appalling as it is, even worse. The history of the past 20 years is littered with genuine and determined attempts by many dedicated people to address Somalia’s problems, but they have not succeeded, so this is a hugely difficult task.

We need to learn from local examples where positive steps have been taken, and Somaliland is one such example that we have heard about today. It is particularly ironic that Somaliland seems to have a Government who exist and function but are not acknowledged, whereas Somalia has a Government who are acknowledged but do not seem to exist.

What are the legitimate expectations of the UK Government towards the conference, and how will they address accusations of interfering as a former colonial power? Clearly we cannot have a conference on the matter in Mogadishu, but we must be wary of creating a perception that a solution is being imposed from outside. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) referred to the congress of Berlin, which also crossed my mind when preparing for the debate. We must present the conference in the correct way to both the world at large and, most importantly, the people of Somalia. We need to think very hard about how the conference will be presented in Somalia itself. How will it engage not only politicians in Somalia, but civil society? Civil society in Somalia will be very important, because the politicians have failed in the past. If the conference involved only politicians, it might not be perceived as successful and so might not succeed in the way we want it to.

What format will the conference take, in so far as the different governmental institutions within Somalia are concerned? What role will the Government or representatives of Somaliland and Puntland have in the conference, and how will they contribute to the wider discussion on Somalia? Many questions need to be asked about the involvement of international institutions, because they are heavily and actively involved in Somalia, as we all know, from the United Nations downwards, and African Union countries have troops on the ground. I understand that they will be involved in the conference, but what role will they play, and what will their contribution be to the discussions? My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) mentioned the diaspora, its contribution within the United Kingdom and its interest in the conference and how it can contribute to the debate. I was delighted to hear that the Minister attended the meeting in Islington North this morning, where I am sure he received a lot of advice and information. Some pieces of advice might have been more useful than others, but I am sure that he will make the judgment well.

It is important, however, that we engage with the Somali community in Britain, which I know from my postbag is very interested in what is going on and wants to contribute as positively as it can to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston, who has just been elected to the House, carried the whole Chamber when she made that point, and she had two supportive interventions, which is more than I have achieved in 11 years, so congratulations to her. I missed her maiden speech, but she certainly did very well today, and it was tremendous to hear.

I know the Minister, who will be winding up the debate in a few moments, very well. He is a dogged and determined opening batsman, who will try very hard to go the distance with a long innings. I am sure that he will do very well, and I should like to have some answers to my questions, if not today then perhaps in writing. He has the good wishes of Her Majesty’s Opposition for the work that he is undertaking, and he knows, from the voices that he has heard in the Chamber today, that he has a lot of support in what is a very difficult task.

17:46

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) for his remarks. I may be a dogged opening batsman, but when we played together for the Lords and Commons at Lord’s about four years ago, I was out for four and he made, I think, 38 not out—at the headquarters of cricket.

We have had a really excellent bipartisan debate, with a lot of experience being brought to the table and to the House. As the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) pointed out, this is a debate of huge significance and importance, because it is probably the first time that Members have debated Somalia on the Floor of the House for a very long time indeed.

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary explained, the time is now right for action to be taken. Mogadishu has fallen, other areas of stability in Somalia have now developed, al-Shabaab is undoubtedly on the back foot and the pirates are under pressure, so we have an opportunity to make the most of the transition by putting in place a new political process. We as a Government were absolutely right to seize the opportunity, and my right hon. Friend explained why he felt that that was the case.

My right hon. Friend explained also that we are realistic about the conference. We are not setting up a new, parallel process. We want to enrich the existing process and to act as a catalyst to drive international action: on security, with more sustainable funding for AMISOM; on the political process, by building on the local stability that I have just mentioned; by breaking the business model for piracy; and by making a renewed commitment to tackle the humanitarian crisis and to bring about better international co-ordination.

Over the next few weeks, it will become apparent how we plan to deliver on all that, but one of the most important areas that has been discussed today is the political process because it is incredibly important that we build on local stability. There are areas, such as Puntland, Galmudug, those controlled by the ASWJ and those being opened up in the west and the south, where people deserve to have their voices heard, and that is why we need a more inclusive and representative political process. We need a constituent assembly that really does represent those people, and to prepare us for transition we need a more credible authority and Government.

Several right hon. and hon. Members asked about the political process. Indeed, the shadow Foreign Secretary asked about civil society and NGOs, and it is important to involve them. A number of hon. Members were very critical of the transitional federal Government, particularly the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael), and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), who noted that 96% of all the aid that has been given to the TFG has gone missing. That is why we are setting up a new financial management board, which is incredibly important.

[Mr Leigh]

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) asked me what the source was for the statistic that 96% of direct bilateral aid to the TFG was going astray. I am sorry that I did not have that information with me then, but it is important to put it on the record. It comes from the investigative report for 2009-10 by the TFG’s public finance management unit. The TFG’s own internal report shows that 96% of the bilateral aid going to them goes into the hands of corrupt officials.

[Mr Bellingham]

I point out that we have never given aid directly to the TFG. Of course, a lot of aid has gone into Mogadishu. That is why it is important that we have a new financial management board.

The hon. Members for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and for Islington North and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) mentioned women and children, and the role of the TFG in ensuring that issues relating to them are addressed. We will certainly look at the language in the communiqué on that.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) that it is essential that after the transition we build more capacity and administrative ability into the structures of the Administration and Government in Mogadishu.

The right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) spoke eloquently about Somaliland. Indeed, my hon. Friend gave a brilliant history lesson to us all. He told us about his visit to Hargeisa a few years back, when the red carpet was rolled out and there were crowds 20 deep on the streets into the city. I visited Hargeisa last July. I was met by the President at the airport and I was received with a red carpet, but the crowds were certainly not 20 deep on the drive into the city centre. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth for their knowledge.

This is an important conference for President Silanyo. He has been invited to take part. We feel strongly that this is a conference to which the Somalilanders can contribute. They can tell the rest of Somalia what they have done to build stability, what has worked in their free and fair elections, and why they are a good development partner for the UK. His decision is a brave one and the right one.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury asked me whether Somaliland’s position will be enhanced by attending. I believe that it will. President Silanyo will have a chance to speak. He will talk not about independence for Somaliland, but about what Somaliland can do to enhance the peace process in Somalia and about what is happening on his doorstep. By coming on to the international stage, he will meet a large number of international statesmen and Heads of State. He will be able to explain to them what he has done that has worked in Somaliland and why it has been so successful. I take on board what my hon. Friend said about the Somaliland Development Corporation and the role of the private sector.

In the meantime, we will work with Somaliland, particularly on the agreement with the Seychelles to allow convicted pirates in the Seychelles to return to Somaliland to serve their sentences. Obviously, we are urging President Silanyo to pass his draft piracy law and prisoner transfer law, which are essential to allowing the transfer of prisoners back to Somaliland, in time for the conference.

[Alun Michael]

This may seem like a minor point, but the Minister referred to pirates returning to Somaliland. By and large, the pirates are not from Somaliland, but will go there to serve their sentences as part of the assistance that Somaliland is giving to the international community.

[Mr Bellingham]

That is a very good point. Some of the pirates may well originate from tribes in Somaliland, but others will be from tribes in Puntland or further south. It is a sign of Somaliland’s commitment to solving the scourge of piracy that it is prepared to enter into this important memorandum of understanding.

A number of right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned AMISOM. I pay tribute to the brave and courageous young Ugandans and Burundians who put their lives on the line to secure the space in Mogadishu for the TFG to move in and, we hope, provide better services. We have supported AMISOM. We are the biggest contributor to its trust fund on a non-caveated basis.

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) that AMISOM is looking at its command and control configuration and considering sector sub-commands. As a peace enforcement mission, it is doing things that I do not believe a normal UN peacekeeping mission would be able to do. It contains brave troops from the countries that I mentioned, who have worked incredibly hard. However, there is no substitute for building up the capacity of the TFG’s Somali national forces. AMISOM is a short-term solution, and we need to build the capacity of the Somali police and national forces.

The right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) mentioned the scale of the threat from al-Shabaab and asked what we were going to do about it. I can tell him that we want to galvanise the international community to support the countries in the region, so that they can improve their capacity to investigate and disrupt the immediate terrorist threat.

A number of hon. Members mentioned piracy, including my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, and for Portsmouth (Penny Mordaunt)—I congratulate them on the work that they have done in their constituencies to support the Royal Navy—and for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway). I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, that we will reply to his report in detail in the near future.

My hon. Friend asked whether private armed security guards would be licensed. Yes, companies need to apply to the Home Office for a section 5 licence in advance of deploying to a high-risk area, and so far five companies have applied for licences. As far as the rules of engagement are concerned, the Department for Transport has already provided guidance to the industry on the use of force, and negotiations with the Home Office are ongoing. I hope that we are moving into the right place in our policy on the matter, which has been widely welcomed.

The co-ordination of the international navies has been excellent, but piracy obviously has to be solved on the land. We are dealing with the problem at sea because we have to, but if we can build political progress in Somalia, particularly in Puntland, Galmudug and the south, we will be able to solve the problem on the land. I am really keen to ensure that when communities chase out the pirates, development aid from the donor community and the private sector goes to those communities to build new fish markets, schools and medical centres.

In the meantime, we are trying to get memorandums of understanding in place so that pirates who are detained can be taken for trial in the region and then taken to serve their prison terms in Somaliland. We are working on MOUs with the Seychelles, Mauritius, Kenya—there is already an MOU there and we want to get it reactivated—Tanzania and Mozambique. Although we cannot be complacent, we are making progress.

On the humanitarian front, I underline the fact that the Department for International Development has done a quite superb job. However, we must now move from aid to development—I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester South and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) that that is the way forward. It is incredibly important that we bear in mind the fact that the Somalis are entrepreneurs and business people, and DFID’s emphasis on the private sector is very relevant to Somalia. Combined with the remittances going back into Somalia, which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out were worth roughly $1 billion, I believe that means the situation is much more promising for young people in Somalia. Rather than looking to extremism and possibly terrorism, they can look to businesses and to helping to rebuild Somalia through the private sector, entrepreneurial drive, enterprise and initiative. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) also made that point.

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, we are determined to have a reinvigorated and focused international approach to Somalia. We feel that the time is absolutely right for that. The international community has worked on Somalia over the years, but there has been a lack of a really co-ordinated approach. I have been to a number of international contact group meetings on Somalia, and although a great many positive things have been spoken about, we have not had really well developed work groups or work streams. The UN has also now been brought in, with its serious expertise, along with the African Union and European Union.

Momentum has built up towards the conference, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I are very encouraged by the number of countries that have accepted the invitation to come. It will not be a one-off. We want it to kick-start a reinvigorated and imaginative international approach. There is a very important role for the diaspora, and we have undertaken outreach with it.

Somalia is at a crossroads. There is no shortage of good will, but ultimately it is up to the Somali people themselves to rebuild their country.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of how to build a stable and peaceful Somalia.

Business without Debate

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

Business of the House (22 February)

Ordered,

That at the sitting on Wednesday 22 February paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the Motions in the name of Edward Miliband as if the day were an Opposition Day.—(Mr Newmark.)

Business of the House (23 February)

Ordered,

That at the sitting on Thursday 23 February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Secretary Iain Duncan Smith relating to Pensions and Social Security no later than 5.00 pm.—(Mr Newmark.)

Benefits (Terminally Ill Patients)

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Newmark.)

18:00

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

As MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch, I am privileged to represent a number of organisations that are national leaders in their field, one of which is St Joseph’s hospice, which, founded by the Sisters of Charity, has for 109 years provided support for east enders who are dying.

St Joseph’s works with patients to help support them in their final months of life. It offers end-of-life care in its hospice and day hospice, and at home, for terminally ill people, their families and carers. It has a great deal of experience in ensuring that patients get the benefits to which they are entitled.

St Joseph’s has recently alerted me to serious problems with the administration of benefits for people who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness. Hackney citizens advice is also helping a number of people who are diagnosed as terminally ill who are not receiving consistent support and advice when applying for benefits, particularly employment support allowance.

I want to outline the scale of the issue; what is supposed to happen when someone who is terminally ill claims benefits; and the experience of national and local providers and individuals. If I may, I also want to suggest to the Minister some ways in which the situation can be improved.

Nationally, Macmillan Cancer Support and Citizens Advice work together to support cancer patients with benefits and debt advice. From March 2007 to March 2011, they helped more than 39,000 cancer patients with over 190,000 issues. Out of those 190,000 issues, 78% were related to welfare benefits in general, with employment support allowance cases totalling 10,659, or around 8% of cases.

Over the same period, Citizens Advice and Macmillan caseworkers gained more than £77 million for their clients. More than £71 million of that was through ensuring that clients received all the benefits to which they were entitled. Behind those big numbers are vital payments to families of people who are dying and unable to support themselves financially without the support of the state.

Let me explain to Members of the House who may not be aware how the system of claiming is supposed to work. To be “terminally ill” in order to qualify for benefits, a person must have a progressive disease and their death must be reasonably expected within six months. That is certified by a general practitioner or specialist using a medical report called a DS1500. Once someone is given a DS1500 form, they automatically qualify for disability living allowance at the higher rate.

Employment support allowance is the benefit for people under 65 who are unable to work because of their illness. Under special rules, people who are terminally ill and not already receiving one of those benefits are entitled to swift access at the very highest level of support from one of those options. Some who are still working will qualify for both, but not necessarily at the same time.

Macmillan Cancer Support tells me that in its experience nationally, the system for disability living allowance has worked well. The disability and carers service is able to fast-track payments and usually does so. The service is well attuned to the needs of someone with a terminal illness. However, when it comes to employment support allowance the picture is different. To claim for ESA, the person must advise the jobcentre personally that they are terminally ill. In some cases, patients are not aware of their prognosis; in others, they are too ill to advise their jobcentre. Why, therefore, can local jobcentres not just accept the DS1500 form from a doctor, welfare adviser or relative as proof of the right to ESA, as can be done with DLA? Why can a check not be done on the DLA database by the assessor from the Department?

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is setting out the situation powerfully and clearly. My constituent Mr McGowan, of Blantyre in Lanarkshire, is in the latter stages of his life. He has a terminal illness, severe dementia, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease, he is bedridden and he cannot even swallow. He recently received a standard letter from the Department for Work and Pensions asking him to get in touch so that he could be given guidance about how to get back to work. Given that the DWP knows all the people who are terminally ill, because they have filled in the DS1500 form, is it not irresponsible and distasteful, as well as deeply upsetting for those concerned and the relatives looking after them, for the DWP to send such standard letters, when the data already exist, and people know they should not be in that position?

[Meg Hillier]

I completely agree, and it would be simple to solve the problem. Simply sharing the data would mean that individuals and their families do not have to go through the distress that such letters can cause.

There are times, of course, when a patient who is diagnosed continues to receive income from their employer. That can mean that they do not need to claim ESA until months later, when their paid work stops. They can have their DS1500, but by the time they stop their paid work, it will be out of date. As we know, people have been asked to get an up-to-date form from their doctor.

Macmillan tells me that there have, unfortunately, been cases where jobcentre staff, on seeing the form or requesting it, have disclosed to a terminally ill patient their prognosis. Imagine someone’s shock at learning they are going to die from a member of staff at the jobcentre or from a stranger over the phone. That underlines why the support needs to be particularly sensitive for people who are dying.

Recently, there has been a serious backlog of claims. St Joseph’s has had patients who have died while waiting for their benefits claims to be assessed. I support calls by St Joseph’s and others for the Department to introduce a fast-track approach for end-of-life patients, as with DLA.

Macmillan operates a national helpline and tells me that the situation varies across the country. Some jobcentres say the patient has to make a claim themselves, and some say that is not necessary to start a claim. That variation suggests that, with some focus, the problem could be sorted. I put it to the Minister that we need a step change in how the service is delivered for those who are terminally ill.

The Minister will have been briefed about the guidance that he and his ministerial colleagues have issued to workers on the front line. Whatever the edicts of Whitehall, my concern is that his guidance is not fully understood or is not being followed at a local level. The human impact is immense, and I hope he shares my serious concerns.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has concentrated on people with cancer, but I have a constituent who developed cerebellar ataxia, which is a chronic and progressive illness resulting from the degeneration of nerve tissue in the spinal cord. It leads to muscle weakness, loss of co-ordination, vision and hearing impairment, slurred speech, heart disorders, progressive staggering or stumbling, and frequent falling. My constituent was initially disallowed her ESA. An assessment restored it. Since then, despite the fact there is a letter from a consultant, she has been told she must regularly have a work capability assessment. That is not only deeply distressing and unpleasant for her, but it is a complete waste of public money.

[Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I am sure the Minister is ever alert to the impact of decisions on the public purse. One of the things I would say about this issue is that it is not necessarily the case that getting this right for terminally ill patients would cost the public purse any more money; this is simply about making the system work better.

My hon. Friends have raised some individual cases, and I would like to highlight some from my constituency. These involve real people who have experienced stress and worry about money in their final months of life. Mrs A is a constituent of mine who has asked me not to identify her in the House. Her husband died six months ago, and she contacted me to tell me of his experience. Despite having a terminal illness—not cancer—he was called in for a back-to-work interview after six months on ESA. Incredibly, the assessor found him fit for work. They claimed that this was on the basis of health checks that my constituent, who accompanied him to the assessment, tells me they did not even make.

A debate in Westminster Hall secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) on 1 February highlighted serious issues with Atos assessments. I will not repeat those concerns here but this case underlines them, although it is worth echoing a point that he made at the beginning of that debate. I have no problem with work assessment. My issue is with the treatment of people who will clearly never go back to work because of a long-term progressive illness and who have the paperwork to prove it.

Six months later, Mr A’s case has only just gone to appeal. The assessor claims that Atos did not know my constituent was terminally ill. My recently widowed constituent is still dealing with the appeal. She said to me, “My husband worked all his life. He probably worked longer than he should have done given his health.” He was entitled to support. The treatment that he received and the stress caused by losing his benefits should not have been experienced by him in his last months of life; nor should his widow have to continue to battle after his death.

St Joseph’s has told me about two recent cases where there have been issues with assessments. A patient who was blind and terminally ill from a brain tumour was asked to attend a medical assessment. Fortunately, the hospice social worker wrote to the medical team to explain the terminal illness and point out that he was blind and could not get to Wembley independently. As a result, the assessment was cancelled.

Another patient had been found fit for work and was appealing with the help of another agency. He was terminally ill and had been awarded disability living allowance under the special rules. All the paperwork was in place, so he should never have even been called for an assessment, let alone have been deemed fit for work. When St Joseph’s stepped in and contacted the appeals section to inform it of this, his benefit was reinstated promptly. However, there is nothing to substitute for that good advice at a late stage. The system needs to work better before organisations that are attuned to this, such as St Joseph’s, Macmillan and others, step in.

Marie Curie told me that the DWP confirmed to it, on 20 January this year, that the time limit on ESA would not apply to people who were terminally ill because they were automatically placed in the support group rather than the work-related activity group under the Work programme. Under the Welfare Reform Bill, people in the support group will not have their access to ESA time-limited. This should mean that someone who is terminally ill should not be called for a work capability assessment. Will the Minister confirm that fact? Will he also tell me what he and his colleagues are doing to ensure that front-line staff are aware of it, and not putting our constituents through the pain and upset that he has heard today?

St Joseph’s hospice has raised with me a number of other problems that its clients have faced. Often a patient has missed out on benefits for a long time before being advised at the hospice about his or her entitlement, as other agencies miss the implications of terminal illness on benefits or give incomplete advice. The Minister needs to be aware of this issue, as it needs to be tackled. Hospital staff do not always refer a patient, even when help is available at the hospital.

If ever there was an area where timeliness and joined-up government was necessary, this is it. St Joseph’s can work with agencies, such as the pension service, to refer those over 60 for help claiming and completing forms. Everything does not always go smoothly, but there is a real need for a similar joined-up approach to helping those under 60 with life-limiting illnesses.

The debate over the future of welfare has been raging in both Houses and in the country since the last general election and before. There are many disagreements between the Opposition and the Minster, but we can surely agree that one core element of our benefit system is that it will support those unable to support themselves through sickness or disability.

I have highlighted just some of the cases that have been drawn to my attention. There are, I am sure, cases where patients or members of their families have died before a claim has been processed and where people might not be aware of their rights. I hope that the Minister will take on board these concerns and the impact on terminally ill patients and their families. This problem can be solved, and solved quite quickly.

What training is provided to jobcentre staff, and does the Minister have any plans to change it? Given that I have picked up on the fact that there are quite significant regional variations, how is best practice shared across the country? I urge him to ensure that no more patients face a bureaucratic maze in ensuring that they can support their families in the final months of life, and that no more widows such as Mrs A have to deal with a system in bereavement that should be supporting them when they need that support most.

The system is a lottery. If someone is lucky, they will find an adviser who can help them negotiate the system. They might find a Department for Work and Pensions adviser who understands and can fast-track their application. However, many are not getting the service and the benefits to which they are entitled. They are among those who need the support most, and they need it immediately. Add to those problems the current backlog and the lack of a freephone number, and the costs for patients already struggling with money are increasing.

The Minister must acknowledge that all is not well. I want to hear what he will do to solve those problems. Has he, for example, considered a central service, so that anyone who is terminally ill is dealt with by someone who is sensitive to their support needs? Again, I am not asking for more money; I am simply asking for the reconfiguration of the existing service, which is already being paid for by taxpayers. I urge the Minister to act now, to ensure that terminally ill people and their families are able to spend their last days without the worry that they will have to justify their entitlement to benefits.

18:16

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) on securing this debate about such an important and sensitive matter. I join her in praising the work of the hospice movement—including St Joseph’s hospice in her constituency—for the care and support it gives terminally ill people and their families, and, as she said, for helping people to access the benefits that, perhaps in many cases, they should have been receiving earlier. I welcome that work, as well as the work of Macmillan Cancer Support, with which the Department works closely on a range of issues.

The hon. Lady has raised some important matters, to which I hope to respond. I can offer her the assurance that the coalition Government seek to put in place structures in the benefits system that treat people with terminal illness with dignity and give them efficient and effective support—as, indeed, did the predecessor Administration. Individual cases have been raised, both by the hon. Lady and by her hon. Friends the Members for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). I cannot respond to those individual cases immediately, but I can certainly give an undertaking that if any hon. Member here today wants to follow up on those cases with details—national insurance numbers, and so on—we will be keen to do that, because it is by following through what sometimes appears to have gone wrong that we learn lessons that will be of general benefit.

We want to make it clear that if an individual has a terminal illness, they must be entitled to the highest rate of support, and should receive that support quickly and in the most sensitive way possible. As the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch mentioned, the two key benefits that are relevant to terminally ill people and their families are employment and support allowance, and disability living allowance—or instead, for those of pension age, attendance allowance. In both cases, our aim is to ensure that terminally ill individuals are fast-tracked through the process for DLA and ESA, so that they can receive the highest level of support as quickly as possible, with a minimal burden on them and their family.

Although there are some differences between the two benefits—for reasons that I will explain—there are also common threads, which links in slightly with the hon. Lady’s point about having common treatment for people with terminal illness. One of those threads, quite properly, is that the definition of terminal illness that the Department uses is the same for ESA, DLA and attendance allowance. The definition is, as she said, that an individual is suffering from a progressive disease and that death in consequence of that disease can reasonably be expected within six months. Although that is a standard definition, I stress that there is also a good deal of flexibility built in. Therefore, although the definition is an indicative rule for accessing what are called the special rules, nobody in a jobcentre or a benefits processing centre will say, “Well, if it’s six months and a day, forget about it.” The definition is intended to be applied as flexibly and sensitively as possible.

Let me give an indication of the extent to which people qualify under the special rules scheme—that is, let me place before the House some indications, as it were, of where the system is delivering as it should. As the hon. Lady said, 4,200 people are placed directly in the support group—which is for non-time-limited support—for employment and support allowance owing to terminal illness each year. Around 22,000 people are awarded DLA owing to a terminal illness, while 38,000 people are awarded AA, which is obviously for older claimants, owing to a terminal illness each year. Therefore, although there will be some overlap between the two groups, roughly 65,000 people are, quite properly, accessing the special rules, which get their claims fast-tracked, so that they can be put straight on to the highest rates.

I want to say a bit more about the process that should be followed. The hon. Lady asked why there was no fast-tracking for employment and support allowance. I can assure her that there is. Individuals are fast-tracked into the support group, and they receive financial support, which is currently £113.90 for a single adult over 25. No obligations are placed on them to look for work or to undertake work-related activity.

[Tom Greatrex]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. This is the hon. Lady’s debate, and I have only a few minutes in which to respond.

Unlike other claimants to employment and support allowance, individuals who are terminally ill are paid the support group component backdated to the date of claim. So, the assessment period, during which those making a standard claim would be paid at a lower rate, does not apply. Once we have identified that someone is terminally ill and put them in the support group, their payment at the higher rate is backdated to week one; they are not paid the lower 13-week assessment rate. That is quite properly an additional source of support. Similarly for disability living allowance, individuals are fast-tracked to the highest rate of the care component, which is currently worth £73.60. They do not have to satisfy the normal entitlement conditions for the care component, or meet the usual qualifying period of three months. These have all been features of the system for some time, and they are designed specifically to assist terminally ill people.

The hon. Lady also, quite properly, raised the issue of people finding out in an inappropriate manner that they are terminally ill. It is totally unacceptable for someone to find that out from a jobcentre or over the phone: that simply should not happen.

[Meg Hillier]

I thank the Minister for that categorical statement. Would it not be easier for DWP assessors simply to check the disability living allowance database? They would not then have to ask for a form, which would make life a lot easier for the patient.

[Steve Webb]

Absolutely. Atos was awarded the contract to do the face-to-face assessments some years ago. In regard to data sharing, it would be aware that a DS1500 form had been completed for a claimant, so it should not need to ask for another form to be completed. I would be keen to hear about any individual cases in which that has none the less happened, when it should not have done, and we will follow them up. The intention is that, whenever possible, these matters should be dealt with on the basis of paperwork and forms that have already been submitted, rather than calling people in for a face-to-face assessment. As the hon. Lady says, calling them in is inappropriate and unnecessary, and it also costs money. There is no reason why anyone would want it to happen, and we are keen to ensure that it does not.

We also recognise that some people do not know, or do not wish to know, that they are terminally ill. The provisions for DLA allow a claim to be made for such people under the special rules by a third party, and such a claim will be handled sensitively to ensure that the prognosis is not revealed to the terminally ill person. For both benefits—DLA and ESA—processes are in place to ensure speedy access to benefits and minimal form filling. I shall talk the House briefly through the process involved. The claim is sent for urgent medical advice from medical services, which have 48 hours to provide advice on whether the individual meets the terminal illness criteria. Performance data over the last year on the typical turnaround time for these applications show that medical services are providing advice in an average of 1.2 days for ESA claims, and an average of 1.5 days for DLA claims. In general, therefore, these claims are being turned round very quickly, and rightly so.

To provide this advice, medical services can contact the claimant’s GP, or the treating health care professional, to check whether they are already receiving DLA due to terminal illness. Advice is then provided to a decision maker, who makes a judgment on the balance of probabilities and has some discretion. The whole process should take no longer than a week from start to finish. Claims for employment and support allowance are currently taking just over seven working days, and claims for disability living allowance are taking just under six working days.

Appeals have been mentioned, and I would be the first to accept that it is taking too long to deal with them. These matters are handled by the tribunals service, under the Ministry of Justice, and we are working closely with the service to try to reduce the backlog. Some progress has been made. For most of this year, the number of new cases coming in has been lower than the number of appeals cleared, but I freely accept that it is still taking too long.

There are a lot of reassessments taking place at the moment, involving people who have been on incapacity benefit for a long time, and the volume of appeals is inevitably rising as a result. When someone appeals, they stay on benefit in the meantime. I am talking now about general decisions on IB, rather than those for terminally ill people. Appealing enables the benefit to continue, so there is quite a strong incentive to do so, and the volume of appeals has greatly increased.

We are taking steps to address that. First, we are dealing with appeals more quickly. The volume of appeals processed by the tribunals service has been 66% higher in the first seven months of 2011-12 compared with 2009-10. There is much greater throughput, therefore. Secondly, we must try to get the decisions right in the first place. That is in everybody’s interests. I am proud of the Harrington review process, which analysed the very flawed work capability assessment. Professor Harrington produced his first report, and the Department accepted all his recommendations and has been implementing them. Professor Harrington has reported back, saying the Department is doing a pretty good job in taking on his recommendations. He has now produced a second round of recommendations. As I have said, the key is to get these decisions right in the first place, and we are finding that the rate of successful appeals against WCA decisions is significantly lower than under the old personal capability assessment.

[Meg Hillier]

That is all very well for the bulk of cases, but the key point in today’s debate is that those who are terminally ill should not have to go through an appeal in the first place. Speed of delivery is also important. We are hearing of serious delays for people with a terminal illness. Will the Minister move on to the element of his remarks that deal with that?

[Steve Webb]

One problem is that defining someone as terminally ill for the purposes of the special rules involves the notion of a six-month prognosis. The hon. Lady will appreciate that this is not a science, and that it is hard to predict with any degree of certainty. Somebody might be identified, perhaps even by their clinicians, as having a longer prognosis, and the appeals service will in such cases look again at the initial decision. We are trying to make those decisions as swiftly as possible. If a decision is made to take somebody off benefit, their benefit continues while they await the appeal, and it is important that it should.

The hon. Lady mentioned fast-tracking of ESA applications, and that is in place. If someone is identified as having a terminal illness, when they have their WCA a flag should be set because those deemed to be terminally ill should not be contacted for three years. That is the norm; that should be what happens. However, some conditions—HIV, for example—used to be regarded as terminal, but now they are not. There is therefore a sort of backstop that, in effect, says that after three years the person in question may be contacted. In general, however, people will not be contacted again. We are continually looking to ensure that robust processes are in place for the sorts of cases the hon. Lady mentions, and I will raise this important issue with operational colleagues on the front line.

The hon. Lady asked why we do not have a single central service. One of the dilemmas we face is that people always tell us they want DLA and ESA to be seen separately. DLA is about the costs of disability and has nothing to do with work. Some people ask why we do not have a single form or system, but there is a danger of muddying the waters. Claimants’ organisations tend to ask us to keep them separate, and say that DLA should not be about pressurising people to work, and that instead it should be about meeting the costs of care.

I thank the hon. Lady for raising these issues. I have set out what the Department is seeking to do to help terminally ill people with their benefit claims, but I would be very happy to follow up any individual cases Members want to bring to our attention.

Question put and agreed to.

18:29

House adjourned.

Petition

Thursday 9th February 2012 Petitions

Thursday 9 February 2012

Mentally Incapacitated Persons (Rights of Carers to Financial Information)

Thursday 9th February 2012 Petitions

The Petition of Antoinette Mary Tricker,

Declares that the Petitioner, as the closest relative and carer of Feliks and Rosemary Zakrzewski, both of whom had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, was not permitted under client confidentiality rules to see the bill of costs submitted by the financial deputy for the above persons, a solicitor appointed by the Court of Protection, despite having serious concerns about over-charging.

Declares that when the above named persons died, as both executor and beneficiary under their wills, the Petitioner was deemed to have a financial interest in their estates and therefore had authority to investigate their financial affairs. In order to challenge the bill of costs, the Petitioner was forced to go through a long and costly judicial process. The Petitioner’s concerns about over-charging were found to be justified, resulting in a substantial refund to the estate. However, the above named persons were unable to benefit from this refund and further the estate was not reimbursed the costs of the legal action, resulting in a net loss to the estate.

Declares that the petitioner believes that where a person is mentally incapacitated, they are by definition unable to comprehend complex financial matters and unable to challenge a bill of costs. Consequently they are at risk of being financially abused by others, particularly where there is no third party input to an assessment of their costs.

Declares that relatives of mentally incapacitated persons are required to be accountable and transparent in providing financial information about the person to a financial deputy and declares that the Petitioner believes that the financial deputy should be similarly accountable and provide copies of any bill of costs and narratives to the person's family.

The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring forward legislation to allow the nearest relative of a mentally incapacitated person to see all bills of costs relating to that person during their lifetime, to ensure that where items are disputed, they are reviewed in collaboration with a costs officer prior to payment of any bill and to ensure that where charges are found to be inappropriate or excessive, the person should not have to bear the costs of a reassessment.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001007]

Westminster Hall

Thursday 9th February 2012 Westminster Hall

Thursday 9 February 2012

[Mr Dai Havard in the Chair]

Football Governance

Thursday 9th February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: Seventh Report of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Session 2010-12, HC 792, and the Government Response, Cm 8207.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Greg Hands.)

14:30

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

For the benefit of people in the Public Gallery and everyone else, I should make it clear that today’s debate is about the Select Committee’s report entitled “Football Governance”, which makes recommendations to the Government, and the Government have responded. Both documents are available for hon. Members. I hope that we have a constructive discussion. I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee to introduce the debate.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Havard, and to have the opportunity to discuss the Select Committee’s report on football governance. This was a substantial inquiry by the Committee. It is worth remembering why the Committee decided that this was an important issue that deserved examination. There were two reasons, the first of which was the clear commitment given by both the parties that now form the coalition Government. It was clear that action needed to be taken, particularly to assist and encourage supporters to have greater involvement in the ownership and running of football clubs. That commitment appears plainly in the coalition agreement, although it was perhaps slightly less clear on precisely how it should be delivered. The Committee thought that it might be in a position to help the Government by taking evidence, examining that question and making recommendations.

However, this was not just about supporter involvement, although that is a very important element. It rapidly became apparent to us that there was quite significant concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the general state of our national game. A debate in this Chamber was extremely well attended by hon. Members, many of whom spoke up about the difficulties facing their local football clubs. There was widespread concern that something was wrong with the game. Perhaps that was best summed up by my hon. Friend the Minister, who famously described football as the “worst-governed sport” in England. I have to say that in the course of the Committee’s inquiry, we did not find much evidence to contradict what he said. However, we also found much to admire and praise about English football. There is no question but that it arouses huge passions up and down the country.

As I said, this was a substantial inquiry. We received more than 100 submissions of evidence. We held eight oral evidence sessions, to hear from every component part of the game. The Committee went on a number of visits. We went to Manchester City football club to see the huge investment that has taken place under its new owners. They have taken the club from the bottom levels to the top levels of the premier league. We went to Arsenal to see the Emirates stadium and to meet the management there. We held oral evidence sessions at Wembley stadium and Burnley football club. We also went to Germany. Looking at Germany’s model of licensing football clubs was a particularly influential part of our inquiry. It made quite an impact on the Committee.

I will not go through the whole report in detail, because many hon. Members are present and want to contribute and I hope that most of them have already read the report and are familiar with our findings.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way before he goes into the report?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I will of course give way to my colleague on the Committee.

[Paul Farrelly]

I apologise that I cannot stay for the whole debate because of constituency engagements. Does the Chairman of the Select Committee agree that the centrepiece of the report is the recommendation that the Football Association reassert its role as the sport’s ultimate governing body—in particular, through a licensing system, which he has just mentioned, and a modern, effective form of governance that would not allow, for example, the FA to be bounced into a naive renegotiation of the England manager’s contract as it was?

[Mr Whittingdale]

The hon. Gentleman—he is really a friend on the Committee—encapsulates the report in a couple of sentences very well. I am almost tempted to say that he has done my job for me and finished my speech. Yes, there is no question but that we felt that at the heart of the reforms that were necessary was the game’s governance structure: ultimately, the FA. I will go on to talk about that in more detail. I did not intend to talk at great length about the management of the England football team, although that is obviously a matter of great interest and debate today. I heard the Minister’s remarks during Culture, Media and Sport questions a few hours ago, and I entirely agreed with him. I am sure that the matter will crop up again during the debate.

Before I move to the report’s main recommendations, I want to pay tribute to three people. The first two were our expert advisers: Christine Oughton and Rick Parry, who provided enormously helpful experience and wise advice to the Committee. We relied a lot on their input throughout our inquiry.

The third person to whom I should pay tribute, particularly in a debate on football governance, is our late colleague on the Committee, Alan Keen. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Alan was the senior member of the Committee. He was a member of it before I became Chairman. Football was his passion. He chaired the all-party group on football. He was very—I am tempted to say keen—eager that we should embark on this inquiry. It was a great sadness to us that, because of his illness, he was not able to play as great a part in the inquiry as he would have liked. He is certainly greatly missed. It is only right in a debate on football that we pay tribute to him.

Some people asked why the Committee was looking at football at all, because it is a huge success in many respects. The Premier League is probably the most successful in the world. It has an average attendance of 350,000 people each weekend and about 92% occupancy. The second league—the Football League—gets average attendances of 375,000. Some £2 billion of revenue comes into the Premier League. There is no question but that the top English clubs are watched not just throughout this country, but in almost every country in the world. It is hard to go into a bar in any country and not see a screen in the corner showing the premier league. To that extent, it is hugely successful. There were those who said, “In that case, why are you bothering to spend this time looking at it? Why don’t you go off and look at other things?” But we found that there was widespread concern about the underlying state of the game. That was felt right across football and among followers of football.

Despite the huge revenues that come in, very few clubs trade profitably. The main reason for that is the extraordinary amount of money paid out on players’ salaries. The consequence is that debt has become an enormous problem throughout the game. Debt kept coming up as one of the principal issues causing concern. More than half of Football League clubs have gone into administration at some stage since 1992, and all operate on very narrow margins. The net debt of the Premier League clubs is £2.6 billion. Some people would say that that in itself may not be a problem. Indeed, there will be clubs that operate with quite significant debt, but as long as they can service that debt and trade, it is not necessarily something that need be addressed immediately. However, there is no question but that the debt is a major issue. We were told by the chairman of the Football League, for instance, that it was the issue that kept him awake at night.

There is also concern about ownership, which is not wholly dissociated from the question of debt. That, too, was something that we considered. As the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) suggested, we decided that if we were to address the problem, the most important thing that needed to be tackled was governance. Therefore, we wanted to establish, right from the start—this may seem self-evident, but it was not necessarily self-evident—that the FA is the ruling body of football. The FA therefore needs to be reformed if we are to get this right.

Some years ago, Lord Burns produced an extremely good report, which made a number of recommendations for reform. When we heard from him, some of his recommendations had been accepted. They included the incorporation of the FA chairman and chief executive on to the FA board, but they were still waiting to bring on the two independent non-executive directors. Progress, I believe, has been made since then.

Terry Burns told us that, if anything, he felt that he had been too timid and that he would have liked to have gone further in involving non-executive directors. Indeed, we heard from one former chief executive of the FA that he wanted an entirely independent, non-executive FA board. We felt that that was not wholly realistic. We were also clear that, as in most corporate structures, the board needed to be relatively streamlined to be effective.

After some debate, we decided to recommend that the right size for the FA board was 10, and that it should include the chairman and chief executive of the FA, the two non-executives and two more of the FA executive directors—in particular, the director of football development. Alongside them, we decided that there should be two representatives of the professional game—presumably one from the Premier League and one from the Football League—and two representatives of the national game. Although we understood the reasons why others, such as supporters, players and managers, wanted representations, we felt that that could make the board unwieldy. Therefore, we felt that we had come up with the right composition.

At the same time, we also felt that there needed to be reform of the FA council, which is an extraordinary and enormous body. It dates back many years to include representatives from Oxford and Cambridge, the three separate services and the public schools, but very few representatives of players and people who actually watch football. We therefore felt that that was something that needed to be addressed. We were also slightly concerned that the meetings started at 11 o’clock and finished at lunchtime and that some of the members of the FA council seemed to have been there for 50 years or more. We felt that there was a need to address the composition of the council, the tenure of its membership and the form of its meetings. We felt very strongly that the council should be a parliament and not an executive decision-making body.

Once those governance reforms are in place, we will be able to move forward to tackle some of the underlying difficulties affecting the game. I have talked about debt, so the next is financial management. We welcomed the introduction of UEFA’s new financial fair play rules, which will affect those clubs that have ambitions to play in European matches. We felt that the principles underlying the financial fair play rules were absolutely right; they commanded a lot of support and should be applied throughout football.

One aspect of the financial management of clubs that caused considerable concern to the Committee was the football creditors’ rule. I have absolutely no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) may talk about that a little more, because he particularly pursued that issue during our discussions. Although we could see the reasons why that rule was in place, we felt that it was unfair on creditors, as they were often small firms in local communities that had supported the local team. If that team gets into difficulty and goes into administration, they have to go to the back of the queue after all the football creditors before having their debts paid. We felt that that was unfair, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will say more about that.

One aspect that I have taken a long-standing interest in and that still creates significant potential difficulties is the ruling of the European Court on broadcasting rights and territorial sales, the full implications of which we are still waiting to see. It could have a very damaging effect and it is of concern not just to certain broadcasters, but to a large number of people involved in football.

As for how we enforce the financial fair play rules and the other necessary changes, we were impressed by what we saw in Germany. Germany has a licensing model and we saw how it was used to ensure that the clubs do not trade beyond their means for long periods. We saw how they were required to follow certain rules specified by the Bundesliga. We decided that if we were to achieve our changes, we needed a national licensing scheme. The best body to administer that is clearly the FA. Therefore, the other main thrust of our recommendations was that we should move to a licensing scheme under the FA, which should address issues such as the financial management of the game, the sale of stadiums, investment in youth development and all the other areas where, understandably, concerns have been raised. It could also address ownership.

Foreign ownership in the game is not necessarily a bad thing. After we saw what Sheikh Mansour had done in Manchester City, we could understand why the fans had great banners up saying, “Long live Sheikh Mansour”. However, there are others who are less committed to the development of clubs. We also felt that the fit and proper person test, which is necessary, had not always been as effective as it might have been. Indeed, we debated long and hard about what someone had to do to fail the fit and proper person test in English football.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is talking sense on the fit and proper person test, which seems to be honoured more in its breach. Going back to overseas ownership, does he feel that there should be a different regime for football clubs compared with the rest of the UK economy? If so, how does he see that operating?

[Mr Whittingdale]

The truth is there will be different regimes governing the ownership of football clubs. For this particular aspect, a slightly different regime should apply. I am not against the principle of foreign ownership. Just as I do not have a kneejerk response to foreign ownership in football, the same is true of the wider economy. To some extent, there are special factors, but I am not opposed to overseas ownership per se.

Let me pay one word of tribute. When the Committee visited Burnley FC, we were well entertained by the chairman of the club, Barry Kilby. In many ways, he represents all that is best about local ownership. He was a business man who had been successful in his community and had put back a huge amount into Burnley FC. His passion for the club was undoubted. Therefore, a strong local owner can bring great benefits.

[Paul Farrelly]

Will the Committee Chairman extend the same compliments to Peter Coates, who is chairman of Stoke City? The Chairman may be aware that I have been supporter of the club since I was five years old.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am very happy to pay the same tribute to Peter Coates. As an aside, let me say that the rest of the Committee used to enjoy having a sweepstake on how long it would take the hon. Gentleman to mention Stoke City during our deliberations. I am glad that he has done so today.

The issue that I want to finish on is the one that we set out to address, which is that of supporter ownership and involvement. It is a crucial factor, and the Government are right to say that it should be encouraged. It is unrealistic to say that the top Premier League clubs are likely to be owned by their supporters, but there are some clubs lower down that are already supporter owned and more should be done to help supporters’ trusts that want to become owners. For example, there was some concern about the way the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 operates. It causes difficulties for supporters, and we thought that the Government might address that. We thought that when supporters’ trusts have minority stakes, there might be some merit in giving them protection, so that if a club is acquired and the 90% threshold reached, they are not necessarily forced to give up their ownership to the new owner. There are several areas where we would like clubs if not formally to give a role to supporters, to involve them much more in decision making and with information.

One club that we visited, and whose supporters are extremely involved through the fanshare scheme, is Arsenal. When the Minister appeared before us, I raised the fact that Arsenal’s new owner had not then given a public commitment to support the fanshare scheme. My understanding is that he has still not done that, and I think the Minister said that he might encourage him to do so. That is an example of an active supporters’ organisation and how it can play a valuable role if the club ownership recognises it.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman’s Committee for the work that it has done in this area. The recommendation for a fan liaison officer is a good idea. Supporters up and down the land are crying out for that. Can the Chairman of the Committee offer any hope that that might be made to happen?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I think that that is a matter more for my hon. Friend the Minister than for me, but I certainly agree that it is something to be encouraged, and that fan liaison officers can play a valuable role. I am sure that my hon. Friend will touch on that.

I thank the Minister for the Government’s extremely positive response to the report. He could not have done more to make it clear that they want its recommendations to be implemented. I think he and I take the same view that it is not desirable for the Government to legislate, but that the matter is so important that if that is what must happen, it will happen. I hope that we will not come to that, and he may be able to say a little more about the state of discussions. He made it clear today that the deadline of 29 February is still in place, and I hope that all those involved in football who may be listening this afternoon will be spurred on to ensure that the sort of reforms that we think are necessary are achieved by that deadline.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Order. Given the number of hon. Members who wish to speak and the time constraint, Members should estimate to speak for 10 minutes, and plan do so for eight minutes.

14:52

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

That is a tall order, Mr Havard. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. I was not a member of the Select Committee at the time of the inquiry into football governance, but it is reasonable to argue from the tone of the Committee’s report and the Government’s response that the topic has been debated in a good spirit, and I wish to continue that. I am in the unique and fortunate position of being the only Member of Parliament to have two premier league football clubs in my constituency—Everton and Liverpool. I cut my parliamentary teeth leading a well-attended Westminster Hall debate on this very issue way back in September 2010.

Before I begin my speech in earnest, I want to take the opportunity to echo the comments by the Chair of the Select Committee about Alan Keen, and to send my condolences and, I am sure, those of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to the families of the 75 supporters who were killed recently at a football stadium in Egypt. No matter which club we support, we are all part of the wider football family, and that loss is a football tragedy as well as a human one.

Football is one of our country’s undoubted successes, and we are the home of the beautiful game. We are also the home of the best and most competitive leagues in the world. Children from around the globe are dreaming about the chance to play football at Wembley, the Emirates stadium, Stamford Bridge, Goodison Park, Anfield, and perhaps even Old Trafford. Wealthy tycoons are dreaming of the Premier League promised land. They are attracted to English football as a way of investing their money and seeing the best players in the world play for their clubs to an extent not seen in other countries.

Despite the merits of other leagues such as the Bundesliga, La Liga, Ligue Une and Serie A, it is the premier league, and even the championship, that attracts international investors, because they continue to offer the best that football has. Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al Nahyan are the only two owners with an unlimited pot of money, and who are capable of injecting copious amounts into their respective clubs. Today, some clubs, such as Tottenham, are plcs and listed on the stock market. Others, such as Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Blackburn and Sunderland, are owned by professional sport investors. Others seem to be owned for the prestige—for example, Fulham, which is owned by Mohammed al Fayed. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) may speak about that.

However, some takeovers reinforce the point that football clubs are simply economic entities to be bought and sold like any other commodity, which completely neglects the broader social impact that clubs have in their local communities and beyond. The result for many clubs in recent times has been to chart a course that is perilously close to the brink. Portsmouth, which I think we will also hear about, ran up debts totalling £119 million, and it is still far from fiscal safety. Southend United and Cardiff City recently managed to pay their debts just before the taxman’s axe was wielded. Several other clubs have suffered administration, such as Southampton, Darlington, Crystal Palace, Wimbledon, Hornchurch and Scarborough. Leeds United, which was probably the biggest victim of all, was allowed to play in the Football League despite no one knowing who owned the club.

In 2009, the all-party group on football found that the group most under-represented in the game was those who should have the most say—the fans. One of the biggest problems with football governance is that at most levels of the game those who pay for it are excluded from the decision-making structures in clubs, leagues and even governing bodies. In pursuit of a global phenomenon, which we have achieved with the Premier League, we failed properly to regulate our national obsession.

I do not pretend that there is a simple answer, but a major problem that needs to be addressed is the fit-and-proper-person test, to which the Chair of the Select Committee has referred. It is an absolute sham. If it were not, the majority of aforementioned clubs would never have been in the position they were because of owners who abused the system and played fast and loose with football clubs that are the pillars of communities across Britain.

[Mark Field]

All too often, clubs in appalling financial difficulty grasp at the nearest straw like a drowning man. There may be only one individual who can save the club, but they may not pass the fit-and-proper-person test in a meaningful way. However, if the choice is that person or the club going bust, one understands why the former choice is made, albeit one that leads to other difficulties further down the line. How does the hon. Gentleman envisage getting round that problem if the alternative is for a club to go bankrupt and to spiral out of the league, as has happened to several former league clubs in recent years?

[Steve Rotheram]

That is exactly the point, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) will talk about his beloved football club, and the fact that that happens too often for the problem not to be tackled. That is exactly what the Select Committee set out to do—to consider what recommendations we could suggest on a non-party- political basis to ensure that the football authorities have to take cognisance of such issues, and include football fans in the governance of their football teams.

We cannot pretend that one size fits all, because it does not. We need a proactive approach to redress the imbalance in football governance, an imbalance that has seen some owners and directors of football clubs using them like playthings that can be thrown aside when they become bored, while the fans—the lifeblood of any club—are pushed further and further away from the decision-making process. A more inclusive approach would probably not be universally popular among football’s elite. Indeed, I spoke to one senior representative of a football club who said that he did not want the lunatics to run the asylum. I am a bit fed up with seeing fans given the rough end of the stick. They are treated by some club owners as an irritant or a problem, yet they are expected to be part of the solution when those errant owners disappear, leaving the club in financial crisis.

Supporters Direct is leading a new initiative that I think deserves more focus. It builds on the ideas and recommendations made by the Committee and on the Government’s response regarding the implementation of a new licensing framework that is impartial and independent of the reformed FA board. I welcome the changes to the FA at board level.

It is crucial that impartiality is maintained because that will ensure total transparency, which, we will all agree, has been missing from the FA for some time. We must, however, give credit where it is due, and there have been welcome introductions since David Bernstein’s appointment. I hope, however, that the chairman of the FA will not rest on his laurels, and that he will do something about the current ludicrous situation that allows football managers to profit from the sale of players. Regardless of what has happened over the past 24 hours, that immorality remains, and if ever there were a conflict of interest, that is it.

There are two dimensions to the licensing framework proposed by Supporters Direct:

“Promotion of financial and social responsibility, and balancing of the supporting, commercial and social objectives of clubs.”

and

“To ensure that clubs and their assets are protected for current and future generations.”

Supporters Direct has stated:

“The framework for supporter and community engagement should provide rights for supporters on behalf of the community subject to conditions…Rights would be granted to a ‘Fit and Proper Supporters’ Trust’ for engagement with their clubs.”

Engagement would increase according to the degree of development of the “fit and proper” supporters’ trust. If such a measure were implemented, it would give fans a voice at the top table.

I believe that football fans would use the opportunity to nominate a trusted supporter to make informed decisions—it is the big society writ large. I am aware of some football clubs that would hold an election and offer season ticket holders, as well as club members, the opportunity to vote for a candidate on the basis of a quasi-manifesto set of pledges.

Supporters Direct has stated:

“The co-operative ownership of football clubs via supporters’ trusts thus offers huge benefits not only to the way that the game is run, but also to local communities.”

Although I recognise that there will always be a tension between financial and social returns, the football world is starting to realise that a greater balance needs to be struck. We are starting to see a yearning for the greater involvement of supporters in football governance not only in the UK, but across Europe.

Another proposal is for the reformed FA board to consider ways to increase the number of ex-footballers in boardrooms. Such a move would appease the grumblings of many fans who believe that directors are not “football people” but are out-of-touch businessmen. That is currently the case at Blackburn Rovers, a club that is rich in history and has fantastic loyal support.

Despite becoming a global phenomenon with a worldwide audience, football is not immune to external forces outside the control of its internal market. Lessons must be drawn from disasters such as the global financial crash. All bubbles have the potential to burst. Football needs a regulatory framework and a governance structure that is as transparent as reasonably practicable.

I am confident that there is the political will in the Chamber and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to make progress. I hope that that continues, and that the Minister will take on board the strength of feeling on this issue.

15:04

[Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I will try to be brief. I welcome equally the report by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Government response. We should pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister. He has been robust in his criticism of football’s governance arrangements, and he has insisted on a response to those criticisms by the end of the month. I know he is confident that he will get a reply, and perhaps when he responds to the debate he will say what sort of content he expects that reply to contain.

We all accept that the English game is played to a very high standard, and we know that 8 million fans have already watched premiership games this season. Six premiership teams have taken part in the past 10 finals of the European championships, and we have fantastic football in this country. We cannot, however, say the same things about what takes place inside the boardroom, or the governance of the game, that we say about the quality of the playing. All too often, fans have to worry about issues such as debt and ownership, rather than performance on the pitch. Fans are losing out because of the ridiculously high price of a premiership season ticket, or because many of our top-flight clubs still do not have adequate facilities for disabled fans. Fans and clubs that want to introduce safe standing do not have the opportunity to do so, and many of the clubs that are lower in the league are in difficulty because they are obliged to adhere to ludicrously inappropriate rules such as those on transfer windows.

There is much to sort out. The predominant areas of concern expressed by the Committee were, quite rightly, those of money and governance.

[Paul Farrelly]

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the central role that football plays in communities because he is the Member for Bath, where rugby has a similar role. Does he agree that one key task for a governance regime in football is that of fostering a game where the finances are sustainable? People involved in the premiership, such as David Gill of Manchester United and Peter Coates of Stoke City, have broadly welcomed the thrust of the Committee’s report. It would therefore be surprising and disappointing if the FA, which has acted so decisively over the England captain and manager, did not welcome the reassertion of its role, and the means by which to do that.

[Mr Foster]

I hope the hon. Gentleman proves to be right and we will hear about the response on that issue that the Minister will receive. He is right to mention his concern for the sustainability of finance in football. As we heard from the Chair of the Committee, although debt has been declining, in the premiership it still stands at £2.6 billion. Some 68% of its income is being spent on players, rather than on other important things.

If we compare the premiership with the rest of European football, we discover that the English premiership has more than 50% of the debt held by all the leading clubs in Europe. Last season, the championship declared its highest ever debt at £133 million, and we know that it is spending about £4 for every £3 that it generates. That is not sustainable. It is vital to welcome UEFA’s proposals, and they will be implemented even though they will not affect all the clubs in this country. That is why the licensing proposals are so critical.

UEFA’s proposals are key. A report by Deloitte published today reflects much of what it said in its 2011 report, and points out that although there have been a lot of false dawns, the UEFA proposals may provide the key to moving forward and to financial sustainability. As it said in its 2011 report, however,

“the more things change, the more they stay the same. While football’s revenue performance has been spectacular, sustainably managing its costs remains football’s primary business challenge.”

That is a key issue that the Select Committee’s report and the UEFA proposals seek to address, which I welcome.

I also very much welcome the proposals from the Select Committee on governance of the game. It is right that the FA be the leading body for football in this country, and it must take charge of many of the deliberations that take place in the 14 different committees. It is ludicrous that so many of them report not to the board, but to the council. The key people making the decisions are therefore at a distance from the considerations of those various committees. The Select Committee was quite right to suggest that the board must be slimmed down. We should all welcome the moves to bring non-executives on to the board, but clearly more must be done to move forward and slim down.

Reform of the FA council itself is equally important. The Chair of the Select Committee has already made it clear how inappropriate the current arrangements are. I was interested in what Malcolm Clarke, the chairman of the Football Supporters’ Federation, said:

“It is impossible in a body of 118 people to have a critical challenge to the board about what it’s doing, partly because the decisions are long since passed and partly because of the sheer format of a body of that size.”

That echoes very much what the Chair of the Select Committee said, and it is crucial.

Rule 34 should be looked at again. The report fails to say very much about that and the remarks of the Chair of the Select Committee were perhaps slightly lacking for not mentioning it. Rule 34 makes it clear that football should be run like a not-for-profit company, with sport and football put before profit, and sadly I do not see that operating in spirit or to the letter.

Finally, licensing is critical. If we wish for a financially sustainable game, the UEFA rules will not cover all the clubs that concern us. The licensing proposal that the Select Committee and others have suggested is the way forward to ensure that similar rules on “fit and proper persons”, sustainability of finance and so on can be enshrined in a way that covers all the clubs in the game. I am particularly drawn, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) is, to the recommendations of Supporters Direct on club licensing, which deserve to be looked at seriously.

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister recently advocated the great benefits of the John Lewis model of running companies and employee share ownership, but with employee share ownership comes employee participation in governance. It seems vital that those who are key funders of the game have a much greater involvement in the governance of the game that they help to fund. There are real benefits to a stakeholder model of corporate governance, which is why Supporters Direct goes through the all the key things in its proposals, but also talks about how supporters can play a key role in the governance of individual clubs as part of the licensing proposal.

I said that I would try to be quick and I hope that I have been. This is an important report, but what will matter most is not what is in it or the Government’s response, but, critically, what the FA does with it. It must now get a grip on the governance and the finances of this crucial part of the culture of this country. So far, it has failed us. Let us hope that this time it will do something about it.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Ten minutes with an intervention. Exemplary, Mr, Foster.

15:14

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will endeavour to do as well as the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) in keeping to time.

I declare an interest as a founder of the Fulham Supporters Trust, which was long before I ended up in this place. I have knowledge and awareness of the issue from being involved in and running that trust, with a huge amount of support and guidance from Supporters Direct, which is a superb organisation that should valued. I hope that when the football authorities respond to the Minister, they will properly have taken into account its proposals on licensing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) dealt with in some detail—I will not repeat them. I unashamedly stand here to talk about the interests of supporters. Whatever the future licensing regime, it is imperative that it involves and incorporates the views of supporters, who are in many cases the lifeblood of the clubs in which they are involved.

I congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), and the other Committee members on the report; it is fantastic. He is obviously chairing a very high-profile Committee, which has lots of other issues to deal with. The report is at least as important as—if not more important than—anything else that the Committee has done this Parliament. It is crucial that we deal with the issue, and I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Alan Keen. I knew him for a long time before I entered the House; I used to see him when Fulham played Middlesbrough, and he was unfailingly cheerful even after we had beaten them. His work for the all-party group on football in years gone by helped to develop the awareness in Parliament of some of the issues in football ownership that have led us to where we are now, so it is absolutely right that those tributes have been paid.

There have been ownership issues at many clubs. I was thinking earlier that we could go through a list and find very few that have not had concerns about ownership to deal with at some point, but it is striking that, with very few exceptions, most have survived. I contend that in many cases they have managed to do so due to the involvement of supporters, not all the way through in running the clubs, but because they have got involved when everyone else has walked away. We see that again and again through football history. The most prominent early example of that is probably Charlton Athletic in the early to mid-1980s, when they were effectively left homeless and nomadic. It was the fans’ involvement in the Valley party and everything else that eventually got them back to the Valley and into a sustainable position where they became a very renowned community club, as they still are, even though they have fallen a couple of divisions on the field.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Another club in a similar situation in 1986 was, of course, Middlesbrough, which was fortunate enough to have a very wealthy supporter in Steve Gibson, a local fan and local businessman, who is highly regarded across all the English football leagues. Has my hon. Friend looked at paragraphs 43 and 44 of the Government’s response to the report? There are quite a number of points of consensus across both sides of the House on Supporters Direct’s proposals, but the real issue is whether Supporters Direct has adequate funding to ensure that there is a network to help supporters’ trusts in future.

[Tom Greatrex]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have raised it with the Minister in relation to Supporters Direct’s previous funding difficulties. It does a huge amount of valuable work and we should be able to come up with a way to enable it to continue its work supporting and guiding supporters’ trusts, often when clubs are in crisis and trusts are seeking to maintain them at very difficult times.

[Mark Field]

Although I accept that an engaged supporters’ base that can play an integral role in ongoing development is fantastic for any football club, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is not entirely a panacea for all problems? There have been examples of supporters’ trusts that have not worked terribly well—Stockport County, for example. Without the requisite expertise on top of the enthusiasm of a supporters’ base, it can often go horribly awry.

[Tom Greatrex]

The hon. Gentleman is perhaps in danger of straying into the territory of Ron Noades a few years ago, who said, “Fans can’t do it and probably aren’t able to do it.” I am not saying that fans should be running clubs 100%. The Chair of the Select Committee is right to say that we would not have every club completely run by supporters, but if fans are involved, they can often help to stop making the mistakes that led to the position that Stockport were in. They were in that position because of mismanagement before the supporters’ trust was able to take over. In that case, it was very difficult for the supporters’ trust to be able to rescue them. If we look at other examples, Exeter and Brentford have managed to help turn things round. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) will no doubt wish to speak about AFC Wimbledon, where they started from scratch. We should never underestimate the ability of football fans from all walks of life, who have a club in common, to get together and make things happen.

The main point that I want to make about football fan involvement in the running of clubs is that it should not happen at the point of crisis. It should not be when everyone else walks away, or when owners have mucked it up and decided that they have had enough and walk away.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument on behalf of supporters. It can be seen in its purest form with FC United of Manchester, a club that started from nothing. It is building a multi-million pound stadium and gets regular decent attendances.

[Tom Greatrex]

My hon. Friend mentions another good example, of which there are many. FC United formed a club on the basis of issues around ownership of Manchester United and the takeover by the Glazer family. It would be much better if supporters were involved not at the point of crisis—not when everyone else walks away —but on a sustained basis. We have seen such examples. The Chair of the Select Committee mentioned Manchester City. In Scotland, the owner of Heart of Midlothian effectively persuaded fans to give up their shareholding and give it all over to him, because he had a great plan that was going to be the salvation of the club. Now look at the position they are in. That has happened on more than one occasion. The sustained involvement of fans will be much more valuable to the interest of clubs in the medium and long term, despite the difficulties and the misjudgments that different owners may make.

The other point that I want to make—again, it was in the Supporters Direct proposal, which is important—is about grounds. In many cases, football grounds and stadiums have strong links with the communities that the clubs serve and with the clubs themselves. Too often in the past we have seen situations in which teams end up, through different ownership structures, being separated from the grounds or moving out of their grounds for other reasons, and that creates all sorts of problems. As a Fulham supporter, I know about that. At various times we have come close to losing our ground, largely because the potential value of the ground’s real estate is higher than the value of running the club. That is due to an accident of geography—where the ground is.

There was a period in the mid-1980s when Fulham, Queens Park Rangers and Chelsea were owned by a property development company whose interest was not anything to do with the three football clubs, but to do with the potential value for development on those sites. At one point we were going to merge with QPR, but that got stopped. In 2001, the current owners of the club that was referred to earlier thought it would be a great idea for Fulham to move out and have a new ground near White City. In the end, that did not happen, partly because of the views of supporters who were able to persuade the club that its judgment was wrong. However, I am pleased to say that that position has changed and we are now on the same side as the club. Supporters are back at Craven Cottage and will hopefully be there for many years to come.

We need protection in the football licensing set-up that stipulates a club cannot leave a ground unless it has somewhere else to go.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

What does the hon. Gentleman think about those lower down the football pyramid in the lower league level? I am thinking of a team such as Witton Albion, which he is probably not familiar with. They sold their ground, and as part of the sale they got a brand-new ground, which was a great facility that could be used by the community. What does he think about that? I take his point on the higher levels, but what about the lower levels?

[Tom Greatrex]

The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my next point. If a club has somewhere to go and has plans in place, that is fine. There are plenty of examples of clubs that have moved and got new grounds. I am reminded of Manchester City and Bolton. I am concerned about clubs that are left high and dry without a ground. Not being allowed to leave a ground without somewhere else to go would be an important protection. When clubs are separated from their grounds, it causes huge difficulty.

I am conscious of the time. I have not managed to do as well as the right hon. Member for Bath. I will conclude by saying that I think the Committee’s report is superb and it should be congratulated. I also want to compliment the Minister. Whenever I have asked him about these issues, he has always been forthright in his opinions and in his views on football governance. He is absolutely right. I hope that the response that he gets from the football authorities at the end of this month will be good and comprehensive and that it deals with the issues. If not, I hope that he has the courage to go back to the football authorities and say that that is not good. I hope that we get the right system in place for the future of football in this country.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

My only disappointment, Mr Greatrex, is that you did not mention Merthyr Town, which is my club. It is now a community club. It has gone through many of the same things. Welsh clubs who play in the English league have an interest.

15:26

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

My apologies to hon. Members. In addition to being the home of Fratton Park, Portsmouth is home to the surface fleet, and I am due to speak in the debate on Somalia.

I thank the Select Committee for an excellent report. Its conclusions are sound and its arrival timely. Portsmouth football club has been poorly served by its successive owners, and it is a prime example of why we need reform in football. It has been badly abused, but it is worth saving. Much has been said about the social value of the club.

I want to thank all hon. Members who have been helpful and supportive towards Portsmouth. At this time, we do not know what the future holds, but the grim situation is checked with a mass of good will, and the professional approach that the supporters’ trust and the fans are taking in response. Our club has a future, and for the first time it has a well-run supporters’ trust that is keen to have a financial stake as well as a governance foothold in the club.

At the end of last year, I sat down with members of the trust and listened to their frustrations. Despite being able to lever considerable funds, they could not get access to the financial information of the club or see the administrator. On my quick and dirty maths, they were being asked to demonstrate that they had access to funds five times the amount that the club was worth before they could even start a dialogue. They have managed to talk to the administrator, but they are still not being taken seriously. The administrator has even gone to Portsmouth city council, which we all know does not have deep pockets, to ask for help, yet they are ignoring the community, which can demonstrate that it has considerable funds. That illustrates the considerable culture shift that is needed, and that I hope the report will help.

Given that it is in everyone’s interests that Portsmouth is sold to new owners—ideally, in my book, to a coalition of businesses and supporters who are genuinely interested in Pompey—it is a frustration to me that the dialogue that would make that outcome more likely is being frustrated. Today, I hope we can send a clear message to all those who hold sway over a club’s future, especially administrators and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, that this Parliament wants everything that can be done to ensure that the businesses survive. We would want that for any business, and I am sure that many of us in this Chamber have gone in to bat for businesses and individuals to sort out their tax affairs. We should not shy away from doing the same for football clubs. I also argue that these businesses are a special case. The point that I made to the Prime Minister last week was that if a supermarket folds, someone can go and buy their carrots elsewhere. If Portsmouth goes under, the fans will not be content with buying their season tickets from another club.

We also need to recognise the social value of clubs. The Portsmouth study centre is an award-winning education facility and it was a pilot site for the national citizenship programme. Its health outreach programmes are also exceptional in a city that has poor health and education outcomes. Add to this the community cohesion, the bridge it creates between generations and the sense of place and identity that it brings and we soon realise the impact that its absence will have.

There is, however, reason for optimism. I congratulate Pompey fans on recently forming the Portsmouth Supporters Trust, and on the unity they have shown in pushing for a greater role in the governance of their beloved club. I have been struck by their professionalism—ably supported by the wonderful Supporters Direct— their knowledge and how they have conducted themselves. There should be no concerns about their ability to respect confidentiality and develop a bid, and reassuringly they are considering several scenarios on how they can contribute to Portsmouth’s survival, including a community buy-out. Time and a level playing field are needed if the fans are to contribute, and I am sure that the report will go a long way to creating the latter. The report contains both practical measures for a more pragmatic approach to such a crisis, and measures to prevent one from happening in the first place.

I know that Pompey fans would want me to mention the appalling fit and proper person test, which has so badly let them down.

[Paul Farrelly]

I am making brief interventions in lieu of a speech. I am sorry, Mr Chairman.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

You will get pinged if necessary, Mr Farrelly.

[Paul Farrelly]

Does the hon. Lady agree that Portsmouth is the most recent case in point in which a licensing model that applied a rigorous “fit and proper” test would have produced a wholly different outcome? The Football Association could use its licensing power to encourage not only the formation of supporters’ trusts, but their access to administrators, by making it clear that it is most likely to favour bids that involve registered supporter organisations.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I absolutely agree. It is an amazement to Portsmouth fans, who after just 10 minutes on Google have discovered that someone should not be anywhere near their club, that somehow that person is allowed to become an owner of it.

The other issue that the fans would want me to mention is the creditors rule. I shall not steal the thunder of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), but I will pay tribute to the staff at Portsmouth football club, who have done a lot of work in repairing the damage that was done by the rule the last time they were in this situation. They have worked very hard to rebuild both trust and the support of local businesses and charities.

We must all keep the pressure on for reform. I am pleased that tomorrow morning Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will be back around the table with Portsmouth football club, but I sincerely hope that we get a result from the dialogue. If it fails, the supporters’ trust and all in our city will rally behind a community buy-out, and I would welcome the Minister’s views on that and his support. I take this opportunity to praise his involvement. We all agree that he is a genuine champion for the reforms, and I welcome the Government’s response to the Committee’s report.

Finally, I want to say that Portsmouth will survive. We all know that a club’s true and unique value lies in its fans; the question is how. Whatever course of action the trust and the fans take will be greatly strengthened by the report’s proposals and strong message. We must, therefore, all get on with implementing the report’s recommendations.

15:33

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

My contribution to the debate is from the viewpoint of a fan of one of the clubs that has been most adversely affected by poor football governance over the past quarter of a century. Some 24 years ago, a team that had been in the Football League for only 11 years beat probably the best team in Europe—[Interruption.] It’s not going to get any better, is it? The Dons of Wimbledon beat the mighty Liverpool in one of the FA cup final’s greatest giant-killings. In the words of the great John Motson:

“The Crazy Gang have beaten the Culture Club.”

My dad, a proud Wimbledon season ticket holder, and my sister, who is known to many Labour Members, were there. That weekend was one of the happiest of their lives. When we attended the civic reception the following Sunday, my dad embarrassingly took his autograph book along and got the signature of every member of the team. Because of my line of work and that of my sister, my dad has had the opportunity to meet many great famous people, but that was the first and last time he took along his autograph book.

Clubs such as Wimbledon have enormous meaning to people—not just to my dad and my family, but to the whole community I live in. As we now know, however, great joy was eventually to turn to great anger and frustration. Just three years after that win, the club left its home at Plough Lane in 1991 and never returned. The owner, Sam Hammam, persuaded Merton council that Plough Lane was unsuitable for top-flight football, which required all-seater stadiums, and that he should be allowed to leave while a new stadium was found. As a former Merton councillor, my biggest regret is that we accepted his word. Wimbledon began a ground share with Crystal Palace at Selhurst Park in Croydon and never returned.

I like to think that if proper licensing of football clubs had been in place then, supporters would have had a greater say over the move, and that that would have made all the difference. Instead of returning, Sam Hammam sold the club, and Plough Lane was turned into blocks of flats. Worse still, in 2001 the club’s new owners announced that they wanted to move to Milton Keynes. Despite opposition from fans of not only Wimbledon, but virtually every football team in the country, and from many MPs and even the Football Association, which blocked the move twice, in May 2002 an independent commission gave the move the green light. That decision was the end of the road for our Dons, but it could have been prevented with proper licensing of football clubs and genuine supporter involvement on the boards.

The case of Wimbledon is relevant not only because we want to prevent such a thing from happening again, but because we can learn from what happened next, and use our experience of the aftermath to learn how communities can be enriched by genuinely inclusive, supporter-run football clubs. What happened next is the remarkable story of AFC Wimbledon. When it was agreed that Wimbledon could move all the way to Milton Keynes, most fans, including my dad, simply stopped supporting the club. As a result, it went into administration even before it had moved up the M1. Supporters could have reacted with anger alone—justified anger—but instead they did something remarkable. A group of fans met and decided to set up their own team, owned by the fans and rooted in the local community—a club of which they could be proud. In June 2002 they held open trials on Wimbledon common, and cobbled together a team in just a few weeks. They quickly found somewhere to play—Kingsmeadow, just over the Merton border in Kingston—and persuaded the Combined Counties Football League to let them enter its competition.

What has followed has been astonishing. The ground has been packed for virtually every home match, and after five promotions in nine years the team has made it all the way to the Football League, playing good football, the right way, and winning the Fair Play award year after year. The club is owned by the Dons Trust, a supporters’ group, which has pledged to retain at least 75% control of the ownership, and it has been the model of a good community football club. It has a genuine commitment to community sport, and the chief executive, Erik Samuelson, is nothing short of fantastic. Until recently, his pre-match ritual was not living the high life in the boardroom, but directing cars in the car park. He is typical of fans who paint the ground, sell programmes and do all the other essentials.

The review of governance will not only stop clubs going the way of Wimbledon, but be an opportunity to ensure there are more clubs like AFC Wimbledon. We need to ensure that it is not possible for clubs to just up sticks and leave the communities that support them, and we must make it clear that the future has to be based on genuine relationships between clubs and the communities in which they operate. The Supporters Direct formal licensing model would have prevented Sam Hammam and his successors from ruining our community’s club, and new rules to give rights to supporters on behalf of the community will strengthen clubs such as AFC Wimbledon and encourage more to behave like it. I therefore support the proposals for a fit and proper supporters’ trust to engage with each club. In my view, the trusts should have basic rights to information, including financial information, and rights to meet club executives. It should be mandatory that any fundamental change to a club, such as the sale of its ground or a move to a different part of the country, must first have the agreement of the fit and proper supporters’ trust. I also hope that we can prevent clubs from assimilating other clubs’ identities.

I hope that all Members with an interest in not just football but the power of community will want to join me in saying how proud we are of AFC Wimbledon, and how pleased we are that the club has risen to the Football League. This is an opportunity to say: let us support the model of clubs such as AFC Wimbledon, and prevent clubs from collapsing, as Wimbledon did.

15:39

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

Perhaps it is appropriate that I, as a Member of Parliament for Milton Keynes, have the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). I shall be brief.

I commend the hon. Lady on the passion that she showed for AFC Wimbledon. Certainly, I would hate to see this debate descend into a rivalry between two clubs. Perhaps one thing that we can agree on is that whatever the process, we now have two thriving football clubs out of it, and perhaps we should focus on that.

In the brief time available, I want to focus on three things. First, I want to put on record the timeline of the move. Much of what the hon. Lady has said is correct, but she has failed to mention a few gaps, which I think should go on the record. Secondly, I want to celebrate the economic success that Milton Keynes Dons has brought to Milton Keynes. Finally, I fear that I have some bad news for the hon. Lady, as I will explain why her campaign to drop the word “Dons” is set to fail.

The hon. Lady was quite right: the last game that Wimbledon played at Plough Lane was in May 1991, and the club was moved as a result of the Taylor report. That was the last time the club played in Wimbledon, some 21 years ago. I cannot comment on Sam Hammam—I do not know the man—but I take the hon. Lady’s word for what happened in that period.

In July 2001, the Wimbledon board confirmed that it would pursue the relocation to Milton Keynes, 10 years after the club left Wimbledon. In August 2001, Wimbledon wrote to the Football League to seek permission to relocate to Milton Keynes, but the league rejected the request. Interestingly, at the time, Merton council, of which I believe the hon. Lady was a member, produced a report equating the task of finding a home for the club in the borough as

“achieving the impossible in a densely built up urban area”.

In April 2002, the Football League received a further letter from Wimbledon, and on 27 May 2002, the Dons Trust was formed to develop an alternative club—that was before the announcement to move to Milton Keynes was made. On 28 May 2002, the independent Football Association commission met and said:

“Our decision is that, in light of its exceptional circumstances, WFC should be given approval to relocate to Milton Keynes…We do not believe, with all due respect, that the Club’s links with the community around the Plough Lane site or in Merton are so profound, or the roots go so deep, that they will not survive a necessary transplant to ensure WFC’s survival. What is unusual about WFC fans is that they do not seem to come from a single geographical area. Indeed, the vast majority of WFC fans do not live in Merton or Wimbledon. 20% of current season ticket holders live in Merton and 10% in Wimbledon. We do not accept that WFC will die if the Club relocates”—

of course, we have seen evidence of that. The commission continued:

“The Club has been in Croydon for 11 years (almost half its Football League history). There is no stadium which is a focus for the community in Merton, and has not been for 11 years.”

[Mark Field]

People will remember that Arsenal, although now based in north London, started its life in Woolwich, south of the river. Queens Park Rangers obviously was not based in Shepherd’s Bush for quite some time. I am afraid that the logic of that argument is that it gives a green light to any would-be owner to think, “I will relocate for a few years, and then we can franchise the club to a different part of the UK entirely.”

[Mark Lancaster]

There is a strong parallel. In 1913 the owners of Arsenal, Henry Norris and William Hall, moved the club away from Woolwich Arsenal and in the following year dropped the word “Woolwich” from the name to just “Arsenal”.

In June 2002, AFC Wimbledon was formally established by the Dons Trust, and I congratulate AFC Wimbledon on its success in the past 10 years. However, as a result, crowds fell at Wimbledon from an average of 6,961 to just 2,787, placing Wimbledon FC into even further financial difficulties.

In June 2003, Wimbledon went into administration. The administrator decided that the only possibility to keep the club alive was to pursue the relocation to Milton Keynes. In the same month, Milton Keynes council stepped in and supported the community element of Wimbledon FC by employing staff who had been made redundant by the administrators and paying their salaries. The London borough of Merton made no attempt to continue the community side of club. In September 2003, the first game in Milton Keynes at the Hockey stadium against Burnley was played; I was there.

The administrator moved Wimbledon to Milton Keynes. No approach was made by supporters of Wimbledon to take the club over, and no support was given by the London borough of Merton to Wimbledon FC.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I hope that my contribution was in no way unpleasant or anti. I congratulate MK Dons on its fantastic success at the moment, with its great young manager and its great chairman, Pete Winkelman. My point was about what had happened in our local area and how people felt about it. It does not in any way indicate a suggestion that I do not want the MK Dons to do well, although I might like them to change their name; “MK City” might be a better name, as it would fully represent the city—the town is likely to become a city—and the area.

[Mark Lancaster]

I accept the hon. Lady’s point, but unfortunately I will seek to disappoint her on the issue with the name; we will get to that shortly. Equally, I am not seeking to offend anyone. We simply have two successful clubs now, and perhaps we should focus on the future.

[Mark Field]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mark Lancaster]

I will not, because that is not fair on other hon. Members, and I have given way to my hon. Friend once already.

In July 2004, Inter MK brought Wimbledon out of administration and the name was changed to “Milton Keynes Dons FC”. That was approved by the Football League without any comment. The community staff transferred to Milton Keynes Dons from Milton Keynes council after the support from the council. Since then, we have had a fantastic new stadium, which next year will achieve elite status from the Union of European Football Associations at championship level. We have had great success at the club, winning the Johnstone’s Paint trophy and the league two title. Only today, MK Dons has been unveiled as the Coca-Cola community club of the year for the south-east.

The move has been successful, and the club is of enormous importance to the community. The introduction of professional football has supported huge economic activity, with active public policy support and partnership but no public money. We have seen inward regeneration investment of £250 million. Some 3,500 full-time jobs have been created around the site of Stadium mk. More than £10 million has been invested into the local transport and other civic infrastructure.

In addition to MK Dons matches at all levels, there have been special events in the new stadium, including two England under-21 internationals, two full internationals involving the England’s women’s international team, three Heineken cup rugby union games, including a semi-final, an Aviva premiership rugby game, and even a JLS pop concert, which I confess I did not go to. It has been a success story.

While the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden rightly praised the community work of AFC Wimbledon and elicited support from the Minister in her Adjournment debate, it is worth noting that the community work of MK Dons has been established over a shorter time frame to an even greater success—this is no disrespect to AFC Wimbledon—engaging some 55,000 people directly, including the piloting of the Government’s national citizenship service programme, the championing of apprenticeships in MK and a disability scheme that offers support to more than 250 people with a disability. As I have already mentioned, only today we have been announced as the community club of the south-east.

I shall briefly touch on the hon. Lady’s campaign to drop the word “Dons” from the name. The overwhelming majority of MK Dons fans want the club to retain its name. It is now part of our history, as can be seen from the Johnstone’s cup and the league two championship. When the Queen came to open our stadium, it was there as the MK Dons stadium, and at no point was there ever an agreement not to use the word “Dons” in our title.

I have already mentioned that, subsequent to the move of the club to Milton Keynes in 2003, the patrimony of Wimbledon was transferred to the London borough of Merton in 2006 after the signing of an accord. The accord was an arrangement between the MK Dons FC, the MK Dons Supporters Association and the Wimbledon Independent Supporters Association. Its purpose was to transfer the honours obtained by the original club to the London borough of Merton, not, it must be said, to AFC Wimbledon. However, during the negotiations, the MK Dons agreed that the trademarks related to the old Wimbledon, such as the badge and the term “Crazy Gang”, could be passed on to AFC Wimbledon by the London borough of Merton in return for dropping the call from the Wimbledon contingent that MK Dons should drop the “Dons” element of the club’s name. Indeed, apart from the accord itself, an e-mail dated 10 September 2006 from Ross Maclagan, the Wimbledon Independent Supporters Association secretary, confirms that.

Although I am sure that this is not the case, there is a feeling among some in Milton Keynes that we are attempting to renegotiate the accord signed in 2006. I must therefore say to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden that the feeling in Milton Keynes, given the signing of the accord, is that we will be keeping the name MK Dons.

15:50

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship for the first time, Mr Havard. I declare an interest as a season ticket holder at Blackburn Rovers, where I have been attending regularly since 1978. Blackburn’s proud 137-year history and status as a founding member of the Football League are under significant threat due to the risks of poor foreign ownership. The club is in a sorry state, finding itself in the firestorm of the foreign ownership debate. I hope that lessons can be learned from my contribution.

Over the past 14 months, the club’s proud history has received little respect from its new Indian owners, Venky’s London Ltd. I must apologise at this stage; I was supposed to be joined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who wanted to concur with a lot of what I am going to say. I would like that noted on the record.

The club’s sale by the Jack Walker Trust to the Indian company Venky’s in November 2010 has been followed by a series of damaging headlines, shock resignations, instability and regression of the club’s fortunes on and off the field. More recently, elements within and connected to the club have engaged in a damaging PR campaign against supporters that has been confrontational and, in my view, has highlighted significant failings of the owners, the manager and his expansive role and associated parties. They are at the centre of the shambles that is currently Blackburn Rovers, a club held up and respected by the football industry as an example of one of the best-run clubs in the premier league. Weekly protests, a plummeting league position, huge losses, dubious transfers, escalating agents’ fees and—more pertinently, and against league rules—the suggested involvement of agents in the running of the club have all undermined its authority and management.

I put on record the comments of Alex Ferguson, who seemed to echo that final point about the role of agents in football clubs. The role of the board of directors is now unclear, and their authority is now negligible or, at worst, undesirable. That is far removed from the mirage painted by the new owners: a Shangri-La of increasing transfer budgets, Champions League football and the promised continuation of a stable and well-run club.

The situation at Blackburn Rovers opens up a new set of questions about football governance, transparency, the fit and proper person test and the undermining of the Premier League itself. What concerns me and many supporters is the role of Jerome Anderson, a leading football agent, and of Steve Kean, manager and, more significantly, Anderson’s client in the running of the club under the Venky’s governance arrangements.

Following Rothschild’s failed attempt to sell the club, Mr Anderson was brought in to find a new buyer, and found Venky’s. After that takeover, he became an adviser for Venky’s at Blackburn Rovers. In his own words, that involved sleeping and eating at the training ground and advising and helping during the transfer window of 2011. I remind the House that rule H8b of the football agents regulations governs the behaviour of agents and their organisations and prohibits them from having an interest in a club, which includes

“being in a position or having any association that may enable the exercise of a material financial, commercial, administrative, managerial or any other influence over the affairs of the Club whether directly or indirectly and whether formally or informally.”

It could not be clearer.

Anderson has stated on his own website and reported on the Sky Sports website:

“In January 2011 I was requested by the owners to assist the club during that transfer window…At the conclusion of the January 2011 transfer window I ceased to assist Blackburn Rovers Football Club in any capacity and I can confirm that I have not had any role or influence in their transfer policy or any other business of the club whatsoever since that date.”

I wish to draw Members’ attention to a leaked letter signed by the former and respected chairman John Williams, currently employed by Manchester City, his equally able assistant Tom Finn and the finance director of Blackburn Rovers. The letter says:

“Finally, our Football Secretary”

at Blackburn Rovers

“has, this morning, been instructed by SEM”—

the company with which Jerome Anderson is involved—

“to issue a mandate to a third party without any reference or approval from the Board. We are not familiar with the player concerned nor is he one that has been mentioned to us by the Manager. Could you please, therefore, clarify the role of SEM in our transfer policy?”

That letter was sent to the owners last January. I will draw further on its contents later.

Those decisions have led to the resignation of an experienced and highly regarded set of administrators, risking the club’s ability to manage its own affairs. Notable and of grave concern is an agent’s admission that he has been involved in decision making within the club, that that has allegedly involved instructions to the club’s directors to make payments to third parties, and that the manager connected to that agent and given overall responsibility for all affairs at the club—on and off the field and above the board—has a conflict of interest.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Order. May I advise the Gentleman? I need to be careful about privilege. I understand what he is saying, but I am listening carefully. Quoting from published material is fine, and I note the word “allegedly”. If he carries on with caution, I am happy, but I am listening carefully.

[Graham Jones]

Thank you for that advice, Mr Havard. I respect your latitude. The letter has been published in several national newspapers and online, just for clarity.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

It must be true, then.

[Graham Jones]

It is more than alleged; I think it is probably true, as nobody has come out and disputed it.

Clearly, there is a significant risk that Blackburn Rovers will regress rapidly while its owners have little understanding of football and the whole management of the first team and club administration rests with an individual as unqualified and inexperienced as Steve Kean. Mrs Desai, the club’s apparent owner and quasi-decision maker, confirmed in the Lancashire Telegraph that Mr Williams did not get on with manager Steve Kean:

“I know that he did not get along with Steve (Kean) and he had struggled to accept Jerome (Anderson)’s role at the club.”

Ian Battersby, a well-known supporter and local businessman, flew out to meet Venky’s in Pune, India. Blackburn Rovers football club is just one of 170 subsidiaries in the Venky’s group. Each has a business head who reports directly to the Venky’s board. In the case of the Rovers, that appears to be Steve Kean. Ian Battersby said:

“The notion of a board executing the owners’ plans on a day-to-day basis is a complete anathema to them and many of our problems flow from that…We have a sporting director who nobody would know if they were sat next to him, and that’s a high-profile job allegedly responsible for player recruitment. We have a deputy chief executive—but no chief executive—whose effectiveness is, in the circumstances in which he operates, negligible.”

I place on record the manager’s statement that he had an irrevocable confrontation with the outgoing manager and that important questions persist about his involvement, as a client of Jerome Anderson, in a coup to oust the former manager, Sam Allardyce, bypassing the board of directors. None of that serves the club well.

Questions remain whether proper due diligence took place and whether Mr Anderson or his associates had a predetermined managerial change in mind and were interested not in the club’s assets and liabilities, but in first-team managerial contracts. The FA must look into it. What we do know is that the current board tasked with the responsibility of managing the club seems powerless to act in the best interests of the club. Serious questions now have to be asked about the owners’ ability to manage an English premier league club; their awareness of Premier League rules; their future intentions for the club; whether foreign business practices bring the club into disrepute; and whether such practices should be prohibited within the framework of the Football Association Premier League’s fit and proper persons test.

Recent financial accounts have resulted in further destabilisation of the club, and newspaper reports have claimed that the club’s bank, Barclays, has initiated steps to protect its liabilities. Recent club accounts detail losses accrued up to June 2011 of £18.6 million; the previous year’s loss was only £1 million. The club’s value while it is in the English premier league is approximately £40 million. According to newspaper reports, Barclays is protecting its liabilities in the club by reducing credit facilities and discouraging asset sales of high-value players. In other words, the bank is determining transfer policy. That practice is not new. John Williams stated a year ago in his letter to the owners of the club:

“Brian Foreman from Barclays Bank is attending the Liverpool game tomorrow and has asked for a catch up meeting with us before the match. He will inevitably ask about our plans for the transfer window and at the present time not only are the Board unaware of these but it has been made clear that we will not have any input into the strategy. This is unacceptable and not in the best interests of the club.”

Why were Blackburn Rovers purchased by Venky’s? Were they purchased to promote football or to promote chicken burgers? Worryingly, during this period, fees paid to agents have risen approximately threefold. The £475,000 transfer of Ruben Rochina carried an additional agent payment of £1.65 million, which was during Jerome Anderson’s admitted involvement. Despite an alleged defensive injury crisis, an out-of-contract 28-year-old, Bruno Ribeiro—described by the manager as the next Denis Irwin—who had no caps and little top-flight Brazilian experience, was given a three-year contract and has yet to make a single appearance in the team or on the bench. Myles Anderson, who is Jerome Anderson’s son, was brought in despite having made only one appearance in the Scottish league. David Goodwillie, who is, to quote the manager, “the next Wayne Rooney,” was brought in from Scotland.

What has been destructive in this spiralling vortex is a smear campaign by the manager, his agent and other clients, which is aimed at ordinary Blackburn Rovers fans who seek only constructive dialogue with the club on the subject. To my knowledge, there have been no arrests or public disorder during the protests, which have always been conducted with the full consent of the police and dialogue with the club. The protests were suspended for seven matches to facilitate positive discussions, but those discussions have not taken place. Three pre-arranged meetings between the manager and organisers have been cancelled by the manager or by the club, the authority over which lies with the manager.

The Premier League is culpable in allowing the current trend of foreign ownership to continue without suitable safeguards; we have heard about Liverpool, Manchester United and Portsmouth. I welcome the comments of the Select Committee Chair that one can drive a coach and horses through the fit and proper persons test. That is clearly the case. This is coming from a completely different angle from Manchester United and Liverpool, and it should open our eyes to how we deal with football governance matters. As Mr Battersby, the Blackburn businessman, states:

“We hear an awful lot about the sham that is ‘fit and proper’…This is a major industry we are talking about here—it’s worth billions globally and there has to be something akin to licensing of owners. How can someone wing their way into the UK, take ownership of a club and within 12 months destroy a community? The warnings of Portsmouth, Notts County and now Blackburn must be heeded.

If the same had happened at Jaguar or similar, there would have been outrage in the House of Commons and yet we sit and watch this happening. In essence, the Premier League are watching one of their member clubs get savaged and haven’t batted an eyelid. It is nonsense.”

Venky’s management of Blackburn Rovers has raised a number of broader questions about the corporate governance of premier league clubs. The FA must look beyond its current ownership rules at arrangements for licensing prospective owners. Those arrangements must include, as Mr Battersby recommends, stricter compliance over financial strength and track record; the quality and strength of the management team; experience of delivery in the sector; the feasibility of the business plan and strategy; and corporate governance. There would need to be provision for the submission of quarterly or half-yearly accounts in addition to the annual ones. The fit and proper persons test in this case has failed. Dialogue with supporters has failed, because the owners have resisted all communication and have neutralised the board’s involvement.

I conclude with another remark from Mr Battersby:

“137 years of football heritage has been decimated inside 12 months. It is like watching a slow motion car crash.”

[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

16:05

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, in this important debate. We have heard a lot from both sides of the Chamber about the report and about people’s experiences of their local football clubs. It is clear that when football and football clubs fail, fans bear the cost, which is why we take the matter so seriously. Because football plays such a fundamental role in society—football in Britain is an expression of the country in which we live—it is right that Parliament take a view on some of the issues that are highlighted in the report. Those issues affect the whole of society and not simply the administration of a football club or a football competition.

[Mark Field]

I can understand why many in the footballing fraternity might think it is not necessarily Parliament’s place to opine in the way that we are doing. Not only do we have an interest on behalf of our constituents, but we have a fundamental financial interest. The British footballing industry was on its knees during the mid-1980s after a series of disasters, hooliganism and, ultimately, the Bradford City fire, which led to the Taylor report. A huge amount of public money has gone, and continues to go, into the game. That is one of the reasons why it is appropriate for Parliament to have a say on the matter.

[Damian Collins]

I agree with my hon. Friend. When we have foreign ownership and we do not know who the owners are; when we have a largely unregulated transfer market bringing billions of pounds into and out of the country, which is largely unknown and uncontrolled at its source; and when communities bear the cost of the financial failure of a football club and taxpayers bear the loss through unpaid tax bills, Parliament should take an interest. We do not seek to take away someone’s right to run their football club badly. That is beyond the control of Parliament. The report of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the debate have thrown up legitimate public interest concerns, however. The events of the past seven days demonstrate that the Football Association has an obligation to be the moral guardian of the game in this country, not simply the administrator of football.

I am sure that hon. Members support teams in their constituencies at all levels. I am a lifelong supporter of Manchester United, but one of the most exciting football matches I have ever watched was when Hythe Town beat Staines Town last season to qualify for the first round proper of the FA cup for the first time in its history. That was the first time in more than 50 years that a side from the Kent league had qualified. That is a single competition in which a club in the Kent league can compete alongside clubs that are competing in the Champions League. When multiple clubs are playing in multiple formats and competitions, there must be a single governing body that can have some oversight over the whole of football in this country. That can only be the Football Association, which is the guardian of the game in all competitions.

I praise the chairman of the Football Association, David Bernstein, for taking a stand on the John Terry affair. David Bernstein rightly accepted that the captain of the England football team has a position in public life in the country, and millions of sport fans look up to him as a role model. If his position is put into question by a criminal charge that has been made against him, although he is not guilty of that charge, while doubt remains about his role it is not appropriate for him to be captain of the England football team. If the manager of the England football team, Mr Capello, could not accept that ruling, it was right for him to stand aside. Although we might not have wished for the outcome of the past seven days—the removal of the captain and the manager—the course of events was inevitable. It was right for the Football Association to take a moral lead on the case, and I commend it for doing so. There are real financial concerns about the administration of football and clubs in this country, and a real concern about the lack of powerful oversight and intervention. There are many areas of concern, and hon. Members have touched on a good number. I will limit my remarks to three issues—club ownership, the football creditors rule, and player ownership and the player transfer market.

During our inquiry the fact that Leeds United was owned by a trust whose investors were not known was highlighted, together with the fact that Mr Ken Bates was employed by that trust to be chairman of the club, but did not know who the owners—the investors in that trust—were. No one in football in this country believes that Ken Bates did not always control that club. There is no other way in which he could suddenly have completed the purchase of it within days, without any kind of tendering process, and assumed ownership. He blamed the political obsession of the Select Committee, which was simply standing up for the legitimate interest of Leeds United fans to know who owned their club, for its interest in Leeds United. Many hon. Members have spoken about the role of the fit and proper person test. How can that test be applied if we do not know who the person is? That has been a recurrent problem for the football authorities, and shows that the test, which should function as a guardian, works only if the person who is being investigated is the owner, and if that can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

[Graham Jones]

On that note, does the hon. Gentleman think that somehow the fit and proper person test could include stupidity?

[Damian Collins]

The test is designed to make it possible to understand whether someone is a capable administrator, without criminal convictions, but also whether they have no conflicts of interest in the game, such as stakes in other football clubs that might give them a biased view in competition and an unbalanced view in the operation of the transfer market. “Dispatches” on Channel 4 highlighted the case of investors in the far east seeking to invest in British football clubs and taking multiple stakes in them by using different businessmen and personas to make the investments, beyond the football authorities’ ability to track them. That undercover report was an important piece of work, and it highlights some of the issues and the test’s failures.

[Mr Foster]

The hon. Gentleman constantly refers to the fit and proper persons test. Does not that draw attention both to the concern of many hon. Members that football clubs are often in the hands of an individual and to the merits of greater supporter involvement, which would spread the load and the responsibility and would be a more sensible way forward?

[Damian Collins]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend that it is a good thing for supporters to have that interest, but if they do not control the club, and the controlling interest lies with another party, they should have the right to understand who that is, and the source of the finance. That is crucial. I made some inquiries of the Football League about the ownership of Coventry City. It transpired that it is owned by an investment trust—a private equity firm. It is not known who the investors in that trust are. The Football League had to concede to me that to this day it does not know who owns the club.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point and a valid argument. I want to praise the Government, who talk in points 40 to 42 of their response about allowing supporters to have representatives on club boards, but there would be a trigger point. What type of trigger point would he see as tenable, in allowing more clarity and transparency in club boards by allowing the fans in?

[Damian Collins]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I shall come on to my views on the solution to the problem, but many clubs in Coventry City’s position will have a management company—a holding company that runs the club—and a supporters’ trust may have a seat on that board. However, that is just a holding company. The ownership of the club is somewhere else completely, and that management company may not know who the owner is. It may deal with a businessman who represents the owners, but it may not know who the owners are.

I recently had conversations with a businessman who was involved in running Sheffield Wednesday from the moment it went into administration through to the period when it was taken over by Milan Mandaric. He described a series of potential investors coming forward, some of whom used fake names and identities. When non-disclosure agreements were signed, it turned out that the principal investors were based in the far east and were not who they originally seemed to be. The impression is created of a murky world where no one is quite who they say they are. People running clubs in this country who seek to sell them to a foreign investor to raise funds for the club may not know who they are dealing with.

When I wrote to the Football League about Coventry City, I had a reply from Nick Craig, the director of legal affairs, who made a telling point:

“We have for some time expressed our concerns as regards investment vehicles (often offshore) and the issue of the lack of transparency surrounding ownership of them. Indeed we have previously sought assistance from DCMS and HMRC in that respect but to no avail. We are left in a position where we can regulate and seek to require clubs to comply but are reliant on self-declaration with no official means of independent verification.

That the proliferation of offshore investment trusts means we will never always be 100% certain in all cases but we continually assess the appropriateness of our rules in a changing environment.”

There is not very much comfort there for any football fans concerned, because the Football League is saying that if a company is registered offshore and it buys a British football club, it does not have the authority or power to know who owns the club.

The Select Committee report contained a request to the Government for a retrospective examination of the Leeds United case. That would require powers beyond those of the football authorities to inquire what was the source of the finance to purchase the club out of administration, how much Ken Bates paid for it and where the money went, so that we could determine who controlled the club’s source of finance, even if it was impossible to determine who the owners were. The source of finance will take us to the owner of the club.

[Graham Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way, and makes an excellent point, which I want to add to, as well as supporting the Minister’s position. What would the hon. Gentleman say about a club such as Blackburn, however? The board exists, but it is being bypassed; the manager is directly responsible and flies out every month to Pune in India to run the football club. What would happen if the supporters’ trust sat on the Blackburn Rovers board? It now has no role within the club. Is that an issue that concerns the hon. Gentleman? How would he deal with it?

[Damian Collins]

I am grateful for that comment, but I will make that the last intervention that I take, if the House does not mind, as I want to make a few other points. I said at the beginning of my speech that I do not think it is the role of the House or the Government to stop people running a football club badly. It would be difficult to legislate that a club now in private ownership should be majority owned and controlled by the supporters, even if the supporters might want that. As the report says, the Government should—they have stated in their response that they will look at this—make it as easy as possible for supporters’ trusts to be set up, so that such representation exists, where the club wants that.

As to ownership, I do not have a problem with clubs being owned by foreign investors. If people want to spend their money on football in this country to improve facilities and the quality of competition, that should be welcomed. However, there should be a clear register of any individual, with any investment in a football club, no matter how small, and that information should be available. I would push for it to be publicly available, but it should at least be available to the football authorities. In response to what the Football League said to me about Coventry City, if a football body—the Football League, the Premier League or whatever it is—cannot be satisfied about who the owner of a club is, it should stop that club competing in its competition. It should not necessarily be for the football authorities to chase round the world trying to find the owner of a club. If the club cannot demonstrate it to the satisfaction of the competition, it should not be allowed to take part.

A way to carry out that policy would be to request clubs, perhaps as part of the licensing scheme, to allow the football authorities to inquire of their bank what the source of funding is, and who the club’s owners are. The bank should make that information available, and if it cannot or does not, the matter should be passed to the Financial Services Authority. The ownership of clubs is not just a matter of football competition. If money is being channelled in by businessmen whose identity is not known, that should be a matter for the tax and financial authorities, as it would be in any other business.

I want to make a couple of points about the football creditors rule, which other hon. Members have touched on. As the chairman of the Football League said when I questioned him in the Select Committee, there is no moral case to justify the fact that, when a football club goes into administration, the local printer who prints the match programmes or the local building firm that does ground maintenance should get 1p in the pound for its debts, while a football club at the other end of the country or a multi-millionaire footballer get their football debts paid in full. That is wrong. The taxpayer loses too, because owed tax is not covered by the football creditors rule. That is the subject of a court case between HMRC and the football authorities. If that is not resolved, it should be a matter for legislation, and the House should resolve it. There is no moral case for that state of affairs, and we should move on.

On player ownership and player transfers, concerns have been raised that third-party ownership of players, although outlawed in this country, is still part of the game. A magazine, Tipsbladet, in Denmark, published an article this week that raises concerns about third-party ownership. Players are channelled through clubs in Denmark and, ultimately, on to the premier league. Funds that seek to own and control players have a financial interest in moving those players between clubs. That financial interest is greater than the interests of the player, or the club he may go on to on an intermediary basis.

Bloomberg’s news website also raised a concern last week about what it called “letterbox companies”, which are set up for a matter of days to loan money to a football club to purchase a player, and are then closed down almost straight away. It highlighted a case with Porto, in Portugal, where companies set up in this country had loaned money—non-bank lending—to FC Porto to buy players. Those companies were then shut down straight away, making it almost impossible for the authorities to identify where that money had come from.

The flow of money in football is an issue of the utmost importance, and one that we touched on in our report. The football authorities have to get to grips with the matter. The Government should consider it in their response to our report, and in their consideration of the response of the football authorities at the end of the month.

16:20

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) and his Committee on producing such a detailed and comprehensive report on the state of governance in our national game. I am the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary football group, and I associate myself with the comments of other hon. Members about our late friend Alan Keen and all the work that he did.

I am a lifelong football fan, and in the past 20 years since the foundation of the Premier League, English football has undergone a massive transformation. Rather than continually attacking FIFA—I am glad that we have not really spoken too much about the national game, but there has a campaign against FIFA, particularly in the aftermath in December of the Football Association’s failure to secure the World cup, either in 2018 or 2022—we need to examine seriously the governance of the domestic game. There should now be a pledge from both the Football Association and the Premier League to put their houses in order urgently. True fans of the national game have become increasingly dismayed—as we have heard from hon. Members—at the cynical culture of illegal payments, opaque ownership and disregard for the grass roots of the game in recent years, as global TV money has dominated.

As has been said, half, perhaps slightly more, of all premier league clubs are now foreign-owned, and an increasing number of sides in the championship are attracting wealthy investors from overseas. However, as the report points out, a majority of clubs are still owned by a local business man on a philanthropic basis. Foreign ownership itself is not a problem if we have a robust fit and proper person test. Many will recall that Manchester City has not had an easy path in this regard. In 2007, they were bought by the disgraced former Thai Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), Portsmouth had no fewer than four owners in a single season before entering administration in 2009-10. Manchester United and Liverpool have both been subject to highly leveraged buy-outs from US owners. That model is highly risky and is not supported by the vast majority of fans or, indeed, by the Premier League.

There is a risk of chronic overreaching by clubs. I fear that the reckoning—the same can be said for much of the rest of the economy—is yet to come. Under all types of ownership model, this has led to a massive inflation in the cost of running a football club, which has usually impacted most profoundly on loyal, long-standing fans who find themselves priced out.

Asset stripping is highly detrimental. The separation of a football club from the ownership of their ground often spells long-term financial disaster. We have heard that that was the genesis of many of the problems for Wimbledon in 1991. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) is not here, but one of the lessons of the phenomenal success of AFC Wimbledon is that the franchising model need not necessarily be one to which we should aspire. It took eight long years—in the scheme of things, quite a short period—for Wimbledon to move their way right back up that pyramid into the Football League. If there are to be such instances as Milton Keynes—a new town with a large population that is not traditionally served by a nearby football club—I hope that that will be a lesson for the future. Outside the Football League, Darlington have high-profile problems, having fallen into administration only this season. They are now subject to a bid for a community takeover.

It must be acknowledged, as other hon. Members have, that on occasion the football authorities are faced with the choice between allowing a bad owner to complete a takeover, or a club simply no longer existing. Football League clubs tend not to disappear, with the exception of Aldershot 20 years ago. However, often when they lose league status oblivion follows very quickly—one thinks of Maidstone United, Scarborough and Rushden & Diamonds. With that in mind, the Football League, rather than the Premier League, has led the way in recent years in improving the good governance of football in this country. Many measures that began in the Football League have since been adopted across English professional game.

A number of hon. Members have mentioned the owners and directors test, so I will not go over old ground. On players’ wages and the issue of debt, average wage spending per club at the advent of the premier league in 1992-93 was £4.5 million, which was 44% of turnover. That has since risen in the past 20 years to an average of £1.3 billion—68% of turnover. Deloitte and Touche suggests that 60% would be a prudent number. Wage spending is at its most corrosive in the championship, where it amounts to 88% of average club turnover. Championship clubs together made an operating loss of £133 million in 2009-10, and their aggregate debt hit £875 million in summer 2010—£36 million for each club.

Premier league clubs generally make an operating profit until financing and player trading costs are taken into the account. By contrast, each division in the Football League—championship, league one and league two—has collectively lost money. In total, debt across the 92 clubs stands at a £3.5 billion. Those staggering numbers really do put in doubt the future sustainability of our game outside the premier league, with all its wealth in its current format. Football League clubs are a vital pillar in all our communities and they play a vital role in developing young players, not just for our national team, in a professional and competitive environment.

One problem is parachute payments, which make getting into the premiership such a strong financial inducement. The pressure on clubs to succeed is perpetuated by parachute payments, which are paid over a four-year period after a club is relegated from the premier league and are worth £48 million in total. The justification is that it provides insurance to promoted clubs to allow them to be competitive in the premier league. The downside is that clubs have to be in the premiership only one in every five years to have such untold wealth coming their way. It therefore provides a perverse incentive, providing artificial support and allowing clubs to spend money that they have absolutely no hope of raising naturally. That distorts and undermines the integrity of the championship and, by extension, the rest of the football pyramid. There is no provision forcing clubs to use parachute payments to honour existing player contracts, for example, or to pay down debt. They can instead be used, and often are used, to finance the purchase of new players in a winner-takes-all gamble to win promotion.

On financial sustainability, currently, all clubs must include divisional pay clauses in player contracts that indicate what the player would be paid in each division, if he were to play in them, in each term of his contract. A salary cost management protocol was introduced as long ago as 2003 for league two, limiting club spending on player wages to 60% of turnover. That limit was reduced to 55% this season. Clubs provide budgetary information to the league, which is updated as the season progresses. Any player registrations that take clubs beyond the threshold are refused. The protocol has proven successful, with the vast majority of clubs in the division spending less than 45% of turnover on players’ wages. League two’s operating losses fell from £9 million to £8 million in 2009-10. I am very pleased that league one clubs are shadowing the protocol this season, with a 75% limit of turnover in place, although at this juncture there are no sanctions for clubs. Next season, the threshold will reduce to 65% with firm sanctions in place. The limit will fall again in future years.

I understand that the Football League is in discussions with clubs in the championship regarding the introduction of UEFA-style financial fair play measures based on a kind of break-even model. That is much needed if championship clubs are to bear the brunt of some of the premier league-induced wage inflation without the requisite TV money to absorb it.

[Damian Collins]

My hon. Friend mentioned the UEFA scheme. Does he share my concern that a report published by FIFPro this week, based on a study of players in the former Soviet republics in eastern Europe, showed that the salaries of 40% of the players it surveyed were paid not by the clubs that they play for, but by another party?

[Mark Field]

Yes, I share many of those concerns. I suspect, I am afraid, that at some level, even within our own professional game, there are similar problems.

Other hon. Members want to speak, but I hope that I have a few moments to say a little about sporting sanctions, which have caused considerable angst within the footballing community. The Football League pioneered the use of sporting sanctions, with a mandatory 10-point penalty applied to any club that enters administration. I strongly support the sanction, because it protects the integrity of the competitions by ensuring that clubs do not gain a competitive advantage, not just by going through insolvency, but through overspending in the years before that.

I understand why many fans are upset by the sanctions, particularly fans of clubs such as Luton Town and Plymouth Argyle, which have dropped rapidly through the divisions as a result of not just a 10-point penalty, but often more punitive penalties. In a sense, the new owners and loyal, much put-upon supporters find themselves left to pick up the pieces, although they are not responsible for many of those past misdemeanours.

We have not discussed agents’ fees to any great degree today, and there is also the issue of publication. The abolition of the minimum wage 51 years ago and the Bosman ruling, fundamentally, in 1995 have so massively tilted the power away from clubs to the players. It has gone from one terrible extreme of indentured play to the other, where the players have the whip hand. They have so much power that their agents can now extort huge fees. Although it is easy for the footballing fraternity —the FA, the premier league and even the Football League—to accuse agents of being at the core of all these problems, they often have a symbiotic relationship with agents, some of whom may be on their side, as the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) said specifically in relation to Blackburn Rovers, although that applies within many other clubs as well.

I am keenly aware that other hon. Members want to speak. Payments to HMRC have already been discussed by other hon. Members. On FA governance, as we know, the Football Association was created in an Olympian, Victorian age. In fairness to Oxford university, it won the FA cup a few times in the 1880s, which is probably why it still has representation to this day, but clearly this is not a sensible body to go forward as a 21st-century model for running our national game.

Given the commercial explosion over the past couple of decades following the emergence of the Premier League, which I have mentioned, one has to wonder how the FA in its current form can have any influence. In many ways, the Premier League has, again, been complicit in this and has colluded and been happy to allow the FA to take quite a lot of flack for elements of the governance concerns that we have addressed today.

The FA will need to change its culture to understand that it alone is there to enforce the rules and policy agreed by the whole game. The overall direction of football in this country should now have significant input from the Premier League and the Football League—not as a takeover, but as a partnership. Just think how much more successful even a relatively traditional FA could be with more input from the acknowledged day-to-day leaders in the leading tiers of global club football. A change in the culture will see the FA participate alongside the rest of the football family in creating policy with more of a focus on oversight, which is close to all our hearts.

Hon. Members have mentioned having more independent directors. Such directors would have an important role in examining the game’s policies at a board level. More power should be handed to them and to expert executives who will initiate the policies.

The Government are keen to avoid having an independent regulator for our domestic national game. Football must accept that, if many of these proposals are not acted upon, working together with footballing organisations, an independent regulator may be a sanction. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. This subject has probably been a headache for him, knowing that he is, in truth, much more of a professed player of cricket and rugby—more than just a fan—but I suspect that football takes up a huge amount of his time.

This report will play an important role as a stepping-stone to ensuring that the national game, which all hon. Members have close to our hearts, will thrive in the years to come.

16:38

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and that of Mr Havard, the previous Chair, who probably prefers the oval ball, but accepts that the round ball game—the beautiful game—touches all four nations of the United Kingdom. I am delighted that three of those nations have been represented in the debate at some point.

I thank other Committee members. For a football fan, this was a fabulous inquiry. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) was a bit gutted not to be on the Committee at the time. However, he should take credit for having been part of the main inspiration for the inquiry in that seminal debate in Westminster Hall some time ago. I hope that he is proud now to be part of the Committee that was able to put the report to the House for consideration.

There is no question but that football is probably our most successful export. I appreciate that Sepp Blatter thinks that the Chinese invented football, but I firmly believe that it is the English version of the game that has gone around the world. Indeed, we seem to be importers of talent nowadays, but our game is no worse for that. The extent of professional football here goes far beyond anything we saw in Germany, in terms of the number of teams and the quality of football, as the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) mentioned. That is reflected in the fact that we have had such success in European competitions.

Success perhaps eludes the three lions. Of course, we all hope to put that right in 2012 in Poland and Ukraine, and in Brazil in 2014. But as I will mention later, that is one reason why the Committee felt that it was important to do something about football governance.

I will try not to repeat too many things that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) said and I will try to develop a few different points, but I echo his tribute to David Bernstein. I ought to say that I am parliamentary fellow to the FA at the moment, so this is not being done in an attempt to get free tickets for any game, or anything.

I was looking at the evidence from 29 March 2011, when the Committee visited Wembley stadium to take evidence from the FA. At that time I brought up the issue of governance and Fabio Capello’s contract. All I can say is that David Bernstein’s responses that day gave me confidence, as did his actions, in respect of exactly what happened with the captaincy of England—and in the situation in the past 24 hours.

David Bernstein has persuaded the council, the shareholders and other board members to bring on two new independent non-executive directors. That has happened and already they are making a contribution to the board. Give credit where it is due, despite the fact that he is a Manchester City fan. As we all know, we can be very tribal in the main Chamber, but we are all here for the greater good of football.

[Steve Rotheram]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the FA still needs to do more to become fully inclusive? An FA board needs to reflect all society and include, for instance, people from different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds and minority ethnic groups and perhaps even women.

[Dr Coffey]

Of course, one of the new independent directors is a woman, which was a little bit of a surprise, but I was delighted that a lady with a pedigree at Millwall is already making a contribution at the highest level of the game. Kelly Simmons is in charge of the national game and does a great job working with communities.

A lot has been said about the ownership of football clubs and financial fair play. I was keen to ensure that the model of a significant owner was not condemned as a particularly bad thing. I say that because that is one reason why we are able to have so many clubs throughout the country. I do not want to come across as patronising, because I was born in Wigan and grew up in Liverpool and have always believed that it was working man’s philanthropy. Others ensure that their theatre keeps going or donate to the Royal Opera House and there is no greater thing than to keep a local football team going. I do not pretend to be an Ipswich fan. I always want them to do well. But whether it is Marcus Evans at Ipswich Town or the infamous Delia Smith, saying, “Come on, let’s be having you,” up at Norwich, it is important that people invest in something that is critical to their community.

Everyone is worried that the huge amounts of money coming in have skewed the field somewhat, and financial fair play will go a long way towards addressing that. I am impressed that the owners of Manchester City have basically put equity into their finance, as opposed to loans—that is a good thing—and it has to some extent shaken up the premier league. However, when the rules are introduced we must ensure that there are no loopholes, which we saw in Germany, when okay money has not been invested—a €100 million sponsorship deal for a particular team was the way of getting money in, and it went straight through to the profit and loss.

[Damian Collins]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. She is referring to the loan made by Gazprom to Schalke. Such informal financial arrangements might, potentially, confer some influence over the running of the club, which people could find concerning.

[Dr Coffey]

That might well be true, but I do not pretend to speak on behalf of Schalke. There are, however, some interesting, tidying things to be done, which financial fair play needs to take account of.

The involvement of supporters was part of the coalition agreement. Before the previous election, the three main political parties each had an element on how to get supporters more involved. Supporters Direct has been working hard to see how supporters can get involved. I support its bronze-level approach of ensuring that every team has a liaison officer or a trust, so that there is appropriate interaction with the club. To be honest, supporters having a veto on the sale of assets is a little unrealistic, although many will take advantage of the Localism Act 2011 and designate certain places as community assets, which might be a useful step. We have also seen fans getting together and buying their club—most recently in Wrexham, where a lot of my family live and where I fought the election in 2005. That is something to be welcomed, to keep it afloat.

Some interesting points have been made. Someone wrote to me from Arsenal, concerned about the illiquid market, although there is a supporters’ trust and a “fanshare” scheme. I cannot necessarily come up with a solution, and it might just be the nature of trying to raise finance in these times. Indeed, Spurs was taken off the stock market last month, because of the restrictions on how to get additional investment into the club. Something that the Government can easily do, therefore, which I am sure the Minister will confirm, is to amend the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Supporters’ trusts could then come together, whether through industrial and provident societies or community interest companies, and get over those silly bureaucratic hurdles, which were not meant for such community organisations.

Other colleagues have already talked about licensing. I must admit that the whole concept seems contrary to classic English law. Under the Napoleonic civil code, on which most continental law is based, people are permitted to do something—that is how the legal basis operates—whereas our basis is that people can do anything they like unless we legislate to say that they cannot. Licensing would change that, and at first I was a little unsure about it, but eventually I was persuaded that it is the right thing to do to provide stability in the football family. The Premier League and the Football League have already moved considerably to try to address some such points in their terms of practice, whether paying PAYE and national insurance on time or ensuring enough liquidity to operate for the next 12 months. The formality that we saw in the German league probably is appropriate and should put fans’ minds at rest.

We are interested, however, in the future and in the money that sometimes struggles to get down to the grass roots. The 50:50 rule has already been mentioned, and my understanding is that the national board are happy to leave it at that—I suggest leaving that option open. The investment that has been put into St George’s Park is fantastic. I was lucky enough to go up there only this week to see it. I cannot believe that it will open in September—perhaps I am too used to debating Network Rail and things taking a year and an eternity to be done. That is a genuine vision of how to put in place the coaching that we desperately need. Again looking across to Germany, after it had a disaster in Euro 2000, it set about a 10-year plan, which has proved rewarding. I pay tribute to David Sheepshanks, a former member of the FA board. He happens to be a constituent of mine, but credit is due to him for taking that vision along and making it a reality. Long may that continue.

Coming on to the structure of the FA, as has been explained we have the FA council, the shareholders and the board. Credit is due again for the two non-executives, which is quite a change of view by Mr Roger Burden, who back in March last year was yet to be persuaded of the case for two independent directors. I am pleased that he changed his mind and with the vote in favour. The right hon. Member for Bath has already mentioned the committee structure. Our recommendation is imperative: that all committees should report to the board, rather than to a mixture of the board and the council, simply because we end up with the board effectively not being able to run the FA even though it has been given that direction by the council. That change is imperative, and I hope that the FA council will take it firmly on board.

Coming on to other things such as the proposal for term limits, I understand that many felt that that was an attack on people who are very good for football. To be blunt, such people have been there in all weathers, painting the lines, coaching the young kids and running the teams, out there in the freezing cold, and they will be thinking, “Why is a bunch of MPs telling us that we can’t stay on our council?” It is not about that. Absolutely, those people deserve full recognition; I have been out with Suffolk FA and local community clubs, and football would not survive without them.

If only the professional game were involved, we would not have that same emotional connection. However, given the role of the council, changeover of people is appropriate for governance. The reason we came up with 10 years was simply that the chairmanship of a Select Committee in this place is two terms of five-year Parliaments. That is where it came from—[Interruption.] We talked about it, didn’t we? We thought about how to ensure changes of governance as well as continuity, helping the organisation to look at itself. I understand fully that many people rightly deserve a little reward once they have been serving the FA for some time as a volunteer, and that should continue, but fresh blood is also useful. Likewise, older or longer-standing Members of the House hopefully recognise the value of change at an election, when we get new Members.

On that note, although we have had some interesting discussion, such as a spat—dare I say it—about Milton Keynes or Wimbledon, the debate shows the strong emotion that we have about our beautiful game, our national game. I hope that football fans at the FA recognise the opportunity to put our game on an even better footing. Long may the celebrations continue for Euro 2012.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. I will call Mr Bingham next, then the two Front-Bench spokesmen. I understand that Mr Whittingdale may wish to make a few closing comments. As they say, do the math, please.

16:48

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I shall attempt to be as brief as possible. As ever when speaking last in such debates, a lot of things I wanted to say have already been said.

Football has seen great changes over the past 20 or 30 years: the advent of the premier league; the European championships in England in 1996, which I remember invigorating the nation with football; the Bosman ruling; pay-per-view television; and subscription television. Those changes have revolutionised the game. There has been an explosion in transfer fees, players’ wages, admission costs and corporate hospitality. The beautiful game of yesteryear has very much become the commercial leviathan of today.

The days when the chairmen used to count the gate receipts around a table after the match are long gone; they now deal in reaping the best sponsorship deals, the sale of shirts, negotiating image rights or perhaps preparing the prawn sandwiches so beloved by Roy Keane over at Old Trafford—the list goes on. I may be appearing to paint a rosy picture of halcyon days, with baggy shorts, flat caps, Stanley Matthews galloping down the line—I am a little disappointed that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) is no longer present to intervene about Stoke City—or George Best swerving around defenders.

I am not implying that things are not what they were—the game has been improved immeasurably in the past few years. It is a faster game, it is wider and with a more inclusive audience. Indeed, even Mrs Bingham has been known to go to the odd game in the past. We have not talked about the growth of ladies’ football—there has been phenomenal growth up and down the country. In addition, modern football stadiums are much better than the ones that we used to have. Even someone of my tender years remembers the old football grounds. People were jammed into them, and they had inadequate toilet facilities and so on. I remember going to the last game at the old Wembley stadium and thinking how old and archaic it looked compared with the new and modern grounds. [Interruption.] I cannot comment on Bath City. I have to admit that I have never been to Bath.

The point that I am trying to make is that football has changed immeasurably from what it used to be. Apart from the basic rules of the game—give or take tweaks to the offside rule and one or two other things—it is a completely different business from what it used to be. Many of the changes have been for the better, but the question that I ask is whether they have brought it closer to the football fan, the man in the street, the supporter. It is still the beautiful game, but is it still the people’s game? Some may say that it is not, but it is still our national sport. As we have heard, it is watched by thousands of people each week, yet the distance between the players and clubs and the fans seems to have grown larger than ever.

The Select Committee report is a fabulous piece of work. I wish that I were a member of the Select Committee, because being involved in this inquiry would have been a labour of love for me. The report makes many recommendations, but one that caught my eye was the one in which it urged more involvement by clubs with supporters, through trusts or consortiums. The Government have agreed with that. Indeed, the Government response is equally good: they state their belief that football clubs are stronger when they have supporters

“at the heart of the club”.

I agree with that.

I would not seek to draw like-for-like comparisons between non-league football and the heady heights of the premier league. A club such as Manchester United cannot replicate the homely atmosphere of somewhere such as Buxton football club in my constituency, but I do look at local non-league clubs and the way they work. I am a particular fan of non-league football, sad as that may be. I used to be on the committee at Buxton. I think that I have been watching the team since 1971. The team plays at what is reputed to be the highest football ground in England—I can promise that it is one of the coldest, particularly at this time of year.

We also have New Mills football club and Glossop North End. Glossop is one of the oldest football clubs in the country. It is a former member of the first division. If Sir Roger will permit me a little self-indulgence—I do have an eye on the clock—I will tell hon. Members that it was formerly chaired by Sir Samuel Hill-Wood, one of my predecessors as Member of Parliament for High Peak. To this day, his family are still involved in football. His grandson is Peter Hill-Wood, the chairman of Arsenal. His grandfather left Glossop when they were relegated, and came down to Arsenal. Arsenal’s fortunes went one way—and Glossop’s have not quite gone the same way as Arsenal.

All those clubs have people at their heart. Many people work in a voluntary capacity, but they are also at board level. We have heard hon. Members today talk about people sweeping car parks, selling programmes and so on. That supporter involvement creates a strong club with a happy atmosphere. When Glossop reached the final of the FA vase in 2009, the whole town was gripped by it. When the team came back on an open-top bus, it was just like Manchester United coming back from Wembley—the whole town came out. Unfortunately, we did not win the cup—we lost—but even going down to the final we had the Glossop special. Who remembers the old football special trains? We had a huge train going from Glossop. I had been on the train for two hours and I was further from Wembley than I was when I started. The whole atmosphere grabbed the town.

That is the power of football when it embraces the supporters and makes them feel that they have a stake in and are part of their club. We do not say that football supporters should completely own every club; we are talking about involvement. By necessity, non-league clubs are leading the way. They are showing the premier league and the other big clubs what can be done. I understand that it is impossible to recreate that at the big clubs, but if the supporters had some representation on the boards, they would feel that their voice was being heard. They would have a say in the direction of their club. Above all, they would have that sense of ownership of the club. The pride that people feel in their local club would be fostered in the big clubs.

I have been as brief as possible. I congratulate the members of the Select Committee. This is a great report, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. We in the House read many reports. With some of them, the pages do not turn quite as quickly as they did with this one—it is a thumping good read. I support the recommendation for more supporter involvement in clubs. I urge the FA to take on board the report’s recommendations and to get on with it, but please, can we get an England manager by next week first?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his forbearance.

16:54

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Select Committee on the report. I join the Chair of the Committee in the tribute that he paid to our friend and former colleague, Alan Keen. I believe that our former colleague David Cairns was also involved in the inquiry when it started, although sadly he passed away before the report was written.

This is an extensive and detailed report on the future governance of football. It would have been better if we could have had this debate in the full knowledge of the response of the Football Association, but given what has gone on over the last couple of weeks in football, it has given us an opportunity at least to pass some comment on what has been going on. For my part, I pay tribute to the Football Association for showing strong leadership on these issues and particularly on the issue of racism in football. Its leadership has been exemplary. The international football bodies could learn from the way the FA has dealt with that issue. It has acted in the best interests of football, and I sincerely wish it all the best in selecting the best replacement as England manager. If that means that the FA has to take time in doing it and allow people to finish current contracts, it should be given that time to do what is in the best interests of the England football team.

This report and debate give us an opportunity at least to set out the will of Parliament to the Football Association ahead of its response to the report. They allow us to say what we feel about football governance and what we think the FA should respond to. We all have a responsibility to face up to the many challenges that the report highlights. That applies to us all, from the FA at the top, through its executive and the council, to the county FAs. I say to the people in those particular bodies that they have to look to themselves to review the vested interests highlighted in the report, because unless all of us together, as one community of people who love football, are prepared to take on the issue of change in the governance of football, the changes that we need will not come about. It will also require the other governing bodies, the Premier League, the Football League, club chairmen, managers, players, the dreaded agents and, of course, the fans. All of us together have an opportunity to set out a course that will resolve the problems that face our national game. We can begin to work together to take on the tough choices over the future of governance and finance to democratise our game and bring it closer to the fans.

Football is our national game because it is played in every community the length and breadth of the country. Football teams are part of the communities in which they are based, whether it is Manchester United, at the very top of the game—it is one of the biggest and most highly recognised clubs in the world—or Darlington, in the conference league, which is struggling to survive on what is, frankly, a pittance compared with what is paid to a premier league agent, player or manager or the receipts that those clubs get from TV rights. Darlington was saved from complete closure only by a couple of fans, who at the last minute were able to raise £50,000 to buy more time to save the club. Without them, there would be no club to save.

I spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) yesterday about the fight to save Darlington football club. The reason why she is not here speaking on behalf of her local community is that she has had to return to Darlington to try to bring together all the different parts of her community that are fighting to save Darlington football club. I urge everyone here to get behind her and the local community—those people who bought that extra time to try to save Darlington football club. Everyone needs to work together in the best interests of the club. Something that we can do here today with the debate and the response to the Select Committee’s excellent report is to put the case for change that will prevent a situation like the one that has affected Darlington football club from arising again.

One of the best examples that I can point to of a local community-based football club is AFC Wimbledon. If we consider its history, notwithstanding the speech from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster)—I make no comment on Milton Keynes Dons or any criticism whatever; I wish them all the best, except for when they are playing Millwall—we have a club that started from scratch in the local community. When Wimbledon moved to Milton Keynes, it virtually just moved the management structure and a bank account—what was left in it, that is—but the heart and soul of the club clearly stayed with the local community, which exemplifies my point about football clubs being part of their community. We have a remarkable story from what was left of the club: five promotions in nine years and back in the Football League. That just shows what fans can achieve when they work together to support their club and to help in its management and running.

Even some of the mighty clubs are vulnerable in this current climate. We have heard about Leeds United—I will not dwell on it—and Portsmouth. Their experiences testify to some of the pitfalls in football today. Even Manchester United is not beyond controversy over its finances. The green and gold campaign is not just about a dispute with the club’s current owners, but came about because many fans were shocked to discover that, despite a very successful season in 2009, their club would have been in deficit had it not been for the sale of Cristiano Ronaldo for £81 million. Manchester United Supporters Trust is the biggest in the world. Who is to say that even the mighty, internationally recognised Manchester United might not end up a fans’ co-operative some day in the future? If it can happen to Manchester United, why not to other clubs?

The Spirit of Shankly is another group of supporters who were in dispute with the then owners of their club. Its ultimate aspiration, which is still on its website, is to own Liverpool football club. Recently, we have seen the dispute between Chelsea fans, who hold the ownership of Chelsea football club, and the owners, who want to get that ownership back and possibly move the club.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) for her contribution to the debate. I was alarmed to hear that the administrator would not speak to the local community. I would like to know what the Football League is doing to ensure that the administrator talks to the local community and the fans about trying to save the club.

The problems at Portsmouth are an example of where things are going horribly wrong in our game. Mr Antonov’s bank, Bankas Snoras—I have not made up that name—applied in 2006 to operate banks in the UK, but was turned down by the Financial Services Authority. It was suggested that the bank had repeatedly given incomplete and inaccurate answers to the FSA. The FSA’s website states:

“Bankas Snoras was likely to fail to deal with the FSA in an open and co-operative way.”

Yet in 2011, Mr Antonov was allowed to take over Portsmouth football club. If the FSA had that degree of concern about the financial matters of this individual, it must have been written large for others to ask questions about his suitability to own one of our large football clubs.

Such a case highlights our concerns that due diligence is not taking place and that there are not sufficient fit and proper person tests. Something should have alerted the Football League or the FA to that person’s history, and they should have considered whether the purchase was in the best interests of the club or the game. I do not make that point to ask for an inquiry or to blame somebody for that decision, but we have the right to demand that the governing bodies go back and look at those cases. They should put their heads together and learn from such experiences. They should establish a set of criteria that will try to prevent such sales from happening again.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) made a powerful contribution about Blackburn and vividly described the gaping holes in the administration of our national game. He set out how one of the biggest clubs in the premier league fell foul of the financial regulations and the investigations that are carried out by our governing bodies prior to people taking over clubs.

As the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) said, under the current regime it is too easy for people to hide the real owners of our football clubs. It is coming out loud and clear from this debate today that that is simply not acceptable.

The report is unequivocal in its condemnation of the issues relating to club ownership. It referred to “startlingly poor business practices” and “unacceptably low” levels of transparency. It is clear that football has begun to move in the right direction to protect the future integrity of the game, but more needs to be done. The UEFA financial fair play regime is a step in the right direction, but we need to remind ourselves, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) pointed out, that 56% of debt that is held by football clubs in Europe is held by our Premier League.

The pursuit of survival in the top flight is forcing clubs to over-extend themselves. The slightest hiccup in their cash flow, and they are in serious difficulties. Meanwhile, those clubs with owners with seemingly bottomless pits of wealth can be run with eye-wateringly high losses, which is simply not sustainable. Although we cannot resolve this matter overnight, our debate today, the Select Committee report and the responses from football’s governing body can make a start on addressing the problems that we face. Too many clubs hit a financial brick wall when they run out of money or simply when their financial backers run out. We must move to a system in which clubs have to balance their books, otherwise the current form of our game will not survive.

Every club has links with its local community. Every Member present can provide examples of their clubs doing excellent work within the local community. They may be dealing with young people or trying to tackle antisocial behaviour. I am not just talking about Football League clubs, but clubs at much lower levels. Indeed, clubs at the lowest level have armies of volunteers who go out every Sunday morning or Saturday afternoon to run the line, organise football matches and engage hundreds of thousands of young people up and down the country. Football is right at the heart of our community and something that we all hold in high regard.

It is also members of the local communities who gather outside football clubs when those clubs are in trouble. Who commits their hard-earned cash to save their club? It is always the dedicated fans from the local communities. They are the ones who desperately fight for the survival of their clubs when the chairman or executives have long gone. They do that not just because they feel passionate about their teams, but because of the place that football occupies in the heart of communities up and down the country—from the local pub team to the professional clubs. Fans respect the work that their local clubs carry out in the community, and it is at the heart of what they want from their clubs in the future. From supporters’ trusts to fans’ representative bodies, such as Supporters Direct, the common desire to enhance links between clubs and local communities is right at the heart of what they want to achieve. Fans are the community and they are the future of the clubs; they are fans at the professional grounds and they are the coaches and managers at the lower levels of the game. It is essential that everyone at every level of football respects that fact. Fans are looking to the sports governing bodies to give them more influence over their clubs, with a licensing system that is regulated from above, from the FA down, but is monitored by fans who can be the eyes and ears of the system, and police it at local level. For that, they need access to information, and resources.

[Steve Rotheram]

On access to information, people are probably aware that Everton football club and its supporters are going through a troubled time. Everton football group—Trust Everton—is trying to raise money to purchase Everton’s training ground at Finch Farm. If the FA adapted appropriately, and gave power to supporters, they could access the very information that they need to help their own football club.

[Clive Efford]

That is absolutely right. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. What we want from governing bodies, who support Supporters Direct, is not just to hold meetings when fans can investigate decision-making processes at their club, and the decisions made, but the opportunity to interrogate the board members. If they identify something that is going wrong, they should have the means to raise that at the most appropriate level. We are not asking just for a fan on the board, or for a meeting every year when fans can come along and ask questions. We want to know what the governing bodies will do and how they will respond when fans ask questions and receive answers that cause them concern. If we do not empower fans, and allow them to investigate the sort of things that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn described about Blackburn, how will we ever have an early-warning system? The fans are the early-warning system to tell us what is going wrong at a club.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Guisborough Town football club in my constituency—I am its president—has an excellent supporters group network. I am also a fan of Middlesbrough football club, which has a disabled supporters association, an official supporters club, and Middlesbrough Supporters South, which organised an event last night with parmos provided to make sure that exiled Teessiders had some food and fare after the Sunderland game. For all those good intentions and good endeavours, paragraph 37 of the Government’s response states that consideration will be given to the establishment of

“an informal expert group to report on the degree to which there are other issues that create genuine barriers and to provide recommendations for practical action”,

which would allow groups to make informative and informed decisions, and to be able to see what is happening at their club.

[Clive Efford]

That is absolutely right, and we need a mechanism so that the FA, the Premier League and the Football League can set up a system whereby they can hear the voice of those people at that level, and take action when necessary and when that comes under their jurisdiction.

Finally, I want to consider the role of agents and their influence on the game. That was highlighted in recent court cases, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn. In the premier league last year, more than £70 million was paid in agents’ fees, but only £10 million goes to grass-roots football from the Football Association. That cannot continue. In the Football League, the figure was £16.7 million. I know that action is being taken following the Stevens report, which was published in 2007, and some work has been done to tighten up the activities of agents, but those figures are not justifiable. They cannot continue, and more must be done to restrict agents’ activities, and the malign influence that they still have on the game. We must address that factor in our game.

Paragraph 254 of section 8 of the report states;

“There is a need for a strong FA”.

There is a need for a strong and robust response from the Football Association to the issues that have been highlighted in today’s debate, and in the Select Committee’s report. I hope that its shows the same strength that it has shown in the response to the issues that have occurred in the last couple of weeks. I sincerely look forward to reading its response.

17:15

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

Without wishing to disappoint anyone, I have a horrid feeling that the eyes of the football world may not be on Westminster Hall this afternoon in view of what is happening elsewhere, but this is a timely moment to debate the report. I want to join others in paying tribute to Alan Keen and David Cairns. I knew Alan Keen very well. I was not a good enough footballer to play football with him, but I played cricket and hockey with him for parliamentary sides. He played hockey in rather the same way as he played football, and I think that in his mind the two games were interchangeable. He was a fabulous man, and a great sports fan.

I thank the Select Committee for its report, and pay tribute to its Chairman on the way he conducted the inquiry. Football is an emotive topic, and there are strong views on almost every side, so it is not always easy to pilot the way through those choppy waters. However, at the end of the process the Select Committee produced an excellent report and gave us a fantastic basis for moving forward.

The debate has been long running. It has been going on for just less than 20 years, through the football task force, the Burns review, and the exchange of letters that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) undertook. I think there is a real desire—there certainly is here, and I hope that there is in the football world—to bring the matter to a conclusion. We do not want to be having these debates in a couple of years’ time. It is important for the footballing world to realise that this is an opportunity for the football authorities—the FA, the Premier League and the Football League—to come together, work together, and then present the Government and Parliament with a solution. I very much hope that they will respond positively by the end of this month.

I absolutely share the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), the Select Committee Chairman, but the football authorities must be left in no doubt that if they do not step up to the mark, we will legislate. It will be difficult to find time for primary legislation in the next Session in view of what else is going on, but if we do not achieve that, we can certainly do so beyond it, and there will be opportunities through private Members’ Bills.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

The Minister will have plenty of volunteers to help.

[Hugh Robertson]

I hope that the football authorities will step up to the plate and produce the right response at the end of the month, but if they do not do so, I suspect that the next stage will be for us to hand the formal consultation back to the Select Committee and to get it to look over it and then to seek a recommendation, if necessary, to go to legislation from there. I am keen to do that not only to recognise the Committee’s contribution to the matter, but because it is important that a clear message goes out to the football authorities that there is cross-party support for that, and that it is not a party political issue.

I will quickly run through some of the contributions from individual Members before concluding. The Chairman of the Select Committee spoke, as always, wisely, and is absolutely right that the core issue of the debate is reasserting the FA’s role as football’s governing body. There is a thought that it is some sort of representative organisation with power flowing up from the bottom. That is not my wish; it is not how other sports work, and I do not think that that is the way effective governing bodies work. The FA needs to have control of the national game.

I share the Committee Chairman’s desire to see a board of 10. We normally say that for good governance principles throughout sport we like boards to be between eight and 12, so 10 is perfect. It should have a much better mix of independent expertise, and represent the constituent interests in the game. In that way, the expertise of people who have had a lifetime of involvement in the game can be brought together with people outside who have independent expertise.

The reform of the council is important, as the Committee’s Chairman has said. It is there to be a parliament; it is not an executive body. He is right that the principle of financial fair play should underpin the licence. The full implications of the European ruling are as yet unclear. Lawyers are working on that issue and he is right to say that it will have an impact. What he and other hon. Members have said about supporters’ ownership is what we want to achieve. It is a spectrum with a dedicated fan or supporter liaison officer at one end, and supporters who sit on the board at the other. Different solutions will work in different ways for different clubs, but the current situation is clearly some way from where it ought to be.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram)—perhaps I should say the hon. Member for Everton and Liverpool football clubs—spoke passionately as always. He is right to concentrate on the make-up of football boards. Until we get right the corporate governance at the top of the game, little else will be achieved.

The right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) was right to speak powerfully about the importance of financial fair play, governance and licensing, and he will have an important role in moving forward the debate on supporters. The work that the Deputy Prime Minister is doing on shareholder involvement will be key to unlocking that issue. As well as encouraging football clubs to do something, we must encourage owners to make available more of their shares for supporters’ groups to buy. How we do that will be a key part of unlocking the debate.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), quite properly, paid tribute to the work of Supporters Direct, and I pay tribute to the work that he did during his time at Fulham. He is right to emphasise the crucial link between a club and its ground. Selling grounds is not always bad, but often it is, and the hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to that issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who was speaking in the main Chamber a moment ago, was right to congratulate her newly formed supporters trust. I wish her well in her discussions with HMRC. I agree that a community buy-out would be an exciting new chapter for her club.

I am not sure whether I should intervene in the private dispute between Wimbledon and Milton Keynes, except to pay tribute to the excellent community work done by both clubs involved. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and I discussed the matter at some length in a recent Adjournment debate. I do not know enough about Blackburn football club or its owners, or indeed about chicken burgers, to comment at any length, but the situation described by the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) is cause for concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) made a powerful case for reform. No one would doubt the veracity of his remark that if we are to have a fit and proper person test, we need to know the person involved, and we should pick up on that in the new licensing proposals.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) was right to draw attention to the importance of wages. I had not heard the figure of 60% of turnover, but it seems prudent. When one considers that that figure is 88% in the Football League—I think that was the figure given—one understands why, when asked what he thought was its biggest problem, its chairman simply replied: “Debt.” My hon. Friend also asked about an independent regulator for football. I think that the Committee considered that, although it is not something on which we are consulting at this stage—I hope that the Chairman of the Committee will correct me if I am wrong.

I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) as a parliamentary fellow for the FA. She is right to draw attention to the excellent work done by David Sheepshanks at St George’s Park. There are always as many reasons to be cheerful about English football as there are to be miserable, and one of the great developments of the next few years will be the introduction of St George’s Park, and the way that it will turbo-charge the production of coaches and officials in the game at grass-roots level. It is an extraordinarily exciting development.

My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) spoke powerfully in favour of supporters’ representation. He must be the only person from my 10 years in the House who has described a Select Committee report as a thumping good read—a great tribute to the Committee’s Chairman. I thank the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) for his contribution. As I said earlier, cross-party support is vital, and like him, I send my best wishes to those hoping to save Darlington football club.

We await a response from the football authorities by 29 February. So far, their approach has been encouraging and they have worked together constructively. I hope that they will produce something that will allow us to move on by the end of the month. It is fair to warn people that this is a complicated subject involving many different views and passions that are running high. If we are to achieve a solution by consensus—I hope we do—we will need a bit of compromise and give and take from all sides.

I feel that good progress has been made on a licensing system. The principle is that an overall licensing system will be held by the FA, with a degree of subsidiarity to individual leagues. Progress has been made on tidying up the work of the council and shareholders, but reform of the board is proving more difficult.

[Clive Efford]

I wanted to say that there is no quick fix. This is a huge problem that has grown up over many years, mainly since the creation of the Premier League. It is something that will take time to fix, and we must work together consistently on that.

[Hugh Robertson]

I thank the shadow Minister for those remarks. If anyone has any doubt about whether something as arcane as a board is important to the process, they should consider that if this inquiry is about anything, it is about governance and the way that the game is run. The FA board is crucial. I am delighted by the introduction of the two independent non-executive directors. In the short time that they have held their posts they have already made a considerable impact, including on events in recent days. For the outside world, however, reform of the board is emblematic of the process. Crucially, if one looks at the Committee’s report, unless the board is reformed and the FA has a proper system of corporate governance, it becomes difficult to achieve a great number of the other things that lie further down the stream.

I will hand the debate back to the Chairman of the Committee for the final few minutes. Once again I thank him for his leadership and the Committee for its report. We are committed to this process, and I hope that by the end of the month we will have the right response from the football authorities. They should be in no doubt that if such a response does not arrive, the House will legislate, although I hope that things will not come to that. I hope that through the process under way we will see long-term and systemic change in our national game.

17:27

[Mr Whittingdale]

With the leave of the House, I will make one or two brief comments. One of the pleasures of chairing the Culture, Media and Sport Committee is that although the topics that we examine may not be at the centre of political debate, they often involve things that people talk about in living rooms, pubs and cafés. No subject fits that description more than the one we have debated this afternoon. We have heard passionate contributions from across the Chamber. Hon. Members have mentioned their own clubs, and there was an entertaining discussion between the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster). We are all agreed, however, that at least we have two good football clubs, so progress is being made.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) and the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) made more worrying contributions that illustrate some of the problems of individual clubs. Passion for the game was shown by my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) and for High Peak (Andrew Bingham), and by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex). There were also contributions from other members of the Committee, and from the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) who has asked me to say in the short time available that the chairman of Bath City football club is a woman—Manda Rigby—so progress is being made.

We discussed earlier whether it would have been better to wait for the response from the FA, and then debate the proposals. It helps, however, that three weeks remain before the Minister’s deadline, and whatever the differences in the views expressed this afternoon, I am gratified that the recommendations contained in the report have received unanimous support. I hope that that will send a strong message to the FA that it has three weeks to come up with serious proposals that meet the objectives that we have set for reform. I would prefer it if the Government do not have to legislate, as, I suspect, would the Minister. Nevertheless, he has made it clear that he will legislate if necessary, and for that I am grateful. I thank both Front-Bench spokesmen for that strong message.

Question put and agreed to.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Thursday 9th February 2012 Written Statements

Thursday 9 February 2012

EU Informal Competitiveness Council

Thursday 9th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, (Baroness Wilcox) has today made the following statement:

The Informal EU Competitiveness Council took place in Copenhagen on 2-3 February 2012. I represented the UK on both days of the Council. A summary of those discussions follows.

The research session of the Council on 2 February was preceded by a conference on 1 February, attended by BIS officials, discussing informally the structure of the Horizon 2020 programme. This included three plenary sessions on “Excellent Science”, “Industrial Leadership” and “Societal Challenges”.

The research Council then began on the 2 February, hosted by Danish Minister for Research, Innovation and Higher Education, Morten Østergaard. There were presentations from EU Commissioners Geoghegan-Quinn and Hahn on Commission proposals on Horizon 2020, followed by three plenary sessions centring on three of the key challenges Horizon 2020 must address. These are: improving complementariness with other EU programmes (principally structural and cohesion funds); simplifying rules of participation; and bridging the “valley of death” between basic science and commercialisation.

I attended the third session regarding the gap between basic science and commercialisation. I intervened to press for a stronger focus on the successful exploitation of research, and for support for innovation to be embedded throughout Horizon 2020. I also pressed the Commission to come forward with more detailed proposals for pan-European venture capital support and a version of the small business research initiative. Among the other workshops, member states pressed for more clarity on the link between Horizon 2020 and structural and cohesion funds, and for more ambitious plans for simplification.

The Industry and Internal Market Council followed on 3 February. This was hosted by the Danish Minister for Business and Growth, Ole Sohn and was focused on the digital single market. Minister Sohn opened the Council with a speech setting out six current and upcoming dossiers which should help the digital single market reach its full potential; e-payments, e-invoicing, e-procurement, common IT standards, the e-signatures package and the alternative dispute resolution. This was followed by speeches from Michel Barnier and Neelie Kroes, acting in their capacities as Commissioners for Internal Market and Services, and the Digital Agenda respectively.

Two workshops were then held focusing on both supply and demand in the digital single market. The main conclusion from the supply workshop was that it is imperative to boost the trust of consumers when ordering online. From the demand workshop, it emerged that the mutual recognition of e-signatures is crucial to improving e-invoicing, and that e-billing systems should be accessible across EU borders.

Coastal Regeneration

Thursday 9th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

I am today announcing the launch of the Government’s “Coastal Communities Fund” which will allow seaside towns to seize the opportunity to boost economic growth along our coast. This fund was first announced by the Chief Secretary for the Treasury in July 2011 and I am now publishing the prospectus which sets out the delivery arrangements for the fund and the criteria that will be used to assess bids.

The fund will be equal to 50% of the revenues generated by the Crown Estate’s marine assets. The fund is UK-wide, with allocations to the devolved Administrations on the basis of revenue generated by the Crown Estate’s marine assets. The devolved Administrations will have country specific boards who will work with the Big Lottery Fund to deliver this fund on the ground. In 2012 the fund will be worth £23.7 million, and the allocations will be:

England—£18.2 million

Scotland—£3.9million (Highlands and Islands—£1.85 million. Rest of Scotland—£2.05 million)

Wales—£1.15 million

Northern Ireland—£0.45 million

Coastal towns often missed out on the economic growth of the past decade that centered on London. Smaller seaside towns are also more reliant on the tourist trade and retirement and lack the more diverse economic base of many larger towns.

Seaside towns have shown they can build stronger, more diverse economies when given the chance. This fund will give them the chance to transform economic growth along our coast and unleash their potential to create businesses and jobs. The fund underlines our commitment to supporting coastal towns so they can benefit from the growth in marine revenues generated by the Crown Estate as it develops its coastal and offshore resources.

We have worked with the Big Lottery “Big Fund” to establish how the fund will work and the timetable for its introduction. The deadline for applications in 2012 will be September, with winners announced in December. In England and Wales there will also be a fast-track process with a deadline in May 2012 and allocations in July.

I want to encourage quality bids from the many different types of organisations that support economic development including charities, social enterprises, voluntary organisations, local businesses as well as local authorities and local enterprise partnerships. The Big Lottery’s “Big Fund” will deliver the Coastal Communities Fund and will be issuing more detailed guidance shortly.

Firefighters' Pension Scheme

Thursday 9th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

Following constructive discussions with the firefighters’ trade unions, on 8 December I wrote to all of the firefighters’ trade unions to issue the cost ceiling for the firefighters’ pension scheme. This included a generous accrual rate, and provided protection for all those within 10 years of their current scheme’s normal pension age from any change in when they can retire, nor any decrease in the pension they receive at their current normal pension age.

The Government pay tribute to the importance of the work undertaken by our fire and rescue service and the bravery, dedication and professionalism of the men and women who work within it. The Government are committed to providing public service pensions that are sustainable, fair and effective.

Building on the proposals brought forward by Lord Hutton, these proposals aim to strike a balanced deal between public service workers and the taxpayer. They will ensure that public service workers continue to have access to good pensions, while taxpayers benefit from greater control over their costs.

Public sector pensions will remain among the very best available—a guaranteed level and inflation proofed. Only one in 10 private sector workers has access to such schemes.

I am pleased to report that the Heads of Agreement for the design of a new pension scheme for firefighters in England has now been established. Each trade union with firefighter members will now consider the main design elements of a new scheme to be available for their members from 2015. Further work will take place over the coming weeks to establish the final details and Executives can consult members as appropriate.

I am particularly grateful for the manner in which firefighters’ trade unions have maintained a constructive dialogue over the emerging detailed elements of the new scheme. Further discussion will now take place through the scheme’s pension reform group.

There will be full protection for the accrued rights of existing scheme members:

all benefits accrued under final salary arrangements will be linked to the members’ final salary, in accordance with the rules of the members’ current schemes, when they leave the reformed scheme;

full recognition of a members’ expectation to double accrual for service accrued under the firefighters’ pension scheme 1992 (“the 1992 scheme”), so that a members’ full continuous pensionable service upon retirement will be used to calculate an averaged accrual rate to be applied to service accrued under the 1992 scheme;

members to be able to access their 1992 scheme benefits when they retire at that scheme’s ordinary pension age (i.e. from age 50 with 25 or more years pensionable service), subject to abatement rules for that scheme. Pensionable service for the purpose of calculating the ordinary pension age will include any continuous pensionable service accrued under both the 1992 scheme and the 2015 scheme;

members will continue to have access to an actuarially assessed commutation factor for benefits accrued under the 1992 scheme.

There also will be transitional protections for qualifying, existing members:

all active scheme members who, as of 1 April 2012, have 10 years or less to their current normal pension age will see no change in when they can retire, nor any decrease in the amount of pension they receive at their current normal pension age. This protection will be achieved by the member remaining in their current scheme until they retire;

there will be a further four years of tapered protection for scheme members. Members who are up to 14 years from their current normal pension age, as of 1 April 2012, will have limited protection so that on average for every month of age they are beyond 10 years of their normal pension age, they gain about 53 days of protection. The last day of protected service for any member will be 31 March 2022.

The main parameters of the new scheme are set out below:

a. a pension scheme design based on career average revalued earnings;

b. a provisional accrual rate of 1/58.7th of pensionable earnings each year subject to further agreement on the outstanding issues;

c. there will be no cap on how much pension can be accrued;

d. a revaluation rate of active members’ benefits in line with average weekly earnings;

e. pensions in payment and deferred benefits to increase in line with prices index (currently consumer prices index);

f average member contributions of 13.2% from April 2015, with some protection for new entrants. However, the Government will review the impact of the proposed 2012-13 contribution changes, including the effect of membership opt-outs, before taking final decisions on how future increases will be delivered in 2013-14 and 2014-15, and in the new scheme.

g. flexible retirement from the scheme’s minimum pension age of 55, built around the scheme’s normal pension age of 60, with members able to take their pension from minimum pension age as follows:

for all active members who are aged 57 or more at retirement, 2015 scheme benefits taken before normal pension age will be actuarially reduced with reference to the 2015 scheme’s normal pension age, rather than the deferred pension age;

all other members will have their 2015 scheme benefits actuarially reduced on a cost neutral basis from the scheme’s deferred pension age.

h. the normal pension age will be subject to regular review. These reviews will consider the increasing state pension age and any changes to it, alongside evidence from interested parties, including unions and employers. It will consider if the normal pension age of 60 remains relevant, taking account of the economical, efficient and effective management of the fire service, the changing profile of the workforce and the occupational demands of, and fitness standards for, firefighting roles

i. this regular review will be informed by such research carried out by the Firefighters’ Pension Committee, which will monitor and collate scheme data and experience;

j. late retirement factors for members retiring from active service to be actuarially neutral from normal pension age;

k. a deferred pension age equal to the individuals’ state pension age.

l. optional lump sum by commutation at a rate of £12 for every £1 per annum of pension forgone in accordance with HMRC limits and regulations

m. abatement in existing schemes to continue;

n. ill-health retirement and all other ancillary benefits to be based on the arrangements in the 2006 scheme

o. an employer contribution cap and floor to provide backstop protection to the taxpayer against unforeseen costs and risks.

The Government Actuary’s Department has confirmed that this scheme design does not exceed the cost ceiling set by the Government. Copies of the Heads of Agreement and the Government Actuary's Department verification report have been placed in the Library of the House.

Housing Funding

Thursday 9th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)]

I am today announcing £20 million funding for local housing authorities for preventing repossessions. Some £19 million is allocated for a Preventing Repossessions Fund and £1 million will contribute to Housing Court Possessions Duty Desks.

The £19 million Preventing Repossessions Fund provides additional options for local housing authorities to tackle repossessions in their area as part of their duties to prevent homelessness. This will be achieved by offering small interest-free loans, or grants, to households at risk of repossession. Small loans can address immediate short-term financial difficulties, allow “breathing space”, and avoid households becoming homeless due to mortgage possession. This funding has been allocated to local authorities using weighted criteria which reflect demand and which reward homelessness preventions. All local housing authorities will receive funding.

£1 million is allocated to local housing authorities to fund Housing Court Possession Duty Desks within the 54 county courts in England that are not already funded by other sources, such as the Legal Services Commission. Court desks offer households free legal advice and representation on the day of a possession court hearing, regardless of an individual’s financial circumstances. This funding ensures universal access so that all households at risk of possession or eviction can access free legal advice when attending court.

Details of the amount awarded to each authority will be available on the Department’s website. A table giving the funds provided to individual authorities has been placed in the Library of the House.

A range of Government support is already in place to help homeowners at risk of repossession including Support for Mortgage Interest, a Department for Work and Pensions benefit to help out-of-work households meet their monthly interest payments (£386 million is forecast to be spent in 2011-12). The Government have invested £221 million over the next two years for the Mortgage Rescue Scheme, aimed at vulnerable homeowners at risk of repossession. This scheme has been improved to deliver better value for money for the taxpayer. The Government have also asked the Money Advice Service to establish a strategy for delivering free debt advice to empower consumers to take charge of their finances.

In addition, the Government’s ongoing efforts to tackle the record deficit will help avoid rapid increases in interest rates, which would put further pressure on already stretched family budgets. Interest payments for mortgages are currently the lowest as a proportion of total income since records began.

Local Democracy

Thursday 9th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

Following parliamentary approval, I have now made orders under section 9N of the Local Government Act 2000, which come into force today, and which require mayoral referendums to be held on 3 May 2012 in Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle upon Tyne, Nottingham, Sheffield and Wakefield.

In their coalition agreement the Government committed to creating directly elected mayors in the 12 largest English cities outside London, subject to confirmatory referendums and full scrutiny by elected councillors.

We are clear from experience both internationally and here in this country that elected executive mayors can significantly enhance the leadership of our major cities, delivering greater economic growth and prosperity. Led by a mayor, our cities will have the potential to perform even more strongly economically, socially and environmentally, making the contribution that they should to the growth and success of the country’s economy.

Leicester elected its city mayor in May 2011. On 7 February 2012, Liverpool city council resolved that their city will have a directly elected mayor and plan to hold the first election for a Liverpool mayor on 3 May 2012.

The orders I have made are the next major step towards creating mayors in the remaining 10 cities. Local people in each of these cities will now have the opportunity to say whether they want their city to have an elected mayor. Where the people decide in the referendum that their city should have an elected mayor, they will elect their first mayor on 15 November 2012.

I have also now made, following parliamentary approval, the Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2012 which make provision for the conduct of referendums about local governance changes, including the conduct of the referendums required by the orders.

As we made it clear in the parliamentary debates on the draft orders, it was open to any of the city councils, before their order was made, to resolve to move to an elected mayor. Liverpool has done so, and hence I have not made an order for Liverpool.

Operation Herrick 16 Roulement (Correction)

Thursday 9th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

I regret that the written ministerial statement I laid on 7 February, Official Report, column 11WS, contained an error of detail. I am therefore laying a revised statement today.

The next roulement of UK forces in Afghanistan is due to take place in April 2012. The UK’s current framework Brigade in Helmand, 20th Armoured Brigade, will be replaced by 12th Mechanised Brigade. The forces deploying include:

Individual electoral Registration

Thursday 9th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

I am announcing today the publication of the Government response to the pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation on individual electoral registration (IER) and changes to electoral administration.

Last June we set out our proposals for improving the electoral system through the introduction of IER in Great Britain.

As we said then, the electoral register is a key building block of our democracy. We see both registering to vote and voting as civic duties and we strongly encourage people both to register and to vote. We published our proposals for consultation and for scrutiny by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee (PCRC) because this is a vital part of our democracy, so we want our plans to be tested, and we want to be sure that the choices we make on the costs and benefits of the options open to us are well informed. We are grateful for the feedback that we have received not only from the Committee, but from everyone who took the time to respond to our White Paper.

In addition to putting our proposals out for testing, we have actively sought evidence from a range of other sources to inform policy development.

The research we funded the Electoral Commission to undertake has underlined the case for reform of the way people carry out their civic duty of registering to vote. We commissioned a literature review of research in this area from Dr Stuart Wilks-Heeg, a respected academic, which is published alongside this paper and adds further to the evidence base which informs our decisions.

We have paid attention to the lessons learnt from experience of Northern Ireland including the importance of carrying forward electors who have not registered in the first canvass under the new system, and their excellent work in registering new voters including working in partnership with schools to encourage young people to register.

The principle of introducing IER was widely supported by both by the PCRC and those who responded to the White Paper. We have listened to the feedback expressed about elements of the Government’s proposals and are proposing a number of key changes to the proposals included in the White Paper. In particular we want to ensure there are more safeguards in place to ensure as many eligible people as possible stay on the electoral register during the transition and that we can focus on those people eligible to vote but missing from the register. The major changes to the policy position are as follows:

Simplifying the Transition

Over the past year we have carried out a series of data matching pilots, comparing electoral registers in 22 areas with a range of data from public authorities. While the final evaluation is still being concluded, the evidence so far suggests that comparing entries on an electoral register with information held by the DWP allows us to confirm as accurate a significant majority (an average of two thirds for that data set alone in the pilot areas) of entries on the registers concerned.

Subject to the results of the full evaluation, and further testing this year with stakeholders, we are therefore minded to build on this to simplify the transition to IER for the majority of electors. It is now our intention that the name and address of all individuals on an electoral register when IER is introduced will be matched against the data held by public bodies such as the DWP and local authorities themselves. If an elector’s information can be matched, the individual will be automatically placed onto the new IER register and would not need to take any further action to be registered under IER. Only those people who cannot be confirmed automatically will be invited to provide identifying information to be verified. This should simplify the transition process for the majority of electors, reducing the number of people required to provide personal identifiers and will also allow EROs to free up resource to target the smaller group of people whose information cannot be matched and those who are currently missing from the register.

Compulsion and Personal Choice

It remains our firm belief that registering to vote is a civic duty; we have taken into account the concerns raised by the PCRC and those who responded to the consultation about the possible impact that an “up front” opt out could have on registration levels. As we made clear last year, we are minded to amend this provision and intend either to retain the “opt out” but require a person wishing to do so to complete a separate application, or to entirely remove this option altogether.

There has also been widespread discussion of whether it should be an offence for an individual not to register to vote when invited to do so. Despite the strong feelings expressed in the consultation on this issue, our view is that the evidence is not conclusive that introducing a new criminal offence will make any significant difference to registration levels, nor do we feel it is appropriate that we use the threat of a criminal offence to promote greater engagement in the electoral process. However, there are arguments for and against introducing a civil penalty for non-response to an invitation to register, and some important practical implications to resolve on how such a system could work.

We will explore these issues, including with our key stakeholders and in the light of this decide on the approach to take on both a civil penalty and the “opt-out”. We will set out our decision on this in the legislation when introduced.

Move the 2013 household canvass to 2014

We have listened to concerns that the gap between the last old style household canvass and the amended canvass in 2014 is too long. Therefore to ensure that a more accurate and up-to-date register is used as the basis of the new register we are planning to delay the annual canvass in 2013 to the early part of 2014.

We believe these changes, along with the others outlined in the Government’s response, will significantly strengthen these proposals. The full response to the PCRC’s report and the views expressed during the public consultation on our White Paper and draft legislation are set out in the Command Paper, but they are not our final word on the subject.

As we continue to refine our proposals ahead of introduction of legislation later this year, we will continue to work closely with stakeholders to further inform our thinking and develop our proposals. We have listened and learned, and we shall continue to do so.

Copies of this Command Paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. We will also be shortly publishing on the Cabinet Office website only a literature review on electoral registration, written by Dr Stuart Wilks-Heeg, and a high-level implementation time line for individual electoral registration.

Feed-in Tariffs

Thursday 9th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

This Government are committed to promoting decentralised energy and the take-up of small-scale low-carbon technologies by the public and by communities.

The feed-in tariffs (FITs) scheme is an important instrument in meeting that commitment, but it needs to be reformed as we want as many people as possible to be able to benefit from the scheme. For too long it has been limited to the lucky few.

So today I am publishing a series of documents which mark a crucial turning point for the FITs scheme. Taken as a whole, this reform package will put the scheme on a predictable, certain and sustainable footing for consumers, and for the businesses delivering these exciting renewable technologies.

It is no secret that the uncontrolled surge of solar photovoltaic (PV) installations in the latter part of last year, driven by rapidly falling costs, placed a huge strain on the FITs budget, threatening the Government’s ability to roll out those small-scale low-carbon technologies in the numbers we wanted over the next few years. We acted as swiftly as possible to respond to the threat this posed both to the future of the FITs scheme and to the bills of hard-pressed consumers, through the changes we are now making to the tariffs for solar PV.

But that is by no means the end of the story on FITs. We are now taking the opportunity of the review to put right the many limitations of the scheme we inherited. We have looked hard at the FITs budget and made the most of the flexibility available under the levy control framework to ensure that we can keep the scheme going. The reforms I am announcing today are designed to make that budget go as far as possible to maximise the number of people able to benefit from FITs; to provide greater certainty to the industries concerned; and to ensure value for money to consumers who pay the bills.

FITs reform package

The documents we are publishing today are as follows:

(i) Government response to the consultation on FITs for solar PV—This supplements our announcement of 19 January 2012 which confirmed the new tariffs for solar PV that will continue to provide a competitive return on investment for householders, communities and others. The new tariffs are designed to apply to all installations with an eligibility date from 3 March onwards.

We are now also announcing the details of the new energy efficiency requirement, and of the new multi-installation tariff rates. We have listened carefully to concerns raised in last autumn’s consultation and have decided that the energy efficiency requirement should be based on an energy performance certificate (EPC) rating of level D or above, not level C or any other option as previously mooted. We have also decided that the threshold at which the multi-installation tariff rates would apply should be increased from more than one PV installations to more than 25. This will help community groups, small businesses and councils who do not benefit from the economies of scale that larger aggregators can obtain.

We are also today laying before Parliament draft licence modifications which, subject to the parliamentary process set out in the Energy Act 2008, make provision for these new requirements to come into effect for new PV installations with an eligibility date on or after 1 April 2012.

(ii) A consultation on solar PV cost controls—In line with the encouraging evidence we have seen of the reduction in costs associated with solar PV, this document sets out proposals for an ambitious programme of six-monthly degression for solar PV tariffs, with an added deployment trigger to ensure that subsidy levels keep in step with the market. This builds on the best of the German system and will remove the need for emergency reviews, consistent with our commitment to a stable, predictable future for solar PV and for the whole FITs scheme. It will also help to keep the long-term costs of supporting solar PV down, increasing the number of people able to benefit from FITs over time. The consultation closes on 3 April.

(iii) A consultation on tariffs for FIT technologies other than PV, and other scheme administration issues—This includes proposals to carve out special arrangements for community projects, including greater tariff stability. It also proposes an increase in the rate of return available for micro-combined heat and power, in recognition of the benefits this technology could bring, and potential tariff guarantees for wind, anaerobic digestion and hydro projects, so that those technologies can have greater certainty about what rates of return they will receive. The consultation closes on 26 April.

All these documents, together with the supporting impact assessments, are available from the Department’s website: www.decc.gov.uk/FITS.

Flood and Coastal Erosion (Risk Management)

Thursday 9th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

I am today, in conjunction with the Environment Agency, announcing details of flood and coastal erosion risk management schemes going ahead in the next financial year. In additional to the continuing construction of over 80 schemes, a total of 60 new schemes will begin construction in the coming year. When complete these new schemes will give over 25,000 homes a better level of protection from the devastating effects of flooding and coastal erosion.

This Government will spend £2.17 billion on managing the risk of flooding and coastal erosion over this spending period (April 2011 to March 2015). We have prioritised areas of severe flood and coastal erosion risk, and households in deprived communities. Of the 145,000 homes that will be better protected by 2015, around half will be in areas of significant flood risk and almost 15,000 homes will be both at significant flood risk and in the most deprived parts of the country.

New estimates show that the risk management authorities are on track to exceed the goal of better protecting 145,000 homes by March 2015. This is in part due to the new partnership approach to funding that has helped secure £72 million of external contributions for projects over the next three years. Regional flood and coastal committees, which include local authority representatives, have worked with local communities to attract flood defence funding from external sources such as businesses, private investors and local authorities. For example, in south Derbyshire, Nestlé has contributed £1.7 million to a £7 million scheme to protect 1,600 homes and further financial contributions have been made from industry, the community and local landowners. A scheme in Water End, York, which was turned down for funding last year, is going ahead after the Environment Agency worked with York city council to agree a package of cost reductions and partnership contributions.

Other schemes that will go ahead next year include Warrington in Cheshire, protecting over 2,000 households, Salmons Brook in North London, protecting over 1,300 households, and Godmanchester in Cambridgeshire, protecting over 300 households. The Environment Agency has also committed to increasing the number of households receiving free flood warnings to over 1.1 million.

The full programme of schemes going ahead in 2012-13 alongside a provisional programme for future years will be published on the Environment Agency website later today.

UN Conference on Sustainable Development

Thursday 9th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

I would like to update the House on preparations for the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio plus 20, which will be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on 20-22 June this year. It follows directly on from the G20 summit in Los Cabos.

Rio plus 20 has two major themes: the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and the institutional framework for sustainable development.

The UN’s negotiating text, entitled “The Future We Want”, was published on 10 January. It is based on over 250 contributions submitted by member states and stakeholders. The UK welcomes this document as a starting point, but would like to see further prioritisation and a focus on tangible actions. The UK will call for:

A clear political declaration that we need green growth; that development, the environment, and the economy are inextricably linked; and that we need to consider all three together for our future prosperity.

Sustainable development goals (SDGs) to drive international action and increase co-operation in key sectors such as agriculture, water and energy. SDGs should not and cannot distract attention away from achieving the millennium development goals (MDGs) by 2015. The UK remains firmly committed to delivering these goals. We must work towards a clear position beyond 2015 which builds on the millennium development goals, in which sustainable development goals could play an important part. This is a priority for the UK and an area in which we will take the lead with international colleagues.

Action in key sectors for green growth: supporting international initiatives to drive sustainable growth in agriculture, sustainable energy access, water, and forestry.

Tangible outcomes that will put sustainability at the heart of decision making and support all countries in efforts to move to a more sustainable growth path. Governments can and must provide the framework for green growth, through reducing or removing environmentally harmful subsidies, getting price signals right, standards and voluntary approaches, valuing natural resources, developing indicators of green growth. We will also be calling for Governments to take steps to measure and account for their natural and social capital, in addition to GDP.

A clear focus on the private sector as drivers of green growth, through trade, innovation and investment. Rio should drive uptake of sustainable business practices—in particular transparent and coherent sustainability reporting, and resource efficiency.

Recommendations for institutional reform which draw on the Prime Minister’s global governance report for G20. Greater coherence, efficiency, and improved co-ordination are needed to deliver better outcomes at a lower cost. The UK supports a collective focus on interrelated issues and shared goals.

I will continue the dialogue with the private sector and civil society over the coming months, and will press for action on these priorities within the EU as well as internationally. I will keep Parliament updated on progress as the negotiations evolve.

Rural Payments Agency

Thursday 9th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) is today publishing a plan setting out how the agency will be transformed over the next five years so that it delivers both vastly improved service to its customers and much better value for money for taxpayers. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

This is an important turning point for the agency. The 2013 review of RPA which I published in July 2010, provided an independent, evidenced based view of RPA’s then current state as well as its readiness for implementation of the expected reform of the common agricultural policy (“CAP 2013”). The conclusions offered a stark assessment of the agency’s capabilities in terms of basic finance functions, customer service, IT, leadership and governance. The negative effects on RPA customers and for taxpayers were as clear as they were unacceptable. I said then that I would not allow that state of affairs to continue and that I would personally drive forward progress by chairing a new oversight board.

Under a new chief executive and senior management team improvements are already being seen at RPA. For example, my written statement of 11 January 2012, Official Report, column.16 WS reported that in December 2011 the agency had made its highest ever proportion of SPS payments in the opening month of the payment window. However, as is made clear in the plan, further work is required in a number of areas (data, controls, IT, organisational structure, systems and people) in order to fully overcome the legacy of the failed implementation of the SPS in 2005. Meanwhile, the challenge of implementing the CAP 2013 reforms, currently under negotiation in Brussels, looms ever closer on the horizon.

Against that background, the plan comes in two parts. Phase 1, the strategic improvement plan (SIP) involves a series of 45 projects which will run from 2012-15 and deliver:

Cleansed data;

Improved processes and controls;

Maintained or improved technology;

Fit for purpose structure and corporate services;

Better customer service tools;

Improved people capacity and capability.

Many of these projects deal with improving underlying processes and data to make RPA’s foundation more solid and the outputs may not be very visible to its customers during the life of the SIP itself. However, these projects will be crucially important in ensuring that the agency is on a sound footing to deal with the amount of change it faces over the next five years.

Phase 2, the future options programme (FOP) will take centre stage from 2014-17. The FOP is looking presently at alternative models for delivering some or all of RPA’s business following the CAP scheme changes post-2013. Once the right operating model for the future is established the FOP will assess delivery options, which may include various forms of outsourcing, and then set in train the procurement process; all this activity will take place within the next two years. The objective of the FOP is to build on the work of the SIP to provide a much better service to RPA’s customers and much better value for money for the taxpayer.

Annual RPA business plans will set out in more detail the expected costs and outputs in the year ahead. The business plan for 2012-13 is scheduled to be published in April However, I can confirm now that DEFRA is investing an addition £21.8 million in the next financial year, with a further £19.1 million provisionally earmarked for the following two financial years. This represents a serious commitment to finally drawing a line under RPA’s unfortunate legacy and putting it in the best possible position to implement the CAP 2013 reforms. I will continue to chair the RPA oversight board in order to provide the necessary support and challenge to ensure that objective is met.

Waste Water National Policy Statement

Thursday 9th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

Having considered consultation responses and the report of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I am today laying before Parliament the waste water national policy statement as an un-numbered Command Paper. At the same time, I am also laying, pursuant to section 5(9)(b) of the Planning Act 2008, the Government’s response to the Select Committee.

A written response to the consultation and an updated version of the impact assessment is also being published on the Department’s website at:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/water/sewage/.

National policy statements are critical to the new planning system, which will help developers bring forward waste water projects of national significance without facing unnecessary delays, while ensuring local people have an opportunity to have a say about how their communities develop, and that decisions are made in an accountable way by elected Ministers.

The waste water national policy statement sets out our need for waste water infrastructure to protect public health and ensure the health of our water environment with the consequent benefits for our water supply and biodiversity. Despite measures which will slow the growth in demand for new waste water infrastructure in England, for example the use of sustainable drainage systems, we will continue to need investment in new waste water infrastructure in order to modernise outdated infrastructure, meet future demands from a growing population and the effects of climate change, and to fulfil our EU obligations.

It has been agreed with the House that the same procedure as set out in the Localism Act, when it comes into effect, will be followed for national policy statements already in development. I intend to designate the national policy statement after a period of 21 sitting days has elapsed, or following a debate in the House of Commons if the House wishes one, and approves the national policy statement, within that period.

UK-Afghanistan Enduring Strategic Partnership

Thursday 9th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is today publishing the Enduring Strategic Partnership document between the UK and Afghanistan which was signed by the Prime Minister and President Karzai on 28 January, 2012.

The Enduring Strategic Partnership signals our shared vision of a secure, stable and prosperous Afghanistan able to maintain its own security and prevent the country from again being used as a safe haven for international terrorists

Building on the strong message from the Bonn conference last year of the international community’s commitment to Afghanistan post-2014, the Enduring Strategic Partnership demonstrates our long-term partnership with Afghanistan.

The document reaffirms both countries’ commitment to continuing partnership and friendship. It makes clear that we will have a wide-ranging relationship with Afghanistan which will continue beyond transition and the drawdown of international combat troops.

The partnership sets out our agreement to co-operate on political dialogue, security, governance and rule of law, economic and social development, and cultural links.

I am placing the document in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk).

Export of Tasers (UK Policy)

Thursday 9th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

Members will recall that in July 1997 the Government announced their policy on preventing British companies from manufacturing, selling or procuring equipment designed primarily for torture. Reference was made to the UK taking the necessary measures to prevent the export from or transhipment through the UK of portable devices designed or modified for riot control purposes or self-protection that administer an electric-shock. This included electric discharge shock guns, of which taser is a brand.

The Government are committed to maintaining this policy given their commitment to preventing British companies from manufacturing, selling or procuring equipment designed primarily for torture and to continuing to press for a global ban on such equipment.

We therefore propose to maintain this prohibition on the export, transhipment, and trade in such equipment to all destinations, except in certain very limited and specific circumstances with regard to tasers in specific cases relating to approved use by UK police.

The need to allow the limited export of tasers has arisen because of operational difficulties for UK police services, police services of the Crown dependencies and some British Overseas Territories who seek to use tasers, consistent with their use by UK police forces, as a measured alternative to the use of lethal force.

The Government will therefore now consider applications for the grant of a licence for the export of tasers, but only under the following limited circumstances:

(i) Where the export of tasers is to the police service of a Crown dependency or UK overseas territory and where it has been specifically recommended by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary that such a police service adopts the use of such equipment by trained officers as an alternative to the use of lethal firearms, and that the use of the equipment is in line with the accepted standards set for UK police officers; or

(ii) Where tasers constitute officially issued equipment for use by suitably trained UK police officers who are being deployed in support of a police operation in a Crown dependency or overseas territory, and where that deployment has been requested by the chief police officer of the Crown dependency or overseas territory; or

(iii) Where the equipment belonging to a UK police force, the police service of a Crown dependency or UK overseas territory, or to an authorised agent working on their behalf, is being returned to the original manufacturer for repair, or replacement of faulty equipment, or as unwanted goods.

Immigration and Nationality Services

Thursday 9th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I am announcing proposals to change the fees for immigration and nationality applications made to the UK Border Agency. The Government review these fees on a regular basis and make appropriate changes as necessary. I am today laying regulations for fees that are set at levels above the estimated administrative costs of the service. We have continued with our strategic approach to charging; setting certain fees above cost on the basis of the value of the service.

Given the ongoing need to reduce public spending, we believe it is right that we continue to seek to reduce the burden on UK taxpayers of delivering the border and immigration system by asking migrants to make a greater contribution to the funding of the UK Border Agency. The UK Border Agency has given careful consideration to its fee levels, to ensure it can maintain good service levels to customers and secure the border for the general public.

Some fees are set above the administrative cost of providing the service to generate the revenue which is used to help fund the UK immigration system and which enables others to be set below cost recovery to support wider Government objectives. The revenue generated will contribute towards securing the UK’s border and controlling migration for the benefit of the UK. These fees must be set out in regulations before both Houses of Parliament and are subject to the affirmative legislative procedure. In addition, I will shortly lay another set of regulations in Parliament for the fees for immigration and nationality services that are set at or below the administrative cost of the service. Further details of all fees changes will be outlined in the explanatory memoranda accompanying both sets of regulations. Subject to parliamentary approval the Government hope to bring the new fees into force from 6 April 2012.

Details of all the proposed increases are set out in the table attached (new fees are shown in italics). The table includes indicative unit costs for each application for financial year 2012-13. The unit cost is the estimated average cost to the UK Border Agency of processing each application. Although these unit costs are not fixed over the course of the financial year, the unit costs are published so it is clear which fees we set over cost and by how much.

In developing these proposals, the UK Border Agency has sought to limit most increases to approximately 2%. In addition, the fees paid by dependants, for applications made within the UK, are being maintained at the current level of 50% of a main applicant’s fee. In future the UK Border Agency will look to charge the same fee in the UK for dependants and main applicants, as currently already happens for visa applications made overseas.

Full details on how to apply for all of these services will be provided on the UK Border Agency’s website, www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk.

Civil Justice Consultation (Government Response)

Thursday 9th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I am today announcing the publication of the Government’s response to the civil justice consultation on “Solving disputes in the county courts”, which included proposals to modernise the civil justice system and make it simpler, quicker, cheaper and more effective.

The consultation was launched by the Ministry of Justice on 29 March 2011 and closed on 30 June 2011.

Based on the broad support many of the Government’s proposals received, we plan to increase the small claims limit to £10,000 initially, with a possible further increase to £15,000 in the future after evaluation. We do not recommend an increase to the fast-track limit at this time.

All small claims will be referred automatically to mediation, on the basis that this is not compulsory mediation, but rather a requirement to engage with a small claims mediator. Mandatory information sessions for higher-value claims will not be introduced.

After liaising further with stakeholders we will be extending to £25,000 the existing RTA PI scheme to provide a speedier, more transparent system for dealing with low-value personal injury claims arising out of accidents. This will assist in deterring spurious claims, while ensuring compensation is available more quickly where it is merited.

The Government will proceed with streamlining procedures and commencement of certain provisions of part 4 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which have already been approved by Parliament.

A single county court for England and Wales will be established and provisions introduced to enable cases and judges to be allocated more efficiently and effectively. Specialist claims will be placed under the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court.

The document is available online at: http://www.justice. gov.uk.

ATOL Reform Regulations

Thursday 9th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

Today I am pleased to announce the Government’s decisions on the proposals set out in last summer’s consultation on the reform of the Air Travel Organiser’s Licensing (ATOL) scheme which can be introduced through new regulations under existing powers.

ATOL is a longstanding and important scheme, which last year protected 18 million holidaymakers from travel company failure. ATOL is particularly relevant in today’s uncertain times, allowing consumers to book with the confidence that if their holiday company fails, their money will be protected or they will be able to return home as planned if they are already away, without any extra cost.

It is essential that the scheme should apply in an effective way in the modern holiday market; so that consumers are clear about their rights and how to use them, and holiday companies know which of their products must be protected.

In addition the Air Travel Trust Fund, which provides for refunds and repatriations under the scheme, is operating at a deficit and is supported by a Government guarantee. The fund needs to return to a financially self-sustaining basis as soon as possible so that taxpayers’ money is no longer exposed to risk.

Between 23 June and 15 September 2011 the Government consulted on a set of initial reforms to the ATOL scheme with the following objectives:

Improving clarity for consumers about what holidays are protected.

Returning Air Travel Trust Fund finances to a self-sustaining basis, with the deficit repaid and Government guarantee phased out.

The longer to medium-term objectives are to:

Further improve the clarity of the scheme and develop a more consistent and coherent

regulatory framework for businesses.

Look at options for how the ATOL scheme is managed and- financed once it is financially self-sustaining, with a view to reducing its cost to the travel trade and consumers.

The ATOL reform consultation received 82 responses. I am grateful to stakeholders for taking the time to reply. In the light of the responses and further analysis, I am confirming today that new ATOL regulations will be made that will:

Bring into the ATOL scheme flight-plus holidays sold by tour operators and travel agents. These are holidays that look like packages but do not meet the legal definition, and so do not currently require protection under the scheme. Including these holidays will end a significant source of confusion for consumers, and we expect up to an additional 6 million holidays a year will be fully ATOL protected as a result.

Ensure that on paying for an ATOL protected flight-only, package holiday or flight-plus, consumers receive a certificate confirming that their trip is covered by the scheme. To give the travel trade sufficient time to prepare, this requirement will come fully into effect on 1 October 2012. Until then, consumers will receive clear confirmation that their holiday or flight is ATOL protected.

Taking account of consultation responses and further discussion with stakeholders, the new ATOL regulations will include a number of changes to the draft regulations consulted on. These include changes to the definition of a flight-plus holiday and a revised approach to the exemption for flight-only sales where tickets are provided immediately on payment. Further details on these changes are included in the summary of responses and the Government’s decisions published today on the Department’s website.

It is intended that the new regulations will be laid in Parliament in March, before coming into effect on 30 April 2012.

In addition to bringing greater clarity to consumers about ATOL protection for holidays and flights, we expect that these reforms should allow the ATOL scheme’s financial deficit to be repaid within three years. This will pave the way for possible future changes to improve how the ATOL scheme is funded and managed. The Civil Aviation Authority plans initial discussions with stakeholders on options for this later in the year, building on responses to the question posed in the consultation on this subject.

These regulations complement the clause in the Civil Aviation Bill introduced on 19 January 2012 that would allow the ATOL scheme to cover holidays sold by airlines and those organised on an agent for the consumer basis. Subject to parliamentary process, the Government’s intention is that such a step would only be taken following full consultation with stakeholders including an impact assessment.

Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council

Thursday 9th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council will be held on 17 February 2012 in Brussels. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is the Minister with responsibility for employment relations, consumer and postal affairs, will represent the United Kingdom.

There will be three roundtable discussions at this meeting. The first will be a policy debate on women on company boards. My hon. Friend will stress that the UK is committed to seeing more women on company boards. He will further highlight the merits of industry-led measures that achieve real culture change as opposed to the setting of legally binding quotas.

The second discussion is scheduled to be an initial exchange of views on new European Commission proposals related to the posting of workers. The proposals are yet to be published. When responding to these proposals, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will make clear that in considering the proposals the UK will take account of their likely impact on growth, competitiveness and jobs.

The third discussion will be a policy debate on the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy in the field of employment and social policy. The debate will centre on a set of Council conclusions on the joint employment report priorities for action. My hon. Friend will stress the need for deeper structural reforms to get European economies moving and people back into work. He will acknowledge that the conclusions fully reflect the mandate given to Council by heads of state and Government in December 2010 and at last month’s informal European Council for EU Employment Ministers to exchange views on the effective functioning of labour markets.

Under any other business the Commission will provide information on transitional arrangements on the free movement of workers from Bulgaria and Romania. The presidency will provide information on the preparation of the tripartite social summit. The Commission and presidency will provide information on preparation for the G20 Meeting of Labour and Employment Ministers; and on the Euro-Mediterranean employment and labour high-level working group. Finally, the Employment Committee and Social Protection Committee chairs will provide information on their work programmes for 2012.

House of Lords

Thursday 9th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Thursday, 9 February 2012.

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

House of Lords: Membership

Thursday 9th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

11:06

Asked by

[Lord Dubs]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to increase the current membership of the House of Lords, pending their current proposals for reform.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, in line with the coalition’s programme for government, the Government are working towards the objective of creating a second Chamber that reflects the share of the votes secured by the political parties at the last general election.

[Lord Dubs]

Oh. [Laughter.] My Lords, on 24 January, the Leader of the House said:

“There is no plan to pack the House with at least 60 government supporters. It would look absurd and it would be absurd”.—[Official Report, 24/1/12; col. 919.]

Given the Answer that he has just given to my Question, does he agree that it is doubtful whether he could find a single Member of this House who thinks that increasing its number is a good idea, both on grounds of cost and of making this House look even more absurd than it does with an increase in numbers? I ask the Government to think again about this stupid idea.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord can ask whatever he wants, but the Government’s position is the one I outlined in my original Answer. It is up to the Prime Minister, as it has been up to previous Prime Ministers, to decide whether he wishes to make more Peers. It is widely known that a draft Bill to reform your Lordships’ House is before a Joint Committee that may well turn into a Bill in the next Session of Parliament. But in any case, since the general election a number of deaths have sadly been recorded among your Lordships, which means that there has been a reduction from the high reached earlier on. Even if my right honourable friend the Prime Minister were to replace the number of Peers who have died, we would not be at the all-time high we saw recently.

[The Lord Bishop of Chichester]

My Lords, I cannot declare an interest as I speak from the Benches whose number is fixed. However, I would like to ask the Leader of the House to reflect upon what he said about the principle of the balance in relation to the very important role played by the Cross Benches in this House. Their relative influence could be changed significantly if the House were to be increased in size in the way he mentioned. Does he agree that an important question of constitutional principle is at stake here?

[Lord Strathclyde]

It is good to hear the right reverend Prelate speak in support of the Cross Benches of which I, too, am a great supporter. That is why I have consistently opposed the idea of a 100 per cent elected House. Indeed, I am also a supporter of the role of the right reverend Prelates. They make a substantial contribution to the workings of the House. I do not think that the proportion of the Cross Benches has changed very much over the course of the past 10 years. We know of the tremendous contribution they make, not just in votes in the House but also in making speeches, and I do not think it is planned to change that proportion under the current system. But if a Bill is put before Parliament, of course everything will be up for grabs.

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords, whose comments better reflect a mature and reasoned understanding of the challenges attending reform of the House of Lords? Are they those of the president of the Liberal Democrats, who has likened your Lordships’ House to the tyrannical Syrian regime, or those of their leader, Nick Clegg, who has described your Lordships as an “affront” to liberal democracy?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it was the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who originally coined the phrase “an affront to democracy” in relation to the House of Lords, so my right honourable friend is certainly not the first to say that. I am not responsible for what the president of the Liberal Democrats has said, but perhaps he should wander up the corridor from the House of Commons and see the real work that is done in this House, not least of all by my colleagues and friends who represent the Liberal Democrat Party here.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, could my noble friend help me by explaining the logic of a Government’s policy which seeks to reduce the size of the House of Commons in order to save public money while greatly increasing the size of the unelected House of Lords? Would I be cynical in thinking that this is an attempt to discredit this House in order to justify their plans for abolition?

[Lord Strathclyde]

No, my Lords, my noble friend would, unusually, be quite wrong in thinking that. The plain facts are, first, that the House of Lords has, in its relatively recent past, been considerably larger than it currently is and, secondly, that it is widely known and understood, which I think allows me to make this point one more time, that the House of Lords is incredibly good value. The cost per Peer is considerably smaller than that for Members of the House of Commons or indeed for Members of the European Parliament.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, since the election, the coalition Benches have swollen by 71 Peers —who are very welcome, of course—and my own Benches have been increased by 39. Does the rumoured rise in the number of coalition Peers have anything to do with the fact that the Government have lost 33 votes in this Session of Parliament?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the fact that the Government have lost 33 votes in this Session of Parliament simply indicates that the House of Lords is doing its work extremely well in suggesting changes to our well thought through legislation and asking the Government and the House of Commons to think again. The fact that the House of Commons does not always agree with the wisdom of your Lordships is its constitutional right. As for balancing out the numbers, it is again a well known fact, which I know noble Lords opposite do not like, that the Labour Party is for the first time ever the largest political group in opposition in the House of Lords. It does a very effective job. The coalition, meanwhile, still makes up only 37 per cent of the House. This is not a majoritarian House.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords—

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords—

[Baroness Hayman]

My Lords—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, may we hear now from my noble friend Lord Maclennan? His is the only party group that has not yet had the opportunity to put a question.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, since the Government have indicated that their current intention is to reduce the size of this House by about half, does it follow that those who are to be appointed before that happens are being told that they are being appointed for life, or for a period of years until the Lords’ structure is changed?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Jay, will be telling new Peers coming through the Appointments Commission, but certainly the Prime Minister is not telling anybody anything. [Laughter.] That is because he is not appointing any Peers just at the moment. A peerage is for life, but it does not necessarily give a right to sit and vote in Parliament. That is the difference.

Charles Dickens: Bicentenary

Thursday 9th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

11:14

Asked By

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to celebrate the bicentenary of the birth of Charles Dickens.

[Baroness Rawlings]

My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government are always delighted to fund and support different institutions and events celebrating the life and work of Charles Dickens, not only in this bicentenary year but at any time. This year includes special programmes with the BBC, the British Council and a number of our museums such as the V&A—there are so many that I dare not recite them all in these few minutes.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

I thank the Minister for her reply. I must admit that I was hoping for a more imaginative response from DCMS, but I know these are hard times. I did not have great expectations. I suggest that a Dickens day in schools would not be a bad idea. I, too, pay tribute to the BBC, which has given us great value for money recently in both TV and radio adaptations. There are also the Royal Mail’s commemorative stamps. I was privileged to attend the Abbey ceremony. I am not sure that Dickens would have thought that particularly appropriate, but I hope the Minister will join me in paying tribute to Dickens’s role, including as a great parliamentary reporter. He reported on the Great Reform Bill of 1831. I am not sure what he would have thought of the Welfare Reform Bill. This would be a bleak House if we did not put on record our acknowledgement and tribute to Dickens as one of our greatest writers.

[Baroness Rawlings]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, was clever to have put down this Question this week in the 200th year of Dickens’s birth. I know that the noble Lord is a Dickens aficionado—as we have heard. DCMS is delighted with any new ideas, especially by examples as inspired as the noble Lord’s suggestions. Of course we join in the tribute to Dickens as a great reporter. Some noble Lords may have read that the Secretary of State gave a Dickens novel to each Member of the Cabinet on Tuesday. Where possible, the book was linked to their ministerial brief. I thought that was a wonderful idea and one very close to my heart.

[A noble Lord]

Did the Prime Minister get Bleak House?

[Baroness Rawlings]

He got Great Expectations. I urge all noble Lords in the Chamber to consider something similar for family and friends.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, did the noble Lord the Leader of the House get Bleak House?

[Baroness Rawlings]

He did.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, Mr Twemlow in Our Mutual Friend expressed his opinion that the House of Commons was “the best club in London”. Will my noble friend consider instituting a prize for the best contemporary Dickensian description of your Lordships’ House?

[Baroness Rawlings]

My noble friend Lord Brooke always comes up with original ideas. I am sure that everything will be fed in to the department.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, which Member of the Cabinet got A Tale of Two Cities?

[Baroness Rawlings]

I am afraid that I do not know.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury]

My Lords, Dickens referred to this House when he was a reporter here as,

“a conglomeration of noise and confusion”.

It probably continues to be so. As Matthew Parris wrote, the culture of our country is its heartbeat. Who more exemplifies that than Charles Dickens? Can the Minister confirm that the cultural education review due to be published this month will call for a national plan for cultural education and that the coalition Government will celebrate Dickens’s bicentenary by putting into practice the teaching of creativity at the heart of the educational curriculum?

[Baroness Rawlings]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter brings up a very good point. We are committed to encouraging wider reading. I am sure that we will include in the culture education review that is about to come out the various points that she brought up. The Secretary of State for Education has talked frequently about the importance of encouraging children to read books. It is often said that those who read well-written books usually achieve better standards. Dare I quote from Dickens, as everyone has done?

“No one who can read, ever looks at a book, even unopened on a shelf, like one who cannot”.

That is from Our Mutual Friend.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall]

My Lords, would the Minister agree with me that the film and television industries, which have developed in the past 100 years, would have been pretty stuck for content, had it not been for the works of Charles Dickens? Would she encourage her ministerial colleagues to put some pressure on BAFTA to nominate Charles Dickens for a posthumous fellowship?

[Baroness Rawlings]

My Lords, I am sure that that is a good idea, but I have a feeling that BAFTA is probably an independent body. We will put that forward, and hope that BAFTA reads the noble Baroness’s suggestion in Hansard.

[Lord Harrison]

My Lords—

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, does the Minister recall that I raised the issue with her a few weeks ago that, in this Diamond Jubilee year, it would be appropriate for a gift of a Dickens novel to be given to children throughout the country? When I subsequently wrote to her and had a brief conversation, she said that she would look at ways of trying to promote private sponsorship of such a project. Has she been able to make any progress in that regard?

[Baroness Rawlings]

I have not actually heard back recently from DCMS on that very interesting suggestion, but I will write to the noble Lord on it.

West Bank and Gaza

Thursday 9th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

11:21

Asked By

[Lord Judd]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their evaluation of progress towards a reconciliation between the leaderships of the Palestinian communities of the West Bank and Gaza, and what action they are taking to support that reconciliation.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, we are examining closely the agreement of 6 February between Hamas and Fatah on what is described as a technocratic Government of consensus. It is important that any new Palestinian authority be composed of independent figures, commit itself to non-violence and a negotiated two-state solution and accept previous agreements of the PLO. We have been consistently clear that we will engage with any Palestinian Government who show through their words and actions that they are committed to those principles.

[Lord Judd]

Would the Minister not agree that the action by Israelis in arresting so many politicians from Gaza is hardly helpful to the process? As we debated last night, we all have to be careful about counterproductivity, which makes the achievement of serious negotiations more difficult. Is it not therefore essential to bring home to our American colleagues—and, indeed, very much to Israel—that if we are serious about negotiations, nothing must be done to undermine the momentum that will be necessary, and too many preconditions will not help. The best commitments, as we saw in Northern Ireland, arise out of the process of negotiations in which common agreement is forged through argument and persuasion.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, to the noble Lord’s second observation. As to his first, about arresting MPs, we are concerned about the recent arrests of the Speaker and other Members of the Palestinian Legislative Council in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. EU heads of mission in Jerusalem and Ramallah issued a statement on 28 January outlining their concern. We have also instructed our embassy in Tel Aviv to raise this with the Israeli authorities, and we continue to monitor that situation closely. It is a matter of concern.

[Baroness Deech]

Is the Minister aware—I am sure he is—that this is the third Question that we have had on Gaza in 24 hours without being able to place this issue in context and without examining the connection of Hamas to Iran—and to Syria, where such terrible things are happening? The House has not had the chance to see this in context; we have not debated the shifting allegiances in the Middle East and the terrible crises. It is no good scratching at one spot when the whole body in the Middle East needs examination by this House, and soon.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am acutely aware that we have dealt with this particular issue three times in the last 24 hours, including a very interesting but short debate last night. I think it was President Obama who said that his advisers told him that when it comes to the Middle East, everything is connected to everything else. The noble Baroness is quite right that we need to look again and again not merely at the particular issues that we are examining now but at the broader context of how the Iranian threat, the tragedy in Syria, the instability in Iraq and the problems of the Arab uprising and the Arab spring all link together, as they do. I am sure that noble Lords and the usual channels will think of ways in which we can have a further debate on that broader issue. I am very happy to participate at any time when I am required.

[Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as my noble friend Lord Judd mentioned in connection with Northern Ireland, a sine qua non for sitting down and starting real negotiations is the renunciation of violence by all the participants?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That is certainly correct. Indeed, as I said in my opening Answer, that is one of the conditions in which we would recognise that if Hamas has changed by renouncing violence, and a new Government are formed, we would change our attitude to it. However, these conditions are important and we obviously cannot negotiate unless they are accepted.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, to follow up the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is not the context in which Palestine now exists—one thinks of the forthcoming elections in a few months—that Israel is in military occupation of a large part of the West Bank, is continuing to colonise the West Bank and east Jerusalem at an alarming rate, and is attempting always to divide and rule the Palestinians by every possible means? What will we do about it?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am not sure that I share every nuance of my noble friend’s analysis, but it is certainly not in Israel’s interest to practise manoeuvres to undermine and delay the negotiations by the divide-and-rule process. We now have to watch what is going to happen next, to see whether this Government of consensus will work—we will judge them by their deeds—and to see how the pressure of enlightened Israelis, both in their Government and internationally, can bring them to realise that they will then have a body with whom to negotiate. We also have to see how the talks now going on in Amman, in Jordan, progress. We are putting a great deal of effort, as are other countries, into seeing that progress is made there.

[The Lord Bishop of Exeter]

My Lords, the Minister has already rightly recognised the interconnectedness of everything in the Middle East. I have this morning had an e-mail from the Bishop in Egypt, who writes:

“Egypt is undergoing a very … difficult time. It looks as if the country is experiencing labor pains which may end up by the birth of a new baby, a new democratic Egypt. But it could … be the pains prior to a stillbirth, or an abortion”.

Does he agree that in this context it is really important to do everything possible to encourage rather than diminish confidence in the democratic process, particularly among the Palestinians, and that this is closely linked to the willingness of the international community to recognise and uphold the outcomes of such a democratic process?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The right reverend Prelate speaks with great wisdom. This is obviously the aim; it is certainly the aim of the United Kingdom. We make our contribution through a variety of ways: obviously through the EU and the quartet, bilaterally and in every other way. However, the principles he describes are right and will have to be upheld with great vigour, because clearly there are people operating in the whole turmoil and mélange of the Middle East uprisings who are not so interested in democracy. These people have to be outfaced.

[Lord Grocott]

The Minister said in answer to an earlier Question that our attitude towards any arrangement between Gaza and the West Bank would be whether the Administration could be seen, in deeds and not just in words, committed to a two-state solution. Can he offer any evidence whatever that, on the other side of the equation, the Israeli Government are in any way showing by deeds, not words, their commitment to a two-state solution?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord is quite right to point out the need for symmetry. When one sees that illegal settlements continue, there is obviously a danger if not of despair then of recognising that the goal of the two-state solution is not as fully accepted on the Israeli side. We must work to change that. Many people, in Israel and outside, see that a solution lies in this direction for better peace and stability for the people of Israel, for an end to their security problems and, of course, for better peace and stability for the Palestinians.

Sahel

Thursday 9th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

11:30

Asked By

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they will take to help prevent the famine and food shortages predicted in the Sahel region.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, the rapid response of UK humanitarian aid to mitigate the impact of the crisis in the Sahel will reach 68,000 children in Niger, Chad and Mali, and provide livestock support for 30,000 families. The Government are also lobbying other donors to provide funds to help ward off a disaster.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

I thank the Minister for her Answer. The European Union said yesterday that alarm bells are ringing in this area, with 12 million people potentially affected by food shortages and five countries having already declared an emergency, including four of the poorest countries in the world. Just last month Oxfam and Save the Children reported on the recent famine in east Africa. In their report they said that it was important to manage the risks, not the crisis, and to pre-empt famine more quickly rather than react afterwards. Have the Government learnt some of those lessons, and will they lobby internationally for action to ensure that the international community reacts more quickly in this case than it did in the east over the past 18 months?

[Baroness Northover]

The international community is, I think, indeed learning these extremely important lessons about acting quickly. The severity of the problem is recognised and the early warning systems that were in place have picked up the absolute necessity of acting rapidly to try to deal with this crisis. The early mobilisation of funds is happening and it is encouraging to see that shift, although we should not be complacent.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that that region is, unfortunately, becoming an extremely dangerous area? It includes mercenary elements who worked for Colonel Gaddafi and are now operating in the region. Significant elements of al-Qaeda and associated bodies may have moved to the region, and the very serious terrorist attacks in northern Nigeria are not unconnected with some of the problems there. Is the African Union considering how it will tackle the humanitarian situation? The security issues there are critical.

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Lord is right: the fighting in the region has been exacerbated by the cash, weapons and soldiers that have come from Libya following the fall of Gaddafi, overlaying this humanitarian crisis and making it much more dangerous for people to be working in the area. It is therefore extremely important, as the United Nations analysed recently, that a vacuum is not created for others to come into. The international community is acutely aware of that and the AU is being given technical support.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, what response has there been to the appeal by the International Development Secretary to take steps in addition to those that have already been taken by the Government of this country and by the European Union to avert the possibility that 6.8 million people in the Sahel may starve? Are any steps being taken by the international community to bring to an end the conflict in northern Mali that has led to the displacement of some 50,000 people in an area where, according to the ICRC, there is a threat of a major crisis of food availability after a very poor rainy season?

[Baroness Northover]

The international community is acutely aware of all the problems right across the region. One of the lessons from west Africa has been, as the crises that have happened there and across the region generally have shown, that you have to pick up the early warning signs of increasing food prices as well as food shortages. The displacement of people from Libya, as I just mentioned, and problems spilling over from Nigeria contribute to this problem. I am pleased to say that the EU is very much taking a lead in this area. The meeting yesterday shows that there is a lot to be done but there are encouraging signs that actions are being taken.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My Lords, the Minister has acknowledged that the struggling countries of the Sahel are now facing the fallout from the crisis in Libya. Hundreds of thousands of migrants have returned from Libya; communities have lost the income from remittances on which they depended; and huge caches of very sophisticated weapons, which were previously in the Libyan arsenal, are now flowing into the Sahel in the hands of ex-combatants. Would the Minister clearly outline the involvement of the UK, together with the EU and, very importantly, with the UN and regional bodies, in the efforts that need to be made to deal with this growing humanitarian and security problem?

[Baroness Northover]

This is currently very high on the UK’s agenda and those of the EU and the UN. There will shortly be a debate on this in the UN, as the noble Baroness probably knows. I spoke to relevant officials this morning and I can assure the noble Baroness that they are acutely aware of the problem of the weapons there. As she says, people have come back who are no longer sending remittances home and themselves need to be supported.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, the Minister has given the House the welcome news that the British Government are providing 68,000 children with food aid. Did she see UNICEF’s report last week, which said that 1 million children in the Sahel region are at risk of immediate malnutrition? How are we directing our aid, particularly towards the children who are at risk at this time?

[Baroness Northover]

UNICEF is supported by DfID, as the noble Lord knows. As I mentioned, the United Kingdom is working bilaterally but it is also working multilaterally through the EU and a number of NGOs, and is acutely aware that there are 1 million children at risk.

Arrangement of Business

Thursday 9th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Announcement of Recess Dates

11:37

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons is making a Statement on the sittings of the other place up to their return in January 2013. It may be for the convenience of the House if I now do the same.

The House already has the recess dates up to and including our return from the Summer Recess on 8 October. Naturally, those dates remain subject to the progress of business, but I should like to reconfirm my earlier intention that, all being well, the House will not sit in September 2012. I hope to provide a long weekend this November. We will probably rise at the end of business on Wednesday 14 November and return on Monday 19 November. We will rise for Christmas at the end of business on Thursday 20 December and return on Tuesday 8 January 2013. I hope the House will accept that this is something of a long-range forecast. I stress, as ever on these occasions, that all these dates are subject to the progress of business.

Local Digital Television Programme Services Order 2012

Thursday 9th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) Order 2012

Motions to Approve

11:38

Moved By

[Baroness Rawlings]

That the draft orders laid before the House on 15 December 2011 be approved.

Relevant document: 37th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 6 February.

Motions agreed.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Thursday 9th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Committee (9th Day)

11:39

Relevant documents: 21st Report from the Constitution Committee, 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, 21st and 22nd Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee.

Amendment 178

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

178: After Clause 83, insert the following new Clause—
“Right to appeal bail decisions
(1) The Bail (Amendment) Act 1993 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 1 insert—
“1A Appeal against a bail decision
(1) The prosecution may appeal to a judge of the High Court against the decision of a Crown Court to grant bail in a case where a person is charged with or convicted of an offence triable on indictment.
(2) Subsection (1) applies where the prosecution is conducted—
(a) by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions; or(b) by a person who falls within a class or description of person as prescribed in regulations made under this section.(3) An appeal under subsection (1) may only be made where—
(a) the prosecution made representations that bail should not be granted; and(b) the representations were made before it was granted. (4) In the event of the prosecution wishing to exercise the right of appeal under subsection (1), it must give oral notice of appeal to the Crown Court at the conclusion of the proceedings in which such bail has been granted and before the release from custody of the person concerned.
(5) Written notice of appeal shall thereafter be served on the Crown Court and the person concerned within two hours of the conclusion of such proceedings.
(6) Upon receipt from the prosecution of oral notice of appeal from its decision to grant bail, the Crown Court shall remand in custody the person concerned until the appeal is determined or otherwise disposed of.
(7) Where the prosecution fails within the period of two hours mentioned in subsection (5) to serve one or both of the notices in accordance with that subsection the appeal shall be deemed to have been disposed of.
(8) The hearing of an appeal against a decision of the Crown Court to grant bail under subsection (1) shall be commenced within forty-eight hours, excluding weekends and any public holiday (that is to say Christmas Day, Good Friday or a Bank Holiday) from the date on which oral notice of appeal is given.
(9) The judge hearing an appeal under this section shall be privy to any earlier evidence and may, at the conclusion of the hearing—
(a) remand the person concerned in custody; or(b) grant bail, subject to any conditions,as he or she sees fit.”.”

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, every so often—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is making a very diplomatic hesitation before moving an amendment that I know is not only of importance here but will be taken account of outside this House.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, every so often a tragic incident occurs which leads to a change in social policy or, indeed, a change in legislation. One thinks of the cases of Stephen Lawrence, Jamie Bulger, Victoria Climbié and Milly Dowler and, as your Lordships may recall when we were discussing amendments in relation to alcohol and offences the other night, the murder of the husband of a Member of your Lordships' House—the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove.

This amendment and the government amendment arise from the brutal murder of Jane Clough, a 26 year- old nurse and mother of a baby daughter, by the partner with whom she was living who had been charged with very grave sexual offences. The partner was granted bail in the magistrates’ court and the brutal murder occurred shortly thereafter. This morning I have had the humbling privilege of meeting Jane’s parents—John and Penny Clough. I salute the dignity and courage with which they are not only bearing the loss of a beloved daughter in the most appalling circumstances but the way they have campaigned, with support from a wide range of individuals and organisations and across party, for a change in the law to allow an appeal against the granting of bail. I know that they would wish for an expression of thanks to be made to all those who have supported them in this campaign, in particular to Vera Baird, the former Solicitor-General, and to Members of Parliament in the other place, notably Helen Goodman and Jenny Chapman. Penny and John are sitting today below Bar in your Lordships' House. They came the other night but, unfortunately, we did not reach this amendment at that time. They have stayed on in order to see effectively the culmination not only of their pain but also of their campaign.

Irrespective of whether bail is granted in a magistrates’ court or in a higher court, there will never be any guarantee that the person granted bail will not commit an offence. However, these amendments seek to ensure that in the appropriate cases the prosecution, knowing of the circumstances which gave rise to the charges in the first place, can at the very least take the matter to a higher court for determination, and offer a perhaps better prospect of avoiding a repetition of this dreadful incident or any incident like it. In approving a change in the law—I say immediately that I very much welcome the Government’s amendment and am happy to withdraw my amendment in favour of it—we should be able to demonstrate the capacity of Parliament to react to issues of this kind and to encourage others, perhaps facing different circumstances but where a change in the law might be needed, to follow the wonderful example of Jane’s parents, Penny and John, in ensuring that a change in the law is made. I said to them that if this House were given to standing ovations, they would be greeted with such an ovation today. Our hearts, our sympathies, but more particularly and perhaps more relevantly, our legislative endeavours go towards them today in meeting their objectives.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

Is there any possibility of any action being taken after the judge has considered the point? In other words, would the prosecution be able to take the matter further?

[Lord Beecham]

I do not think that the amendment allows for that, but that is a matter that perhaps might be considered. It is adequate that the Crown Court should be able to deal with these matters.

However, leaving that technicality aside, perhaps I may, on behalf of your Lordships' House, extend our very best wishes to the whole family of Penny and John because their daughter is seeking to adopt the grandchild, and all of them deserve our best wishes and, indeed, our thanks.

I intend to withdraw the amendment.

11:45

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has already outraged the protocol of this House by recognising people present beyond the Bar, but I do not think that he will be taken away to the Tower for that breach because it is good that Members of the House are aware that Jane’s parents are present to see us in action. I am afraid that the other night they had the experience of seeing the Lords in action that delayed this debate, but it is such an important matter for them, their family and the wider public that we have this debate today. I sincerely hope that within a few minutes they will see Jane’s law passed by this House.

Amendment 178ZZA creates a right of appeal for the prosecution against a Crown Court decision to grant bail. It does so by extending the existing powers in the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993, which currently provides for a right of appeal against bail granted by a magistrates’ court. That appeal is to the Crown Court. Under Amendment 178ZZA, the avenue of appeal against a Crown Court decision would be to the High Court.

As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, this is a matter that has been the subject of a campaign by Jane’s parents following the release on bail of Jonathan Vass by the Crown Court, despite representations from the Crown Prosecution Service. We considered this matter very carefully. We took account, on the one hand, of the fact that a right of appeal would necessarily impose an additional burden on the High Court. On the other hand, there was strong support for change in the other place, as we have heard, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has made it clear that he too is in favour of such a change in our law.

Our conclusion was that without calling into question the correctness of decisions made by Crown Court judges in the vast majority of cases, it is not right that such decisions should be beyond challenge. We are persuaded of the case for changing the law in order to ensure that victims and their families, and the public at large, are protected.

The effect of the provision will be that the decision to appeal must be made immediately, before the defendant has been released, and as the defendant would be held in custody pending the appeal, the appeal must be heard very quickly. Listing cases at such short notice before a High Court judge clearly has resource implications, and it is important that the right of appeal should be used sparingly. This will be recognised in the guidance that the Director of Public Prosecutions will issue to his staff, which will require a decision to appeal to be approved at a senior level.

The most notable difference between our Amendment 178ZZA and Amendment 178 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham—I am grateful that he intends to withdraw it—is that ours is shorter and does not permit an appeal against a decision by the Crown Court to grant bail where it was itself made on appeal from the grant of bail by a magistrates’ court. So if a defendant was granted bail by the magistrates, the prosecution appealed and the Crown Court granted bail, the prosecution would not be able to appeal further. This is to stop a continuing series of appeals on a matter that by then would have been considered by two courts. I therefore commend Amendments 178ZZA and 178ZZB to your Lordships' House.

It is my responsibility as the Minister to put on the record the technicalities; hence, some of my remarks may seem gobbledegook to those not in the Chamber. However, I can assure the House that what the Government are doing, supported by Her Majesty's Opposition and, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made clear, supported firmly by the other place, is approving Jane’s law.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 178 withdrawn.

Schedule 11: Amendment of enactments relating to bail

Amendment 178ZZZA

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

178ZZZA: Schedule 11, Page 193, line 34, after “enactment,”” insert “;
““imprisonable offence” means an offence punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment,”;
““sexual offence” means an offence specified in Part 2 of Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003,”;
““violent offence” means murder or an offence specified in Part 1 of Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003,””

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, these are technical government amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment 178ZZZA agreed.

Amendments 178ZZZB to 178ZZB

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

178ZZZB: Schedule 11, page 194, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—
“(1) Section 3 (general provisions) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (6ZAA), for “person),” substitute “person granted bail in criminal proceedings of the kind mentioned in section 1(1)(a) or (b)), section 3AAA (in the case of a child or young person granted bail in connection with extradition proceedings),”.
(3) In subsection (7)—”

178ZZZC: Schedule 11, Page 194, line 9, at end insert—
“3A (1) Section 3AA (conditions for the imposition of electronic monitoring requirements: children and young persons) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading after “young persons” insert “released on bail other than in extradition proceedings”.
(3) In subsection (1) (conditions for the imposition of electronic monitoring conditions: children and young persons) after “young person” insert “released on bail in criminal proceedings of the kind mentioned in section 1(1)(a) or (b)”.”
3B After section 3AA insert—
“3AAA Conditions for the imposition of electronic monitoring requirements: children and young persons released on bail in extradition proceedings
(1) A court may not impose electronic monitoring requirements on a child or young person released on bail in connection with extradition proceedings unless each of the following conditions is met.
(2) The first condition is that the child or young person has attained the age of twelve years.
(3) The second condition is that—
(a) the conduct constituting the offence to which the extradition proceedings relate, or one or more of those offences, would, if committed in the United Kingdom, constitute a violent or sexual offence or an offence punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment for a term of fourteen years or more, or(b) the offence or offences to which the extradition proceedings relate, together with any other imprisonable offences of which the child or young person has been convicted in any proceedings—(i) amount, or(ii) would, if the child or young person were convicted of that offence or those offences, amount,to a recent history of committing imprisonable offences while on bail or subject to a custodial remand. (4) The third condition is that the court is satisfied that the necessary provision for dealing with the child or young person concerned can be made under arrangements for the electronic monitoring of persons released on bail that are currently available in each local justice area which is a relevant area.
(5) The fourth condition is that a youth offending team has informed the court that in its opinion the imposition of electronic monitoring requirements will be suitable in the case of the child or young person.
(6) The references in subsection (3)(b) to an imprisonable offence include a reference to an offence—
(a) of which the child or young person has been accused or convicted outside the United Kingdom, and(b) which is equivalent to an offence that is punishable with imprisonment in the United Kingdom.(7) The reference in subsection (3)(b) to a child or young person being subject to a custodial remand are to the child or young person being—
(a) remanded to local authority accommodation or youth detention accommodation under section 84 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012,(b) remanded to local authority accommodation under section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, or(c) subject to a form of custodial detention in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom while awaiting trial or sentence in that country or territory or during a trial in that country or territory.”

178ZZZD: Schedule 11, Page 194, line 13, at end insert—
“4A In section 3AC (electronic monitoring: general provisions) in each of subsections (7) and (8) after “3AA” insert “, 3AAA”.”

178ZZA: Schedule 11, page 198, line 4, at end insert—
“Bail (Amendment) Act 1993 (c. 26)28A (1) Section 1 of the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993 (prosecution right of appeal where bail is granted) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1A) insert—
“(1B) Where a judge of the Crown Court grants bail to a person who is charged with, or convicted of, an offence punishable by imprisonment, the prosecution may appeal to the High Court against the granting of bail.
(1C) An appeal under subsection (1B) may not be made where a judge of the Crown Court has granted bail on an appeal under subsection (1).”
(3) In subsection (2) for “Subsection (1) above applies” substitute “Subsections (1) and (1B) above apply”.
(4) In subsections (3), (4) and (8) for “or (1A)” substitute “, (1A) or (1B)”.
(5) In subsection (10)(a)—
(a) for “reference in subsection (1)” substitute “references in subsections (1) and (1B)”, and (b) for “is to be read as a reference” substitute “are to be read as references”.”

178ZZB: Schedule 11, page 198, line 14, at end insert—
“30A In section 200 of the Extradition Act 2003 (amendments to section 1 of the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993) omit subsections (4)(a) and (7)(a).”

Amendments 178ZZZB to 178ZZB agreed.

Schedule 11, as amended, agreed.

Clauses 84 and 85 agreed.

Clause 86: Conditions etc on remands to local authority accommodation

Amendment 178ZA not moved.

Clause 86 agreed.

Clause 87: Requirements for electronic monitoring

Amendment 178ZZAZA

Moved by

[Lord Ramsbotham]

178ZZAZA: Clause 87, Page 66, line 12, leave out “twelve” and insert “fourteen”

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, in speaking to the amendment and Amendments 178ZAA, 178ZAB, 178ZAC and178ZAD, I must state my strong support for the reforms implicit in Clauses 91 to 94, which place two clear sets of conditions on a court before a child can be remanded in custody. I say that because, at present, one-third of all children remanded to youth detention accommodation do not go on to receive a custodial sentence. I also support the simplified single remand order, which addresses the anomaly of 17 year- olds being remanded in adult accommodation.

I turn to Amendment 178ZZAZA. Our debate on Tuesday on Clause 75 concerning the proposed increase in curfew hours is linked to Clauses 87 to 89, to which the amendment refers, because electronic monitoring of children is part of their curfew regime. Clause 87(2) states:

“The first requirement is that the child has reached the age of twelve”,

before he or she may be electronically monitored. I and the Prison Reform Trust—for whose admirable briefing on this and many other issues I and, I am sure, many other noble Lords are extremely grateful—contend that 12 is too young.

Research suggests that, particularly if the longer periods that were so deplored around the Committee on Tuesday are adopted, many children aged 12 are likely to find compliance with electronic monitoring too onerous due to developmental immaturity, learning difficulties, learning disabilities or other mental health and communication problems, contributing to a lack of understanding of the consequences of their actions. This is borne out by the breach figures, which show that one in six children aged 10 to 14 in custody had been imprisoned for breach of a curfew order.

As was mentioned on Tuesday, Home Office research published in 2005 raised concerns that electronic monitoring can also prevent children participating in legitimate activities, thus increasing the likelihood of breach. I am aware that in Committee in another place the Minister, Crispin Blunt, said in rejecting a similar amendment:

“By removing the power of the court to use electronic monitoring with 12 and 13-year-olds, the amendments would push courts to remand more young children in secure accommodation … contrary to the policy underlying the provisions, which are aimed at reducing the use of secure remands of children and promoting greater community provision”.—[Official Report, Commons, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill Committee, 11/10/11; col. 709.]

With respect, I think he missed the point that was being made, which was that removing the power to electronically monitor would encourage positive engagement. From personal experience, I know that better outcomes result from positive engagement than from the imposition of onerous conditions, particularly with younger offenders. The amendment seeks to raise the minimum age for electronic monitoring from 12 to 14, with the same age condition for remand to youth detention, to which my Amendments 178ZAA to 178ZAD refer. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, it is certainly desirable that electronic monitoring should be used very sparingly but there may well be cases in which even a 12 or 13 year- old has exhibited behaviour which requires—I say with some reluctance—monitoring of this kind. Therefore, I am afraid that the Opposition cannot support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.

However, I have a question in relation to Amendment 178ZAD, which concerns extradition cases. I should like an assurance that, if the country requesting extradition does not itself apply electronic monitoring to the age group in question, such cases will not attract that procedure in this country. It would seem anomalous if we were to go further than the country seeking extradition in applying electronic monitoring to those cases. Perhaps the noble Baroness could deal with that. If she cannot do so today, perhaps she could write to me accordingly.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, we understand the intention behind the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and are very sympathetic to his concern for children and young people. The welfare of a child or young person securely remanded is clearly very important. Extending looked-after child status to all those under 18 who are securely remanded, as we are doing in Clause 97, proves our commitment to that.

However, the Government believe that the current age threshold for secure remand of a child should remain at 12. Serious offences are sometimes committed by 12 and 13 year-olds. They present such a risk of harm that the court may come to the decision that a remand to secure accommodation is necessary to protect the public. We do not think that this decision is one that local authorities should be making, which would be the only alternative. It is not fair to impose this burden of responsibility on local authorities.

Amendment 178ZZAZA, however, raises quite different issues. It is inconsistent as between non-extradition and extradition proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has flagged up some of those inconsistencies. In the former, the age threshold for electronic monitoring of children remanded to non-secure local authority accommodation would be raised from 12 to 14 years. In extradition cases it would remain at 12 years of age. A similar inconsistency would arise depending on whether the child or young person is on bail or remanded to non-secure local authority accommodation. The age threshold is currently set at 12 years in both circumstances, but this amendment would raise the threshold to 14 years in respect of remands to non-secure local authority accommodation only. Furthermore, by removing the power of the court to use electronic monitoring in respect of 12 and 13 year-olds, the amendment could have the effect of more young children being remanded in secure accommodation. The availability of electronic monitoring can be the deciding factor in a court giving bail to a young offender.

Younger children are more likely to have risk factors that can be managed in the community with appropriate conditions and electronic monitoring to ensure compliance. Removing the power to monitor electronically children under the age of 14 would create a gap in the powers of the court to manage properly some children aged 12 and 13 who, regrettably, engage in serious criminal behaviour. Such monitoring is an essential tool for ensuring the compliance of children who do not meet the test for a secure remand but who nevertheless pose a risk of further offending. This risk is best met with a remand to local authority accommodation subject to curfew.

In terms of extradition, we are making provision for a hypothetical position in respect of a child subject to extradition proceedings. This will ensure fair treatment. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Whitaker]

I apologise for not being here at the start of the debate. Has the Minister’s department carried out any research into the influence of the peer group on young offenders aged from 12 to 14? There can be very sympathetic officials in the institutions which hold these young people but the problem is that they get influenced, if not abused, by most unwholesome characters. I draw on rather out-of-date experience as a magistrate, but that was always a concern. If the Minister does not have the information now perhaps she could write.

[Baroness Northover]

I am happy to write to the noble Baroness. Of course she is absolutely right. We know very well that the influence of peer groups is a very important issue.

[Lord Beecham]

I thank the noble Baroness for the information that was conveyed to her from the Box but it does not quite reach the point that I was making. The point was that if the country to which the child is being extradited does not apply electronic monitoring, should we be doing it? That was my question, but I am not asking for an answer now.

[Baroness Northover]

I am very happy to write to the noble Lord on that point.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and grateful too for the intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I said at the beginning that I am glad to see the reforms that are implicit already in Clauses 91 to 94 but, as I am sure the noble Baroness realises, there is disquiet over the use of electronic monitoring for extended periods, particularly for young people. I suspect that this will return on Report, if not with my amendment then in connection with Clause 75, which was discussed on Tuesday. I am grateful that obviously work has been done to produce the answers to these probing amendments. In that spirit and with gratitude to the Minister I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 178ZZAZA withdrawn.

Clause 87 agreed.

Clause 88 : Requirements for electronic monitoring: extradition cases

Amendment 178ZAZA

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

178ZAZA: Clause 88, Page 67, line 38, leave out from beginning to “of”

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, this is a technical amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

It would appear that I am in some danger of becoming a repeat offender when it comes to breaching protocol. I apologise to the House.

My only concern about the technical amendments in this group is the insertion in Amendment 178ZAZB of the word “accused” before the word “charged”. I appreciate that it is intended to correct what was described as an accidental gap in replicating earlier provisions, but it concerns me that we may apply electronic monitoring to people who have not been charged but merely accused of an offence in another jurisdiction. I wonder whether it is the right approach. Perhaps the noble Lord will want to think further on that. It strikes me as a little odd, in the same way as the previous matter we discussed struck me as odd. I may be entirely wrong but it seems to jar with the notion that a simple accusation would suffice to allow somebody to undergo electronic monitoring.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, one of the uses of Committee is to allow noble Lords to scrutinise and to seek clarification. The noble Lord’s point is not covered in my notes. The amendments in this group are intended to be minor and technical. They set out a requirement for electronic monitoring in extradition cases that is consistent with its use under the Extradition Act 2003. Clause 88 is intended to create a test that is equivalent to that in Clause 87 which applies to young people who are charged with or convicted of an offence. “Accused” is the word used in the Extradition Act. If we did not change the wording of the Bill to match, we would create a lacuna whereby the courts would have only limited remand powers over an individual who was being extradited before being charged. I will clarify the noble Lord's point about the use of electronic tagging and write to him.

Amendment 178ZAZA agreed.

Amendments 178ZAZB to 178ZAZE

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

178ZAZB: Clause 88, Page 67, line 38, after second “been” insert “accused or”

178ZAZC: Clause 88, Page 68, line 1, after “country” insert “or territory”

178ZAZD: Clause 88, Page 68, line 2, after “country” insert “or territory”

178ZAZE: Clause 88, Page 68, line 3, after “country” insert “or territory”

Amendments 178ZAZB to 178ZAZE agreed.

Clause 88, as amended, agreed.

Clauses 89 and 90 agreed.

Clause 91 : First set of conditions for a remand to youth detention accommodation

Amendment 178ZAA not moved.

Clause 91 agreed.

Clause 92 : Second set of conditions for a remand to youth detention accommodation

Amendment 178ZAB not moved.

Amendment 178ZABA

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

178ZABA: Clause 92, page 71, line 16, leave out from second “sentence” to end of line 25 and insert “or order mentioned in section 76(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.”

Amendment 178ZABA agreed.

Clause 92, as amended, agreed.

Clause 93 : First set of conditions for a remand to youth detention accommodation: extradition cases

Amendment 178ZAC not moved.

Clause 93 agreed.

Clause 94 : Second set of conditions for a remand to youth detention accommodation: extradition cases

Amendment 178ZAD not moved.

Clause 94 agreed.

Clause 95 : Remands to youth detention accommodation

Amendment 178ZAE

Moved by

[Baroness Northover]

178ZAE: Clause 95, page 73, line 39, at end insert “, and
(d) accommodation, or accommodation of a description, for the time being specified by order under section 107(1)(e) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (youth detention accommodation for purposes of detention and training order provisions).”

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, this is a substantial group of amendments, many of which are minor and technical. However, there are a number of substantive amendments which the Committee will be interested in and which I will go through briefly. These relate predominately to the functions of the Secretary of State and the Youth Justice Board and are set out in Clauses 95, 96 and 97.

Amendment 178ZAE expands the definition of youth detention accommodation currently set out at Clause 95(2) to include any new form of youth detention accommodation specified by the Secretary of State under Section 107(1)(e) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. In recent years we have seen a significant reduction in the number of young people sentenced to custody. Although the number of those remanded has not shown the same reduction, we believe that the remand proposals contained within Chapter 3 have the potential to bring about a fall in the level of secure remand to youth detention accommodation also. If this occurs, and demand on the secure estate continues to fall, this may provide further opportunities to plan and pilot new forms of youth detention accommodation. Such accommodation would be developed with the aim of improving outcomes for children and young people, and this amendment would allow it to be used to accommodate remanded young people as well as those who are detained post-sentence.

Amendment 178ZBC extends the power in Clause 96 that gives the Secretary of State the power to make arrangements with providers of secure children’s homes to accommodate remanded young people so that the Secretary of State may also make such arrangements for the use of newly specified types of accommodation.

Amendments 178ZBA and 178ZBE provide for the Secretary of State’s functions in Clauses 95 and 96 to be exercisable concurrently with the Youth Justice Board. That is, both the Secretary of State and the YJB may exercise the power. They also allow the Secretary of State by order to provide that these functions should be exercisable solely by him or her. This order-making power is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as set out in Amendment 178ZBG.

In tabling these substantive amendments, the Government have responded to Parliament’s decision not to abolish the Youth Justice Board. These amendments ensure that the Youth Justice Board can continue to carry out its placement and estate management functions in relation to remanded young people. These amendments also provide a concurrent power, with the Secretary of State, for the Youth Justice Board to make payments to and recover costs from local authorities. Payments will be made to local authorities to enable them to take on greater financial responsibility for the costs of secure remand and to invest to help ensure that remands to custody occur only when appropriate. The clear intent is that this funding will be used only for the provision of youth justice services.

The last set of substantive amendments in this group, Amendments 178ZBJ, 178ZBK, 178ZBL and178ZBM, amend the test set out in Section 3AA of the Bail Act 1976 that a court must apply when deciding whether it may impose electronic monitoring on a child or young person as a condition of their bail. The amendments allow for imprisonable offences committed by a child or young person while remanded in custody under existing provisions or remanded in youth detention accommodation under the provisions of the Bill to be taken into account by the court when determining whether a child or young person has a history of offending. This change is consistent with the equivalent condition in Clause 87 relating to electronic monitoring of a child remanded to local authority accommodation.

Amendments 178ZBB, 178ZBH, 178ZBN, 178ZBP, 178ZBQ and 178ZBR are minor and technical amendments associated with the provisions in Chapter 3.

I should mention that we will arrange for the letter that my noble friend Lord McNally recently sent to all Peers regarding the Government’s youth justice amendments, to which I referred earlier, to be placed in the House Libraries. I beg to move.

12:15

[Lord Beecham]

I am grateful to the Minister for this group of amendments, with which we entirely concur. I am particularly glad that the wisdom of the House in ensuring that the Youth Justice Board has been preserved is reflected in here. I am unable to resist the temptation, given the name of the chief executive of the Youth Justice Board, to say that justice has been done. I am sure that Frances Done will be delighted to see these amendments and I congratulate the Government on their wisdom in accepting the original views of the House.

Amendment 178ZAE agreed.

Amendment 178ZB not moved.

Amendments 178ZBA and 178ZBB

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

178ZBA: Clause 95, page 74, line 20, at end insert—
“(8A) A function of the Secretary of State under this section (other than the function of making regulations) is exercisable by the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales concurrently with the Secretary of State.
(8B) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that subsection (8A) is not to apply, either generally or in relation to a particular description of case.”

178ZBB: Clause 95, page 74, line 21, leave out from “means” to end of line 33 and insert “accommodation which is provided in a children’s home, within the meaning of the Care Standards Act 2000—
(a) which provides accommodation for the purposes of restricting liberty, and(b) in respect of which a person is registered under Part 2 of that Act.(10) Before the coming into force in relation to England of section 107(2) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003, subsection (9) has effect as if it defined “secure children’s home” in relation to England as accommodation which—
(a) is provided in a children’s home, within the meaning of the Care Standards Act 2000, in respect of which a person is registered under Part 2 of that Act, and(b) is approved by the Secretary of State for the purpose of restricting the liberty of children.”

Amendments 178ZBA and 178ZBB agreed.

Clause 95, as amended, agreed.

Clause 96 : Arrangements for remands

Amendments 178ZBC to 178ZBE

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

178ZBC: Clause 96, page 74, line 37, after “homes” insert “, or accommodation within section 95(2)(d),”

178ZBD: Clause 96, page 75, line 9, leave out subsections (4) to (6)

178ZBE: Clause 96, page 75, line 20, at end insert—
“(8) A function of the Secretary of State under this section (other than the function of making regulations) is exercisable by the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales concurrently with the Secretary of State.
(9) The power to make regulations under subsection (2) includes power to make provision about the recovery of costs by the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales.
(10) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that subsection (8), or provision made by virtue of subsection (9), is not to apply, either generally or in relation to a particular description of case.”

Amendments 178ZBC to 178ZBE agreed.

Clause 96, as amended, agreed.

Clause 97 : Looked after child status

Amendment 178ZBF

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

178ZBF: Clause 97, page 75, line 28, leave out subsections (3) to (5)

Amendment 178ZBF agreed.

Clause 97, as amended, agreed.

Clause 98 agreed.

Amendment 178ZBG

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

178ZBG: After Clause 98, insert the following new Clause—
“Regulations under this Chapter
(1) Regulations under this Chapter are to be made by statutory instrument.
(2) Regulations under this Chapter may—
(a) make different provision for different cases;(b) include supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this Chapter is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, subject to subsection (4).
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 95(8B) or 96(10) (whether alone or with any other provision) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

Amendment 178ZBG agreed.

Schedule 12 : Remands of children otherwise than on bail: minor and consequential amendments

Amendments 178ZBH to 178ZBN

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

178ZBH: Schedule 12, page 199, line 12, at end insert—
“(5) In subsection (7), in the definition of “serious offence”, after “means” insert “(subject to subsection (8))”.
(6) After subsection (7) insert—
“(8) For the purposes of the application of this section to a person remanded on bail in connection with proceedings under the Extradition Act 2003—
(a) an offence is a “serious offence” if the conduct constituting the offence would, if committed in the United Kingdom, constitute an offence punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment for a term of two years or more, and(b) the reference in subsection (1)(a) to a person being charged with a serious offence includes a reference to the person having been accused of such an offence.””

178ZBJ: Schedule 12, page 200, line 10, leave out “In”

178ZBK: Schedule 12, page 200, line 11, after “seventeen)” insert “is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3), at the end insert “or youth detention accommodation”.
(3) ”

178ZBL: Schedule 12, page 200, line 13, after “section” insert “—
(a) ”

178ZBM: Schedule 12, page 200, line 15, at end insert “,
(b) the reference to being remanded to youth detention accommodation is to be construed in accordance with section 95 of that Act, and(c) those references include a reference to a remand to local authority accommodation under section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.”

178ZBN: Schedule 12, page 203, line 19, leave out “133” and insert “133(1)”

Amendments 178ZBH to 178ZBN agreed.

Schedule 12, as amended, agreed.

Clause 99 : Interpretation of Chapter

Amendments 178ZBP to 178ZBR

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

178ZBP: Clause 99, page 76, line 35, leave out subsection (4)

178ZBQ: Clause 99, page 76, line 40, after “accommodation” insert “, and related expressions,”

178ZBR: Clause 99, page 76, line 43, at end insert—
“(8) Subsections (3) and (6) are subject to sections 87(9), 88(10) and 92(11) (references to remand to local authority accommodation or youth detention accommodation to include such a remand under section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969).”

Amendments 178ZBP to 178ZBR agreed.

Clause 99, as amended, agreed.

Clause 100 : Crediting of periods of remand in custody

Amendment 178ZC

Moved by

[Baroness Northover]

178ZC: Clause 100, page 77, line 12, leave out “committed on or after 4th April 2005”

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, this package of amendments will give effect to the second stage of the Government’s approach to the simplification and clarification of the current release and recall provisions for determinate sentenced prisoners by bringing these provisions together within a single statute—the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The current release and recall provisions are spread across a number of different statutes, subject to commencement orders with complex transitional and savings provisions and subsequent amendments. This has created an extremely intricate and unwieldy web of legislation which is very difficult to follow, even for criminal justice experts and practitioners. This in turn has been heavily criticised by the courts and calls have been made for the Government to simplify the provisions.

The first step in our approach to achieve this simplification was to introduce the provisions contained in Clauses 100 to 112 of Chapter 4 of the Bill. These amend the current 2003 Act provisions to establish the single regime that will apply to those sentences imposed on or after commencement.

The second stage of our approach, which is what this package of amendments will do, is to consolidate within the 2003 Act those provisions of the Criminal Justice Acts 1967 and 1991 that will be required to continue to apply to those prisoners who, at the time of commencement, are subject to the release arrangements of those previous statutory regimes. We have no intention of making substantial changes to the way in which the sentences of those existing prisoners operate and so these amendments do not change the release dates or licence lengths for those current prisoners. In practice, this means saving the current release regimes for the few remaining 1967 Act prisoners; 1991 Act prisoners serving long-term sentences of four years or more for sexual or violent offences—often known as “DCR” prisoners; and for current 2003 Act extended sentence prisoners. Going forward, however, all sentences imposed on or after the date of commencement will be subject to the 2003 Act release and recall arrangements, as amended by the provisions in this Bill, regardless of the date that the offender committed his or her offences.

That is the broad effect of this package of amendments. I would be happy to explain what each of the amendments does should your Lordships find that helpful, but in the interests of keeping my explanation to a minimum I propose simply to highlight the main features. I can assure your Lordships that, while these amendments are long and technical, they do not make substantive changes to the current release arrangements. They are intended mainly to make the legislation itself clearer, easier to follow and less open to misinterpretation.

Two new schedules will be inserted into the 2003 Act—the content of these make up the bulk of the amendments. The first, Schedule 20A, makes amendments to other statutes that are consequential on the amendments made to the 2003 Act. It also contains transitional provisions to allow prisoners released under the 1991 Act to be deemed to have been released under the 2003 Act, while preserving their current licence length. The second, Schedule 20B, reproduces within the 2003 Act the elements of the 1967 and 1991 Act release regimes that need to be preserved for those prisoners already serving these types of sentence. In other words, it achieves the consolidation of all the current release provisions into a single statute.

Connected to the introduction of new Schedule 20B, our intention now is to remove Clause 112. The clause contains a power to allow the Secretary of State to make an order by secondary legislation to bring the release and recall provisions of the Criminal Justice Acts of 1967 and 1991 into the 2003 Act. But with the introduction of these amendments, and Schedule 20B in particular, that consolidation now will be achieved on the face of the Act so that the order-making power is no longer necessary and can be removed. I commend this package of amendments to your Lordships and I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I welcome the clarification that this range of amendments brings about. I am particularly glad to see the mea culpa stance over Clause 112 standing part and hope that this presages greater use of the procedure whereby the Government withdraw proposals which are not satisfactory. I trust that this is the first swallow of a summer of such arrivals.

Amendment 178ZC agreed.

Amendments 178ZD to 178ZG

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

178ZD: Clause 100, page 78, leave out lines 17 to 20

178ZE: Clause 100, page 78, line 22, after “91” insert “or 96”

178ZF: Clause 100, page 78, line 23, after “section” insert “227 or”

178ZG: Clause 100, page 78, line 23, leave out from second “Act” to end of line 25

Amendments 178ZD to 178ZG agreed.

Clause 100, as amended, agreed.

Clause 101 : Crediting of periods of remand on bail

Amendment 178ZH

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

178ZH: Clause 101, page 79, line 28, leave out “, (11)”

Amendment 178ZH agreed.

Clause 101, as amended, agreed.

Clause 102 : Amendments consequential on sections 100 and 101

Amendments 178ZJ and 178ZK

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

178ZJ: Clause 102, page 80, line 39, at end insert—
“( ) In section 305(1A) (modification of reference to want of sufficient distress), inserted by paragraph 155 of Schedule 13 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, for “In the definition of “sentence of imprisonment” in subsection (1) the reference” substitute “In this Part any reference”.”

178ZK: Clause 102, page 81, line 4, at end insert—
“( ) section 23 and Schedule 6.”

Amendments 178ZJ and 178ZK agreed.

Clause 102, as amended, agreed.

Schedule 13 : Crediting of time in custody: Armed Forces amendments

Amendment 178ZL

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

178ZL: Schedule 13, page 205, line 25, at end insert—
“Part 2Other amendmentsCriminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19)6 In Schedule 2 to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (procedural and other provisions applicable on order for retrial), in paragraph 2(4), for “Sections 240” substitute “Sections 240ZA”.
Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77)7 In section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971 (exemption from deportation for certain existing residents), in subsection (4), after “section 240” insert “, 240ZA or 240A”.
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53)8 In section 35A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (extension of disqualification where custodial sentence also imposed), in subsection (6)—
(a) omit “a direction under”;(b) in paragraph (a), for “section 240” substitute “section 240ZA”;(c) in paragraph (b), before “section 240A” insert “a direction under”.Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6)9 The Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 is amended as follows.
10 In section 82A (determination of tariffs), in subsection (3)(b), for “section 240” substitute “section 240ZA”.
11 In section 101 (term of detention and training order), in subsection (12A), for “the reference in subsection (2) of that section to section 240” substitute “the reference in subsection (2A) of that section to section 240ZA”.
12 In section 147A (extension of disqualification where custodial sentence also imposed), in subsection (6)—
(a) omit “a direction under”;(b) in paragraph (a), for “section 240” substitute “section 240ZA”;(c) in paragraph (b), before “section 240A” insert “a direction under”. International Criminal Court Act 2001 (c. 17) 13 In Schedule 7 to the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (domestic provisions not applicable to ICC prisoners), in paragraph 2(1)(d), for “sections 240” substitute “sections 240ZA”.”

Amendment 178ZL agreed.

Schedule 13, as amended, agreed.

Clause 103 : Prisoners serving less than 12 months

Amendments 178ZM and 178ZN

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

178ZM: Clause 103, page 81, line 12, leave out from “months” to end of line 14

178ZN: Clause 103, page 81, line 25, at end insert—
“(4) This section is subject to—
(a) section 256B (supervision of young offenders after release), and(b) paragraph 8 of Schedule 20B (transitional cases).””

Amendments 178ZM and 178ZN agreed.

Clause 103, as amended, agreed.

Schedule 14 : Prisoners serving less than 12 months: consequential amendments

Amendment 178ZP

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

178ZP: Schedule 14, page 205, line 27, at end insert—
“Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53)1 In section 35A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (extension of disqualification where custodial sentence also imposed)—
(a) in subsection (8), after “section” insert “243A(3)(a),”;(b) in subsection (9)(a), after “in respect of section” insert “243A(3)(a) or”.Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (c. 43)2 In Schedule 1 to the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (transfer of prisoners within the British Islands), in paragraphs 8(2)(a) and 9(2)(a), after “sections 241,” insert “243A,”.
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6)3 In section 147A of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (extension of disqualification where custodial sentence also imposed)—
(a) in subsection (8), after “section” insert “243A(3)(a),”;(b) in subsection (9)(a), after “in respect of section” insert “243A(3)(a) or”.International Criminal Court Act 2001 (c. 17)4 In Schedule 7 to the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (domestic provisions not applicable to ICC prisoners), in paragraph 3(1), for “sections 244” substitute “sections 243A”.”

Amendment 178ZP agreed.

Schedule 14, as amended, agreed.

Clause 104 : Restrictions on early release subject to curfew

Amendments 178ZQ to 178ZS

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

178ZQ: Clause 104, page 82, line 12, after “91” insert “or 96”

178ZR: Clause 104, page 82, line 12, after second “section” insert “227 or”

178ZS: Clause 104, page 82, leave out lines 13 and 14

Amendments 178ZQ to 178ZS agreed.

Clause 104, as amended, agreed.

Clauses 105 to 108 agreed.

Amendment 178ZT

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

178ZT: After Clause 108, insert the following new Clause—
“Replacement of transitory provisions
(1) Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (release on licence) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 237(1)(b) (“fixed-term prisoner” includes those serving sentence of detention)—
(a) after “91” insert “or 96”;(b) before “228” insert “227 or”.(3) At the end of that section insert—
“(3) In this Chapter, references to a sentence of detention under section 96 of the Sentencing Act or section 227 of this Act are references to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution.”
(4) In section 244(3)(a) (duty to release prisoners: requisite custodial period), after “91” insert “or 96”.
(5) In section 250(4) (licence conditions)—
(a) after “91” insert “or 96”;(b) before “228” insert “227 or”.(6) In section 258 (early release of fine defaulters and contemnors), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) The reference in subsection (3) to sentences of imprisonment includes sentences of detention under section 91 or 96 of the Sentencing Act or under section 227 or 228 of this Act.”
(7) In section 263(4) (concurrent terms)—
(a) after “91” insert “or 96”;(b) before “228” insert “227 or”.(8) In section 264(7) (consecutive terms)—
(a) after “91” insert “or 96”;(b) before “228” insert “227 or”.(9) In section 265(2) (restriction on consecutive sentences)—
(a) after “91” insert “or 96”;(b) before “228” insert “227 or”.(10) In Part 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (life sentences: release on licence)—
(a) in section 31A(5) (termination of licences), in the definition of “preventive sentence”, after “a sentence of imprisonment” insert “or detention in a young offender institution”;(b) in section 34(2)(d) (interpretation), after “a sentence of imprisonment” insert “or detention in a young offender institution”.(11) In the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Sentencing) (Transitory Provisions) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/643), article 3(7), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15) and (17)(a) and (b) (transitory provision replaced by this section) are revoked.”

Amendment 178ZT agreed.

Clauses 109 to 111 agreed.

Schedule 15 : Application of sections 100 to 110 and transitional and transitory provisions

Amendment 178ZU

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

178ZU: Schedule 15, page 208, line 4, at end insert—
“( ) Section (Replacement of transitory provisions) applies in relation to any person who falls to be released under Chapter 6, or (as the case may be) under Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, on or after the commencement date.”

Amendment 178ZU agreed.

Schedule 15, as amended, agreed.

Clause 112 disagreed.

Amendment 178ZV

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

178ZV: Before Clause 113, insert the following new Clause—
“Simplification of existing transitional provisions
(1) Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”) is to apply to any person serving a sentence for an offence committed before 4 April 2005 (whenever that sentence was or is imposed).
(2) Section 258 of the 2003 Act (release of fine defaulters and contemnors) is to apply to any person who was, before 4 April 2005, committed to prison or to be detained under section 108 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000—
(a) in default of payment of a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction, or(b) for contempt of court or any kindred offence.(3) In accordance with subsections (1) and (2)—
(a) the repeal of Part 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which is made by section 303(a) of the 2003 Act has effect in relation to any person mentioned in those subsections;(b) paragraphs 15 to 18, 19(a), (c) and (d), 20, 22 to 28 and 30 to 34 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No. 8 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2008 (S.I. 2005/950) (which relate to the coming into force of provisions of Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the 2003 Act) are revoked.(4) Section 86 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (extension of periods in custody and on licence in the case of certain sexual offences) is repealed.
(5) Schedule (Amendments of the Criminal Justice Act 2003: transitional and consequential provisions) (transitional and other provisions consequential on this section) has effect.
(6) Schedule (Criminal Justice Act 2003: restatement of transitional provisions) (amendments to the 2003 Act restating the effect of certain transitional and other provisions relating to the release and recall of prisoners) has effect.”

Amendment 178ZV agreed.

Amendment 178A

Moved by

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

178A: Before Clause 113, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to release certain prisoners serving a whole life sentence
In Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 after section 28 insert— “28A Duty to release certain prisoners serving a whole life sentence
(1) In the case of a life prisoner who has been made subject to a whole life order, and has served 30 years of his sentence, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge if available, to refer the case to the Parole Board.
(2) If the Parole Board is satisfied—
(a) that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined, and(b) that in all the circumstances the release of the prisoner on licence would be in the interests of justice,the Parole Board may direct his release under this section.(3) Where the Parole Board has directed a prisoner’s release under this section, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to release him on licence.””

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, this is one of three amendments in my name in this chapter of the Bill. They are grouped separately but they all have one thing in common: like Clause 113, they are an attempt to undo some of the harm that was done by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The introduction of indeterminate sentences for the protection of the public—now to be abolished—has had disastrous consequences, as we all know, to which we will later come in further amendments.

The IPP sentence is but one example of the harm that has been done by the 2003 Act. Amendment 178A deals with another example. It concerns the 41 prisoners currently serving whole life sentences, who have no hope of being released except on compassionate grounds. If you ask me how many such prisoners have ever been released on compassionate grounds, the answer is none.

The position was very different before the 2003 Act came into force. In those days, the tariff was fixed by the Home Secretary. In the most serious cases he would impose a whole life sentence, as judges do now, but there was this vital difference: it was then the settled practice of successive Home Secretaries to review such sentences after 25 years. If the prisoner had made exceptional progress and there was no other purpose in keeping him in prison, he would be considered for release.

The question is why that humane practice was not re-enacted when the 2003 Act came into force. It cannot, one imagines, have been deliberate unless the settled practice of Home Secretaries had proved to be unsatisfactory in some way, and there is no evidence of that, so it must have been overlooked. We now have a chance to put it right. We can give these 41 prisoners serving whole life sentences the same chance of a review as they had before the 2003 Act came into force. Of course it does not mean that they will be released because it would depend on the circumstances of each individual case, but it does at least mean that they will have a hope of review. That is the very limited purpose of this amendment.

12:31

There is, however, another consideration which I am sure the Government will have in mind. On 17 January this year, the fourth section of the European Court of Human Rights gave judgment in the case of Vinter and Others v the United Kingdom. The question was whether the imposition of what is known as an irreducible life sentence, that is to say a whole life sentence without hope of parole, was of itself a breach of Article 3 of the convention. The Court decided by the slenderest of majorities that it was not, and so the Government won—just. But there is now to be an appeal to the Grand Chamber, and if the Government lose, they will have to enact primary legislation to allow for review after 25 or 30 years in whole life cases. That being so, it must surely be sensible to make the change now, while we have the opportunity, and thus bring us into line not only with our own previous practice, as I have described, but also with that of the International Criminal Court and every other European country except, as I understand it, Holland.

As far as I can see, there cannot be any objection to the Government taking that course and therefore agreeing this amendment. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply. I beg to move.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

My Lords, I welcome every word that has been said to justify this amendment. It is altogether impossible that 41 prisoners serving whole life sentences should be imprisoned in this way. What the noble and learned Lord has said is absolutely essential as far as having a civilised attitude where the criminal law is concerned. People serving whole life sentences will be able to look forward with some hope if the conditions in the amendment are satisfied and the Parole Board accepts the submissions that are made. I thank the noble Lord for raising this vital point.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I was very glad to add my name to this amendment. I have the utmost respect for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. He always brings to our deliberations his very high standards of legal expertise, but what I like about him, if I am allowed to say so, is that that legal expertise is always tempered with the values of the civilised society and a strong sense of humanitarian concern. Long may he remain with us to bring those to bear.

We do not indulge in vengeance in our penal system. We are about an appropriate punishment for a serious offence, and that must happen because it is absolutely right. But we are also about the challenge of rehabilitation. However dreadful the crime that has been committed and however much we may feel a sense of solidarity and empathy with the victims of crime, the challenge in a civilised society is to try to enable the perpetrator of the crime to see the significance of what they have done, to recognise and accept responsibility for it, and to move on to a positive and creative life. If we do not always strive to try to enable someone who has done a dreadful thing to become a better person and to rejoin society as a better person, I think that we demonstrate a lack of self-confidence in our own civilised values. Of course it is no good sentimentalising this issue. There will be some people where these endeavours make no progress in the end, and there are others where it may just simply be impossible to consider release. But the aspiration should be that the person will be released as a positive, reformed and different member of society, contributing constructively.

I know about this from indirect personal experience, if that is possible. For 10 years, my wife served on the board of a prison exclusively for lifers. In some ways it was an avant-garde prison at that time, but I was always encouraged by the stories she brought back about the exciting and imaginative work being done there. One of her fellow governors was the late Roman Catholic Archbishop of Liverpool, who at that time was the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portsmouth. He served with great commitment on that board and we were all great friends. We used to discuss the prison and its works. We would take heart from the encouraging things that were happening and laugh about some of the warm and positive stories that came out of the situation, but I remember that he would always say, “Basically, it is a very sad place”. What my wife talked about is something that I find very difficult to cope with: the prisoner who sees absolutely no light at the end of the tunnel. How does this help the process of rehabilitation? How does this help the process of reconstructing a life? From this standpoint, I believe that the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, not for the first time, can claim to stand for civilisation and humanitarian values in society. We should warmly applaud it.

[The Lord Bishop of Chichester]

My Lords, it will not surprise you that I wholeheartedly support the amendment. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for warning against sentiment. There is a robustness about offering human beings hope that contributes specifically to the rehabilitation and reconstruction of which he spoke. However, this is about much more than simply giving hope to individuals, because a society that does not give hope to individuals is unlikely to have hope for itself in areas in which it feels as a society hopeless. In terms of a civilised society, this is a very humane amendment which is necessary for our societal good as well as for the individuals for whom it is designed.

[Baroness Stern]

My Lords, I support the amendment and endorse the excellent speeches made by all those who have spoken so far. I stress, as they have, that this is not an amendment about releasing any particular person who has done any particular thing; it is an amendment about what sort of penal system we have and its values.

One of the consequences of the very welcome abolition of the death penalty—I declare an interest as chair of the All-Party Group for the Abolition of the Death Penalty—was a search for another sentence for the most serious and dreadful crimes. A few countries decided to adopt the life-without-parole alternative. In the United States in 2009, there were more than 2,500 juveniles serving a sentence of life without parole, which is probably at the extreme end of the use of the sentence.

I have always been of the view that a non-reviewable life sentence, or what is called by the courts an irreducible life sentence, with no provision for reconsideration by the authorities whatever the circumstances—be it their health condition, their extreme old age or a dramatic change in the way the person sees the world—must surely constitute inhuman and degrading treatment. I was one of those disappointed by the European Court of Human Rights not reaching that view in the case of Vintner and others v United Kingdom. That case was barely reported, probably because the court found in favour of the Government; it seems to be the other cases that are always widely reported and commented upon. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, the court’s judgment was by a slim majority of four against three. I shall quote briefly from the opinion of the three dissenting judges. They said:

“we conclude that there was a procedural infringement by reason of the absence of some mechanism that would remove the hopelessness inherent in a sentence of life imprisonment from which, independently of the circumstances, there is no possibility whatsoever of release while the prisoner is still well enough to have any sort of life outside prison”.

In 2007, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture said of the whole life sentence:

“the CPT has serious reservations about the very concept according to which such prisoners, once they are sentenced, are considered once and for all as a permanent threat to the community and are deprived of any hope to be granted conditional release”.

The German constitutional court found in 2010 that if someone had no practical prospect of release, a life sentence would be cruel and degrading and infringe the requirements of human dignity provided for in Article 1 of the German Basic Law. I also remind the Committee that the statute of the International Criminal Court—which, as noble Lords will know, deals only with the most heinous crimes—expressly provides for a review of detention by the court after 25 years.

12:45

Although prison sentences are very long in some European countries, it is only England and Wales—not Scotland—and the Netherlands that have whole life sentences. France has them in theory but there is a provision for the courts to release prisoners who have made significant progress.

I am sure the Minister will agree that if the penal system has at its heart, alongside the need for punishment and protection, a commitment to rehabilitation, and if it accepts that human beings can change, then surely it is an expression of that belief that everyone, however heinous the crime, should be reviewed at least after 30 years.

[Baroness Mallalieu]

My Lords, I support the amendment. I do so in part having been around prisons in Hong Kong some years ago—I have no reason to think that the position has changed since—and seen considerable numbers of very old and very sick men who were there because there was no means of their ever being released. They presented very considerable difficulties for the prison service and they presented difficulties in their management during their term in prison because they had nothing to gain by behaving well during their time there.

It requires political courage to accept an amendment such as this—just as it requires courage on the part of a judge who is dealing with a case which has aroused great public emotion, just as it requires courage on the part of a parole board to deal with a prisoner who has been in the media and attracts media attention—but if we believe that people can change, and if we believe in reformation, then it is essential that there is something at the end of the tunnel for those who can demonstrate that they have come through the process and now put behind them any capacity to be dangerous. For that reason I very much hope that, difficult as it is, the Government will find the courage to put some provision like this in to the Bill.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment, for all the reasons that have been given. It is surely inhumane to say to a prisoner that they will remain in prison for the whole of their life, other than in the most exceptional compassionate circumstances—which I understand to mean that they are dying—whatever progress they may make, however long a period may elapse. Surely it is also very damaging to prison order to have in prison this number of prisoners who have no incentive whatever to progress, to behave and to move towards a responsible approach.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, mentioned that the Vintner case would inevitably go to the Grand Chamber. I very much hope and expect that the Grand Chamber will take into account the views of those in your Lordships' House who have expressed the opinion that this is indeed an inhumane way to treat prisoners.

I note that the amendment is drafted in terms of a discretion for the Parole Board. I would understand that to be the case because the Secretary of State faces this difficulty: either he retains an absolute position, whereby there will be no review; or he recognises that there will be a review, but by an independent body—the Parole Board. As I would understand it, the Secretary of State is simply unable, as a result of earlier European Court judgments, to take upon himself a statutory power to review the position and to decide on release after 30 years.

I also note that the amendment is drafted in terms of it being the duty of the Secretary of State,

“with the consent of the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge if available”.

I would welcome assistance from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, when he comes to reply, as to whether it is his intention that after 30 years it should be the duty of the Secretary of State to refer the matter to the Parole Board only if the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge—that is, both of them, if the latter is available—consent. Will he explain the purpose of involving the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge? Is it intended that they should enjoy some discretion; and if so, pursuant to what criteria?

I respectfully suggest that it would be more appropriate to say that these matters should automatically be referred to the Parole Board after 30 years. That is a very long time. Of course the Lord Chief Justice of the day and the trial judge, if available, should be invited to give their opinions on what should happen to the individual, but I am troubled by the idea that there could be an impediment to the Parole Board even considering the matter after 30 years if, say, the trial judge thinks it inappropriate to do so. That is a drafting question. I strongly support the principle of the amendment, for all the reasons that have been given already, and those that I have added.

[Lord Borrie]

My Lords, I have a natural sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord. I was once, admittedly a long time ago, a member of the Parole Board, when it was fairly new. That was under the chairmanship of Lord Hunt of Llanfair Waterdine, who was in this House. He was sometimes known as Lord Hunt of Everest, for obvious reasons. I served on the Parole Board then and thought that it was a rather good body. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, was a fellow member. I have fond memories of it and thought it a good body with a good mix of experience of criminal law, criminals and criminology—in my case, apparently. It is bound to be even better today in terms of experience. I am glad that it has a central position under the amendment.

I have one query, rather on the same lines as that of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It is a question to the noble and learned Lord about the difference between duty and discretion, and who has what. I would also like to know the answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—as would he. My question is a slightly different twist on that. In the amendment there is a duty on the Secretary of State, and then if the matter goes to the Parole Board, the board has discretion. Surely, even among those who have spoken this afternoon who are most sympathetic to the long-term prisoner, we can all think of those who should never come out of prison under any circumstances. That is clearly known and pretty definite. I wonder why the amendment does not impose a discretion on the Secretary of State rather than a duty, on the basis that it will be a complete waste of time for the Parole Board to examine or review certain cases on which every report, indication and study from within the Prison Service shows that it would be quite unsafe at any time to allow the release of certain people given life sentences. I query the duty and discretion bit from a very different angle from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but pursuing the same point. I certainly believe that most cases should have a review and that should be by the Parole Board. That would be excellent and I hope that the amendment will be carried.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I support my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd on this excellently moved amendment and pick up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. He mentioned the impact on prison order. I will, as it were, personalise this. As Chief Inspector of Prisons I was always interested in how prisoners serving natural life sentences were managed. Without the word “hope”, which has appeared in the contributions of many noble Lords, those prisoners had nothing to look forward to. More importantly, the staff had—in theory—nothing to offer the prisoner.

Noble Lords may remember the name of Dennis Nilsen, who was awarded a natural life sentence for a series of perfectly dreadful crimes. Noble Lords may not know that one aspect of education denied to blind children is access to science textbooks because graphs cannot be read in Braille. One of the education officers in the prison, looking at Dennis Nilsen and his characteristics, reckoned that something there could be harnessed. Nilsen was taught to write in Braille. Then, over four years, he described graphs in a science textbook in a way that would be understood, and translated his descriptions into Braille. After four years, blind children had access to a science textbook, thanks to the activities of someone who, in theory, had been rejected by society. I talked with Nilsen and will not describe that. But I will never forget talking to the education officer who had had the wit to realise that there was something in Nilsen that could be harnessed to the public good. She used the word “hope”, which was present at the time, and said how essential it was that she had hope that something could be achieved. I was enormously disturbed when that hope was removed by the 2003 Act. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to respond to this amendment.

[Baroness Prashar]

My Lords, I support the amendment. As the former chairman of the Parole Board, I agree with most of the comments that have been made so far in the debate. The discretion should be with the Parole Board and there should be an automatic review after 30 years. The concepts of hope and incentive are very important. In my experience, the fact that cases would go before the Parole Board was an incentive for prisoners. That is an important aspect. The Parole Board is also very good at risk assessment. It should be given that discretion with all the reports. I agree that it should then be the duty of the Home Secretary to accept the recommendation made by the Parole Board. I would very much like the Government to support the amendment.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I briefly add my support to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. As has been rightly said, he stands up for instances where justice and fairness clearly need to be not just seen but interpreted correctly. I will also comment on what my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham said about this business of hope in what you try to achieve and for the individual who is there for life—for 30 years, anyhow—and about incentivising activities that could be of interest and help to any future he might have.

As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, I was a very early member of the Parole Board, and I think that the independence of the Parole Board in looking at these matters is absolutely crucial. I am a little doubtful about how important the Secretary of State’s role may be, not least if—as it will be—it were years after the offence was tried and committed and the decisions made. However, whether or not his role is important and appropriate, it will be most important that the Parole Board has independence and stands back.

13:00

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, there is certainly a unanimity of view in the debate thus far that the present system is not satisfactory. It should perhaps be pointed out that there have been very few instances of compassionate release, including three cases arising out of the Good Friday agreement and the case of the East End criminal, Reggie Kray, but that is a little beside the point.

My problem, such as it is, with the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, is more in the rubric than in the intention. It is clear that there will always be some cases in which release will not and should not occur. I suspect that there will be few, but there will be some. The public need to be persuaded that the people who are not reformed and who might well continue to constitute a danger will not be released. There will always be a small number of those.

The amendment refers to the,

“Duty to release certain prisoners serving a whole life sentence”.

I can see whence that comes—that is the end of the process, as it were, which would be acceptable—but as it stands, the wording seems to imply an implicit or explicit duty to release prisoners serving a whole life sentence instead of posing the duty to consider the release. With respect to the noble and learned Lord, that would have been a better way to phrase the amendment and would give the public more assurance than what appears on the face of it—and I appreciate that it is only on the face of it—to be an absolute duty to release certain prisoners serving a whole life sentence.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

That ignores the function of the Parole Board, which has the discretion, not the Minister.

[Lord Beecham]

That is precisely my point. The amendment rightly envisages a duty to refer to the Parole Board, but on the face of it it looks as though there is a duty of release ab initio. That is not the noble and learned Lord’s intention—and I say this with great respect, because of course he is a very eminent and learned judge—but it might have assisted his case if it had been put in that way. That point in a sense echoes the point made by my noble friend Lord Borrie.

It is sensible to restore a situation in which a release after 30 years can be contemplated and, after due process, properly agreed. If the Parole Board adjudges that it is safe to release someone, that should be the Secretary of State’s duty at that point. In fact, relatively few people are serving these sentences—I think there are 40 prisoners, and that 20 have been sentenced in that way in the last 10 or 12 years as a result of their trial and the conditional decision at the time—so I think there is a way forward on this, with a slight modification of the way in which the amendment is phrased, and I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on it while clearly bearing in mind that there will be some prisoners for whom, in the end, there will be no hope of release. One hopes that there will not be many in that category, but there will be some, and that ought to be recognised from the outset.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to the unanimity of view in the House during this debate. I sometimes think that perhaps a joint meeting of both Houses would be interesting when we discuss these issues. Nevertheless, this House has a long and proud history of providing a platform for penal reform, and it has certainly lived up to that reputation today.

I make one or two preliminary comments. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, referred to the campaign to abolish the death penalty. Like many in this House I am old enough to remember that campaign, and I remember that part of it, which swung many MPs, was the proposal that life would mean life. It has always been a problem area, particularly for those who have committed the most horrific crimes.

The story that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, told was very encouraging in that it told of someone’s capability do good, even after the most horrific crimes. However, that capacity to do some good would not convince me to release a dangerous person into the community—and it is that test that has to be passed. I would hope that even those who spent the rest of their lives in jail would find within their confinement a capability to do good.

I think that we will return to this theme on a number of occasions in the next hour or two, as various amendments come up. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, asked what sort of penal system and what sort of values we should have, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, called for courage. Courage is certainly needed, but so is a practical use of the art of the possible. Penal reform is always a balance between humane treatment of those who are in prison, concern for the victims of crime and the retention of public confidence in our system of justice. Unless we can convince the public of the elements of punishment and public protection within the system, we will not get their buy-in to rehabilitation, which as I have often said from these Benches is very much part of what I and the Lord Chancellor see as built into the system. However, unless we can carry colleagues and the public with us and retain public confidence, we will not get the kind of reform that we want. I freely acknowledge that carrying through some of these reforms is an exercise in the art of the possible in what will win the confidence of the other place and the public.

As the noble and learned Lord said in introducing his amendment, things were different some time ago. One good thing to my mind about recent reforms was that all tariffs are now judicially determined. I am one of those—and I share it in other cases as well—who thinks that we should rely on judicial judgment in these matters. The imposition of minimum terms and whole life orders is now a matter that is exclusively for the judicially. I was very interested in his views on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. I tend to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, that when the Court gets it right it does not get much coverage. I am sure that if it reverses its decision, it will be page 1 again. Nevertheless I was a little worried that both the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord seem to think that a majority verdict was somehow of less value. A verdict is a verdict, and a win is a win. I am sure that he has been on the winning side a few times in those circumstances—I knew I was tempting fate.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

Yes, the Minister was tempting fate, but I am very grateful to him. We said that it was by the very slenderest of majorities because three judges decided one way, three judges decided the other way and the seventh judge decided with the majority on a reason that, at any rate, I simply cannot understand. It seemed to have nothing to do with the case. Anyway, we will know when it goes to the Grand Chamber.

[Lord McNally]

When I read the football results on a Saturday night and Blackpool have won four-three, I am not interested in whether the final goal was thought to be offside as long as it counted, but I am sure that is not a legal opinion.

As has been explained, the amendment provides for the possibility of a conditional release of a prisoner serving a life sentence with a whole life tariff once he or she has served 30 years. It would produce the odd effect that an offender who had committed the most exceptionally serious crimes could be considered for release earlier than a life sentence prisoner with a determinate minimum term of more than 30 years. The minimum term or tariff under a life sentence is the period which the court determines the offender has to spend in custody for the purpose of punishment and deterrence. In other words, it reflects the seriousness of the offence. Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides guidance to the courts on the determination of a minimum term for a life sentence imposed for murder. It provides for a whole life tariff to be the starting point for the most exceptionally serious cases, where the offender was aged 21 or over at the time the murder was committed.

The types of case that might attract the whole life tariff are: the murder of two or more persons where each murder involves a substantial degree of premeditated planning; the abduction of the victim or sexual or sadistic conduct; the murder of a child involving the abduction of the child or sexual or sadistic motivation; a murder done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; or a murder by an offender previously convicted of murder. Few would argue against these types of case representing crimes so heinous that the court may well consider the appropriate punishment to be that the offenders must be incarcerated for the rest of their lives. Those punishments are, as we would expect, rarely used. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to a figure; the actual figure is that 47 prisoners are now serving a whole life tariff.

We have already referred to the fact that the Government's position on this was upheld in the European Court of Human Rights. We will await the outcome of the appeal, but our position stands. Nevertheless, if a stage is reached where the continuing incarceration of a whole life tariff prisoner is found to be inhuman and degrading, for example where the person is terminally ill or severely incapacitated and poses no further risk, the Secretary of State has the power to release the prisoner on compassionate grounds.

The Government do not therefore consider that it is necessary or desirable to accept this amendment. The court will have taken full account of the circumstances of the offence and the offender in determining that the whole life term is appropriate. Such appalling cases are mercifully rare, but judges can legitimately find that lifelong incarceration is necessary as a punishment. If the detention of a whole life tariff prisoner could no longer be justified and became inhuman and degrading, there is already the mechanism allowing for his or her release. On those terms, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Pannick]

On public confidence, which the Minister rightly emphasised is so important in this area, why does he think that the public should not have confidence in a system in which, after 30 years, an independent parole board can ask itself whether it is any longer necessary for the protection of the public, and whether it would be in the interests of justice, that this person remains in prison. Why should the public not have confidence in a law along those lines?

13:15

[Lord McNally]

Some future Government may well bring forward a proposal along those lines. The judgment of the Government at the moment is that on a law that is safely in judges’ hands for determination, and that applies to a specific number of the most serious crimes, the position as it is now is best in retaining public confidence. It is a matter of political judgment, and the political judgment is that to move on this point, at this point, would not retain public confidence in a package in which we are trying to make moves in certain directions and carry colleagues who are not as enthusiastic as this House on some of these matters.

[Lord Judd]

In the last few minutes the Minister has encouraged me, because he has said that at some point it may be appropriate to introduce legislation that meets the arguments that are being put. It is not the first time that I have heard the noble Lord refer to the importance of holding public confidence, and we all understand that point, but it is not a matter of accepting as inevitable the existing state of public opinion. We have to be very careful that we are not, in effect, running scared of the sensationalist media. We really should be not only respecting public opinion and public confidence but helping to shape public confidence by putting forward the positive argument for change. That is essential to successful democracy. If we have become convinced that this is the right thing to do, we have to speak up for it.

[Lord McNally]

I entirely agree. That is why I said in my opening remarks that I am proud that this House has been the platform for penal reformers to argue their case over centuries, but I also say to this House that we have to carry another place and public opinion with us in these matters. One of the things I am most proud of is that this Government, and the Ministry of Justice under this Lord Chancellor, have been willing to try to educate public opinion. Some of the measures in this Bill will, I hope, move that forward, but no matter how much courage is used in expounding these views, if the result is for the public to lose confidence in the criminal justice system, those are Pyrrhic victories indeed.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

Does the right honourable and learned gentleman—sorry, whatever you are.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

Does the Minister not envisage that the public can sometimes be wrong? There is sometimes a disconnection between the views of the public and of the legislature, in this House and in the other one.

[Lord McNally]

From William Wilberforce to Sydney Silverman campaigns have been fought, and fought successfully. I am sure that this debate will be repeated in debates on other amendments, but I can only make the point so many times that politics is the art of the possible. We believe that the package of reforms here carry forward some of the interests of some of the Members of this House. However, they must also recognise that wider public opinion—and wider political opinion—does not share all their ambitions at this moment. We are all involved in debate and political education, and I welcome this debate as a contribution to that, but I have to deal with political reality as well.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. The views of the House today could not really be more unanimous. It is clear that every single person who has spoken is in favour of this idea. I would like to mention them all but I shall mention particularly the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, as he happens to be—

[Lord McNally]

I hate to intervene, especially in the middle of a tribute being paid to a Bishop, but I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would ponder my suggestion that a joint meeting of both Houses would produce such unanimity. The Members at the other end actually have to face the public in a way that this House does not.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

Indeed. In a sense, that is the only point that the Minister has made, to which the answer surely is that it is occasionally possible for the House of Lords to lead the way, to influence the other place and even to influence the public. If that were possible, this would be an opportunity to do it. I would like to mention particularly the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, with all her experience and knowledge of this subject, and the right reverend Prelate because he is my diocesan bishop and I feel therefore that I owe him that duty. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 178A withdrawn.

House resumed.

Energy: Feed-in Tariffs

Thursday 9th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Statement

13:22

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat as a Statement a response to an Urgent Question made in the other place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Climate Change.

“I am responding to this question as the new Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change had a longstanding engagement that prevented him from being here. He is currently opening the world’s largest industrial offshore wind farm in Cumbria.

The Government have today announced plans to ensure the future of the feed-in tariffs scheme and make it more predictable. These reforms will lead to a bigger scheme, providing better value. The scheme provides a subsidy, paid for by all consumers through their energy bills, enabling small-scale renewable and low-carbon technologies to compete against higher-carbon forms of electricity generation.

The unprecedented surge of solar PV installations in the latter part of last year, due to a 45 per cent reduction in estimated installation costs since 2009, has placed a huge strain on the feed-in tariffs budget. This threatened the Government’s ability to roll out these small-scale low-carbon technologies in the numbers we wanted over the next few years. We acted as swiftly as possible to respond to that threat through the changes that we are now making to the tariffs for solar PV.

Today is a turning point for the feed-in tariffs scheme. We are taking the opportunity of the review to put right the many limitations of the scheme that we inherited. We have looked hard at the feed-in tariffs budget and made the most of the flexibility available under the levy control framework to ensure that we keep the scheme going, but we want to do much more than that.

The reforms that I am announcing today are designed to make that budget go as far as possible to maximise the number of people able to benefit from feed-in tariffs. With this new reform package we aim to give plenty of TLC—transparency, longevity and certainty, which were absent from the scheme that we inherited. The reforms will provide greater confidence to consumers and industry investing in exciting renewable technologies such as solar power, anaerobic digestion, micro-CHP, wind and hydro power.

Instead of a scheme for the few, the new improved scheme will deliver for far more. Our new plans will see almost two and a half times more installations than were planned under Labour. This is good news for consumers and good news for the sustainable growth of the industry. We are proposing a more predictable and transparent scheme as the costs of technologies fall. This will ensure a long-term, predictable rate of return that will closely track changes in prices and deployment.

Make no mistake, this will be a challenging package. The tariff degression mechanism we will be proposing will not allow for fat profits or for excessive rents. However, it will also show a serious ambition. We believe that, under our new plans, by 2020 we could see over 20 gigawatts of solar PV in the UK.

The coalition wishes to see a bright and vibrant future for small-scale renewables in the UK, in which each of the technologies is able to reach its potential and get to a point where it can stand on its own two feet without the need for subsidy, sooner rather than later. In opposition we promised a decentralised energy revolution—power to the people. Today we are making a huge stride towards achieving that ambition.”

That concludes the Statement.

13:26

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in the House today. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate some of these issues and to seek a few points of clarification on issues where I am not clear.

I welcome the Statement and the comments in the Written Ministerial Statement issued this morning about how the feed-in tariff scheme is an important instrument in meeting the Government’s commitments on the take-up of small-scale low-carbon technologies, particularly after the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Marland. I am sorry that he is not with us today because I could have teased him on this; when we debated this issue on 30 January, he declared this scheme as one of the most ridiculous schemes that had ever been set up, and said how bad it was to have a product that needed the sun to shine to produce electricity. I am glad to see that the Government did not take his advice and instead are being supportive in their Statement today.

I sometimes think that I am repeating myself and that this falls on deaf ears, but one of the great frustrations of the debate on the now regular changes that the Government have made to the feed-in tariffs scheme is how it has been caricatured by Ministers as between a Government who recognised that there needed to be changes to the scheme and everyone else who thought that no changes were needed. I would like to lay that to rest: neither we nor the industry have ever argued against change. Our concerns have been that the speed, the scale and the way in which the changes have been made have badly damaged investor confidence across the whole renewables sector and have cost jobs. The industry is in real danger of losing the momentum that it has worked so hard to achieve.

To clarify that, I put forward the principle of degression, which is referred to in the Statement and in the consultation, in a previous debate last November when I suggested that the Minister took the opportunity to look at examples from other countries including the German degression mechanism, which controls volume as well as returns. I also advised the Minister then that these would work in the UK only with a more ambitious approach to the amount of solar PV

There is a lot to digest in the consultations issued today. I hope that there will be much to support, and no doubt we will return to these, but today I would like to raise a few issues with the Minister. The department has said today, and this is confirmed by the Minister Greg Barker in the other place, that DECC commissioned an analysis on the costs of solar PV. My understanding is that the study was commissioned on 10 January but it had to report back just three days later. How many solar PV businesses were consulted as part of that analysis? I also ask for clarification of the community schemes referred to in the consultations.

The Minister may be aware that the previous scheme that was brought in by Labour provided for community schemes because we think that that is an important way forward, particularly for social housing. The Government’s first tranche of changes to solar PV and feed-in tariffs divided the market into schemes above or below 50 kilowatts. That not only ruled out the large-scale solar farms that the Government were seeking to take out of the scheme but made community schemes unviable. When I and my colleagues in the other place raised this back in November, Ministers agreed to look at it again and bring forward proposals, so we welcome consultation and will look at the new proposals on community schemes. What discussions have the Government had with housing associations and social landlords? They will be most likely to benefit from the proposals and take advantage of these schemes. I am particularly interested in discussions around the size of the community housing schemes that could benefit.

Many in the industry who have had an opportunity to look at the proposals this morning, albeit very briefly, have been alarmed by those that could see incentives for installations with less than four kilowatts of capacity cut by a further 35 per cent to 13.6p. Their fear is that it could lead to a significant contraction of the sector. What consideration have the Government given to the impact that this level could have on businesses, and has any consideration been given to the possibility of a further surge in applications before such a level is imposed?

Can I also seek information or clarification regarding the energy performance rating of homes that will be allowed to install solar under this scheme? The Government have changed the rating from C to D in response to the consultation, which should be welcomed. However, I am slightly confused about the figures on this. Can the Minister confirm that this still means that the 50 per cent of homes that are the least energy-efficient will not be eligible? Given that private rented properties are currently ineligible for the Green Deal to install energy-efficient measures, I am concerned that some of those who would most benefit from both schemes will be eligible for neither.

Can I also ask what weight the Government will give to the responses to the consultation? The noble Baroness will be aware that the previous consultation made huge cuts to the feed-in tariffs. Several consultations followed each other and around 80 per cent of the respondents opposed the Government’s plans. To be fair to them, many supported and some suggested other, less drastic alternatives to cutting the costs in that way. However, to ignore 80 per cent of respondents was quite shocking. Therefore, can I make a plea for the noble Baroness to discuss this with her colleagues, so that the Government work harder to discuss the plans with the industry, rather than just tell it what to do? I should like to avoid this constant merry-go-round of consultation, changes, consultation and changes. It would be great to work with the industry to get the changes right once and for all.

My next point is, again, a request for clarification from the noble Baroness regarding the cost of these ongoing legal actions over the Government’s changes to the solar feed-in tariffs. I was able to mention this to her, albeit briefly, just before we came in. I know she is aware of my concerns about this merry-go-round of legal actions when my belief is that the Government should negotiate with the industry, rather than go into court after court and lose in court after court. When I asked the noble Lord, Lord Marland, a Question in your Lordships’ House on 30 January about the cost to date of legal actions, I think he made a mistake in replying. He gave me exactly the same answer, of £66,400, as was given to my right honourable friend Caroline Flint a week earlier in the other place. In the time between her Question and mine, the Government lost the Court of Appeal case—so they must pay the other side’s costs as well—and decided to go to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the costs must now be at least twice that, if not more. Can the noble Baroness update the House on the cost to date?

Finally, we all want to consider and look in some detail at the consultation. I hope it will be an effective consultation exercise and that the contents of the documents will be discussed with the industry and others. I look forward to further dates. I appreciate that the noble Baroness may not be able to answer all my questions, but I would be grateful if she could write to me with the details.

13:33

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments. It is unfortunate that my noble friend Lord Marland is not here today. He is overseas and working hard to create new export opportunities for the industry. I know he would be disappointed to miss the opportunity to respond to the points raised by the noble Baroness.

On her first point about his comments in the Chamber the other day in response to an Oral Question, my noble friend is very clear in the way he speaks. He certainly does not require me to interpret anything for him. What he said was certainly striking but there was no mistaking that his point was that the level of subsidy that was available to an industry that has become so successful was ridiculous. That is something that we should certainly welcome.

I will respond to some of the other points that the noble Baroness raised. She questioned the impact of the change in tariff on the industry. As I said in the Statement made by my honourable friend, which I repeated, we are very clear that we see a long-term future for the solar power industry. It is important. We want to put in place arrangements that safeguard the future of jobs in a sustainable way. In preparing for today, it was interesting to learn that, in the six weeks between launching the fixed consultation and its closure, more small-scale PV capacity was installed than in the whole year before. Indeed, the rate of installation continues to grow. This is an industry that is growing; it continues to be successful and we want it to be successful. Today we are announcing changes that will ensure that it has the certainty and the longevity that are important to its success. As I think my noble friend made clear in answering the noble Baroness a couple of weeks ago, as of now no job losses have been incurred. The changes that we are making are to ensure that those jobs are sustainable in the future.

The noble Baroness raised a detailed point about the cost of the analysis that was undertaken by the department after the consultation closed in the small window at the start of this year. The analysis received 80 quotes for PV installation from 10 companies and used a range of intelligence from the industry. However, on something as specific as this, I should like to write to the noble Baroness after today’s debate.

The noble Baroness also asked about community schemes. For the benefit of other noble Lords, it is worth pointing out that there are two issues to do with community schemes in what we have announced today. One part of our announcement deals with some decisions that the Government have taken in light of the first consultation, which took place last autumn. We are starting another consultation today. From the consultation outcomes that we are announcing today, it is clear that we listened very carefully to the responses that we received.

On community schemes, in the context of solar PV, we have announced that those who are installing more than 25 units, rather than one, should benefit from the higher tariffs. Previously, it was proposed that once someone had installed more than just one solar panel, they would start to receive a reduced level of tariff. We have increased that to more than 25 to make sure that we do not inappropriately cut off any of the small community projects that have been mentioned in previous debates on this subject. At the same time, we are consulting today on what the definition of “community” should be in the future. As the noble Baroness pointed out, this is a very important issue and we want to get it right. We are consulting and have already talked to organisations such as the National Housing Federation and local authorities about this. The point of that consultation is to make sure that we have a proper scheme so that communities—whether they are local authorities that want to introduce solar panels for a group of schools or community-based projects—receive the kind of tariff that they rightfully should.

I am reminding myself of other points that the noble Baroness raised in her remarks. On the EPC, the definition of environmental change is something else that we took account of in considering the responses to the consultation. As I said earlier—and as the noble Baroness has acknowledged—we have changed the level of environmental grade for those eligible for the tariffs from C to D. I think the noble Baroness was asking whether this would mean that 50 per cent of people would still not be able to benefit from this tariff change without making some changes to their houses. She is right: they will still need to make some changes to their properties. However, whereas under the previous arrangement only 9 per cent of houses had a grade C energy environmental rating, at level D the sort of changes which we would expect those 50 per cent of people who are not covered by the provision to make are measures such as insulating a loft, making changes to the control mechanism of a central heating system rather than the actual boiler and perhaps lagging a cylinder. A householder would need to take account of these small changes, which can be made at reasonable cost, to reach level D. I stress that we carefully considered and have taken on board the responses on that point.

The final point that the noble Baroness raised concerned the answer that my noble friend gave to her a couple of weeks ago when she was asking about the legal costs that the department has incurred in appealing the legal judgment at the end of last year. My noble friend was careful to make clear at that time that the department had incurred costs of £66,400 so far. That was an accurate figure of the costs that had been incurred. As regards any further costs that might be incurred in light of the appeal that the department is pursuing, it is impossible for me to give the noble Baroness an estimate of what they might be. She will know that decisions on the costs that the appellant might have incurred, and how much of those costs the department may have to pay, will be decided at the end of the process. We are appealing the judgment. It is important that I make clear why we are appealing. That is to the benefit of everybody. We are appealing because the judgment that was arrived at could add £100 million in costs each year to the public purse. In appealing that judgment, we are looking to safeguard around £1.5 billion of public expenditure over the 25-year tariff lifetime. We think it is right and in the interests of the public that we appeal that ruling. Obviously, in doing so, we will incur further legal costs. If the noble Baroness wishes to ask again what costs have been incurred when the process is completed, no doubt we will be able to provide her with an accurate answer which will reflect all the issues that have been taken into account along the way.

13:43

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Statement. I also very much welcome the fact that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State concentrated on the renewables sector in the first few days of his taking office. I am pleased that the Statement shows that the Government are trying to get stability back into the investment market as I am sure that is something we all want to achieve. I also welcome the emphasis on communities that my noble friend has just mentioned as community schemes are very important.

As regards solar PV, a planning consultation is taking place today in Cornwall on a large-scale solar PV scheme and close to where I live another large-scale solar PV scheme is being rolled out. Therefore, I do not think that we need to worry too much about that industry once we have stability. I have read a DECC Written Ministerial Statement by Edward Davey on the internet. That was perhaps rather naïve of me, but it seems to be slightly different from the one we have heard today. I was pleased to read in that Statement that the department has looked hard at the FITs budget and made the most of the flexibility available under the levy control framework to ensure that it can keep the scheme going.

I very much welcome flexibility and know that it is welcomed by many people in the industry. If my noble friend cannot answer my next point fully, I would welcome a written response. How much flexibility is available as regards different types of technology within the FITs budget? Can that flexibility be increased as regards the FITs budget and the amount that the ROC system is expected to cost? I welcome this greater flexibility but would like to understand how far it might extend into the future. I appreciate that my noble friend might not have all the detail with her at this moment.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I thank my noble friend for his comments. I think it would be better if I wrote to him on his specific question. I am aware that there is definitely flexibility within the department. To put it another way, one of the advantages of the new arrangements that we are putting in place is that we do not have to introduce significant shifts in the way in which we change the tariff as the solar PV industry becomes more successful. In terms of flexibility that is an important thing to be able to do. We have a budget for that but it is proving difficult to predict specifically how the tariffs will change in light of the success of the industry, and it is increasingly successful. I think it is probably safer for me to write to the noble Lord on whether that budget can be used for ROCs rather than feed-in tariffs.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for referring to community projects as it gives me the opportunity to correct something that I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I think that I became a little confused between my “highers” and my “lowers” when I was talking about the number of people who might benefit from the new multi-installation tariffs. Projects of fewer than 25 units will enjoy the higher tariffs. Those above 25 units will not because once you get above 25 you start getting into a different category of people, and clearly they should not be subsidised by the public purse.

[Lord Redesdale]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the chairman of the Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Association. That always gets a smile but I feel that I am a lone voice. I add a note of slight criticism: FITs are not just for solar PV. It seems to me that unless I raise AD, it never seems to get mentioned in this House, but FITs are incredibly important for small-scale AD. We are going to be very much more reliant on the renewable energy coming from AD than we are from PV. Although PV is important, the amount of generating capacity is a fraction of that coming from AD.

I seek clarification on two points in relation to the Statement. However, I realise that this is a consultation process. First, DECC has come forward with a 500 kilowatt band. The problem we always have with setting such arbitrary targets is that we then have to build the kit to meet the artificial target. Until recently no technology has stopped at 500 kilowatts, so you end up building new kit to meet the artificial boundary. There is a problem here. With regard to the digressions that have been talked about on small-scale FIT, after you go over the 500 kilowatt point, the amount of money you will get under FIT goes down markedly. The stated aim in the consultation is that farm-based AD should take in food waste. If it is taking in food waste, it will then start producing more power because there are more kilojoules in the food waste, which will take it over the band. However, the very boundary itself, and the digression that is set in there, could bring about a major problem in that people will not take that extra step because they cannot get the funding.

Secondly, the expression “TLC” was used. “Tender loving care” is probably a better expression. The same financiers who have had certain problems with solar PV are the ones who are financing AD. It is extremely difficult to get any debt financing or equity financing for AD at the moment. This is of particular concern regarding the statement that if certain trigger points are met, there would be a retroactive reduction in the feed-in tariff for anything coming on-stream at that point. If we were nearing those targets, that would have a major implication for financiers financing schemes because they would not know which band tariff they would be under. I realise that that is a point for consultation and that the Minister might not be briefed on the minutiae of these individual issues, but the major problem at the moment with anaerobic digestion is that it is a high-risk operation and we need to make sure that the financiers are in a position to fund it. We therefore need regulatory clarity over the regime. I very much hope that my noble friend will take these points back to DECC.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments and for widening the debate beyond solar. It is worth pointing out that feed-in tariffs are not just about solar PV but, as I mentioned in my Statement, they are also about micro-CHP, wind and hydro power, and anaerobic digestion, as my noble friend said. As to his specific question about bands for AD, they are the same as in the original scheme, so we are not proposing a change. However, we have announced today two things: one is an outcome from the first phase of the consultation, and the other is the start of a second consultation. I therefore hope that my noble friend will take the opportunity of the new consultation and make his contribution along the lines he mentioned.

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, I broadly welcome the Statement. As someone who spent three years as an energy Minister in Northern Ireland, I have some grasp of the problems we face. While the announcement today is one step, we must remember that there is no silver bullet for resolving our energy problems. Much of the enthusiasm from various groups conceals the fact that we do not really have sufficient non-fossil fuel and nuclear capacity in this country to make the sort of impact that we hope for in the long term. One of the reasons why we have to approach this matter from a different angle is that we need to do more by way of making what we have more efficient. Can the noble Baroness ask her right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to encourage the retrofitting of buildings to reduce energy demand? One of the levers at his disposal is VAT. We charge full VAT on the refurbishment of buildings and no VAT on the construction of new buildings. We need a twin-track approach—one to develop other energy sources, and another to increase insulation and thereby make buildings more efficient. Would the noble Baroness be kind enough to draw that matter to the attention of her right honourable friend in the other place because the combination of those two directions that we should travel in is absolutely essential? Otherwise we are simply running to follow rising demand when in fact we must make better use of the energy that we are already producing.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for those points and for making the clear remark that there is not a silver bullet. It is important to keep that in mind when we look at the range of different sources of energy that we are using and introducing into our wider energy strategy in the UK. We need a range of different sources and that is precisely what we are doing.

As to the noble Lord’s specific point about VAT exemption on new builds, and whether that can be introduced for retrofitting of older buildings in order to make them more energy efficient, which is another important part of our strategy, I will certainly pass that point on to my right honourable friend the Chancellor as I am sure the noble Lord will understand that it is not possible for me to respond today.

Olympic Games 2012: Match Fixing and Suspicious Betting

Thursday 9th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

13:56

Asked By

[Lord Moynihan]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the threat posed to the integrity of the Olympic Games by match fixing and suspicious betting.

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the British Olympic Association, a member of the Olympic Board and a director of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games.

When IOC president Jacques Rogge stated that corrupt betting, not doping, was the biggest threat to the London 2012 Olympic Games, his opinion was read by some to be surprising and unexpected. From my perspective, his words were intended to send a signal to Governments, the Olympic family and, above all, the athletes proactively to take seriously a potential scourge that could seriously damage the reputation of the Olympic Games and the integrity of Olympic sport in the 21st century.

Today’s debate provides us with an opportunity to assess how well prepared we are for this threat to sporting competition. To date, we have taken only a few tentative steps towards addressing how sport can best mount a counterattack against suspicious betting and event fixing in Olympic and Paralympic sport.

Over recent years, this threat to sport has grown. Significant changes in the betting market during the past decade have provided increased opportunities for those who seek to engage in corrupt betting on sport. Internet betting and new betting platforms—exchange and spread betting—have resulted in increased liquidity in the betting markets and the opportunity for punters to play the bookmaker and bet on teams, individuals and horses to lose. Above all, the industry is increasingly designing every conceivable type of bet, and the greatest danger comes from bets available on specific events that occur “in play” and are televised globally

The strongest and most effective response in the United Kingdom came from the Parry report—a review of integrity in sports betting. It recognised what has become commonplace in the financial sector, where the misuse of inside information—insider dealing—is a criminal offence, and proven breaches are likely to result in a criminal prosecution overseen by the FSA. That remains a far cry from the world of sport, where there is no generic definition of inside information. The lack of any clarity on this issue poses a major problem for the Olympic movement. As your Lordships will be aware, there are various types of inside information, and sport rules need to cater for them. The most obvious is match fixing. Being in possession of inside information that will bear directly on the outcome of the events enables punters to place a bet, safe in the knowledge that it will win.

There are, however, other types of inside information open to abuse that do not bear directly on the final result of the event. Such information may be used for what is known as spot fixing, whereby inside information is misused to bet on certain acts taking place during the course of an event, although those acts may have no bearing on the eventual result of the event. The recent conviction of three Pakistan cricketers for arranging no-balls to be delivered at certain fixed points of the Lords test match against England is an illustration of that sort of inside information, as they knew those no-balls were going to be bowled at that stage of the England innings, which in turn proved very useful information for corrupt betting purposes.

The Parry review led to the establishment of the Sports Betting Group, which advises the British Olympic Association. I pay tribute to that group, which includes Darren Bailey, Simon Barker, Ian Smith, Paul Scotney, James MacDougall and Tim Lamb, for its work on this issue, and its advice to us at the British Olympic Association and to the athletes that we will select to represent Team GB. The Parry review made further recommendations that are relevant to our debate and merit consideration by the Government. The review called for an ongoing risk assessment process, and constant and effective monitoring of betting patterns. This summer that must mean constant monitoring of every televised event in the Olympic Games, and cover every heat and every final.

The decision to establish a joint working party between the Gambling Commission and one IOC representative to undertake that work is a start, but the 205 national Olympic committees and the Paralympic committees need to know what process will be followed when strong evidence of irregular or illegal betting is discovered. To date, there is no guidance on whether the athlete, the coach or the team chef de mission will be immediately informed and what should be done with that information. The athlete may be innocent, but there is no guidance for national Olympic committees, let alone established rules and procedures to follow. At the British Olympic Association, we have embarked on our own far reaching educational programmes and embedded codes of conduct to be signed by every athlete selected to participate in the British team but, for many British athletes, this will be the first time that they know the rules regarding the scope of their ability to place a bet on the Olympic Games; whether their coaches or families can place a bet on another sport in the Olympic calendar; or what to do if they are approached to fix a competition, or part of it, and to whom to report.

A universal code of conduct is required urgently if the scourge predicted by president Jacques Rogge is not to become reality. The IOC's founding working group on the fight against irregular and illegal sports betting has made an important start. Both the Minister for Sport and I sit on that body. Its challenge is to ensure that, before London, the Olympic movement moves from broad generalisations to a detailed action plan and advice to the athletes, international federations and national Olympic committees alike.

We need ongoing programmes of education and awareness-raising for all sports participants, particularly on the dangers of the misuse of inside information. It is regrettable that, in all the forums working on that issue, the principal stakeholders—the athletes—are not represented, as they are central to resolving that challenge. A handful of athletes may be the problem. The overwhelming majority of athletes—those of the highest integrity and desirous of contributing to the fight against threats to their sport—are a vital part of the solution. It is notable that the biggest problem by far in cricket is in the three jurisdictions where there is no player association: India, Pakistan and Zimbabwe.

For London 2012, the Minister for Sport, Hugh Robertson, and his colleagues are to be congratulated. The system for the London 2012 Games exceeds any which has been seen before at a multisport event and includes the establishment of a joint assessment unit, which will monitor betting intelligence throughout the period of the Games. Although the progress which has been made by the Gambling Commission and the IOC should be applauded, there is a need to ensure that the communication and disciplinary procedures which will operate at the time of the Games are robust. At present, guidance is needed from the Government on a range of related issues. I put the following questions to the Minister.

What is the process for analysing and reviewing the credibility of any evidence discovered by the joint assessment unit? Are there plans to monitor live betting activity? Will independent experts be recruited to review evidence? Will data be collected in advance of the Games of the betting patterns across both Olympic and Paralympic sports? What procedures will be adopted by the IOC to notify national Olympic committees of any adverse betting activity within their delegations? Are there plans to carry out scenario planning and testing for the JAU? That will be invaluable for all stakeholders to understand how communication processes will work and to test the processes for analysing evidence.

It is not clear whether the IOC Ethics Commission has sufficient understanding of suspicious betting and the appropriate mechanisms in place to act effectively. For example, it worries me that the frequent use of the word “irregular” is often linked by the IOC to illegal betting. The proper definition should be suspicious betting. The reason why that is misleading is that history shows that the challenge for the majority of sports is suspicious betting on legal markets. Irregular betting patterns are a normal everyday phenomenon of all betting markets and can be caused by a number of factors that are not to do with corruption, including the volume of money. Although betting-related corruption on illegal markets can be a problem, that is mainly in the sport of cricket. Recent betting-related scandals in horse racing, football and snooker have all been on legal markets, both traditional fixed odds and the betting exchanges.

We also need to address the problem that many bookmakers operating in the UK do so over the internet and are based overseas in places such as Gibraltar and Malta. That means that they avoid the UK licensing regime as well as tax. As a result, those operators are not statutorily obliged to share information with the Gambling Commission and sports governing bodies. I support Matthew Hancock who, in another place, is urging the Government to put those proposals into effect as soon as possible. Additionally, the existing definition of cheating in the Gambling Act 2005 is not, in my view, fit for purpose. A specific sports fraud definition is necessary. The Parry report was once again right in that respect.

I have sought to set out a few essential components of a comprehensive programme to meet the challenge set out by the president of the IOC. The central threat to the 2012 events is that many of the participants and officials will come from countries where corrupt individuals will pay a life-changing amount of money, which can be as little as $5,000, without thinking as they know that they can make 10 times that, particularly by betting on the exchanges, if they know that someone will definitely not be winning. The use of specific inside information that someone will not be winning an event for any number of reasons is gold dust to those in corrupt betting.

We need a sporting landscape in which universal rules are formulated to tackle betting-related corruption— a landscape that recognises the importance of ongoing monitoring and assessment of the risk that all Olympic sports face from corrupt betting, particularly the misuse of inside information.

[Baroness Rawlings]

My Lords, we have a timetable for this debate. I remind your Lordships that when the number seven appears on the clock, that is the end of the time for a seven-minute speech.

14:06

[Baroness Billingham]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is indeed to be thanked for asking this crucial Question and giving us such a comprehensive overview.

With the Olympic Games just a few months away, the threat of match-fixing tactics and suspicious betting grows even greater. In a more perfect world, where Corinthian ideals still prevailed, there would be no need for us to have this debate but, sadly, that dark shadow threatens to undermine public confidence in our Games. Cheating appears to many to be endemic in some sports, with only the most vigorous and determined detection unveiling wrongdoing. Faith in the integrity of athletes and those around them has to be maintained. We bid for the Games not only for the privilege of holding them in London but also to provide a high-profile shop window for sport and to inspire and motivate all of us—perhaps most importantly young people—to become physically active. The prospect of an Olympics where cheats may be seen to prosper is unthinkable. Thus, the role of Her Majesty's Government is vital. Only they have powers to act as guardian of sporting integrity. They are faced with unprecedented gambling on sport on a global scale, where international vigilance is needed to combat cheats.

In order to put questions to the Government, I will look at the relatively short history of the Gambling Commission, set up under the Gambling Act 2005, to the present day. Under the Act, the commission has powers to prosecute offences of cheating and to void bets. Any money paid in relation to illegal bets must be returned to the person who paid it. The commission's work on betting integrity has a licence condition which requires betting operators to share information of suspicious transactions with the commission and with sports governing bodies.

At present, the Gambling Commission regulates most gambling activities in the UK. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, pointed out, remote gambling is a different proposition. Those operators who offer services to British customers but operate entirely from overseas are not subject to regulation by the commission.

In 2009, Gerry Sutcliffe, the then Minister for Sport, established a panel of experts to consider the integrity of sports betting. As a result of their deliberations, a sport betting group was set up administered by the Sport and Recreation Alliance—long known to us old hands as the CCPR—and it, in its turn, established a set of voluntary procedures to constitute a code of practice. That code seeks to help sports to understand and react accordingly to the threat posed by betting.

Moving on in this reflective passage, the DCMS’s Consultation on the Regulatory Future of Remote Gambling in Great Britain, which came out in March 2010, strengthens the constraints on operators, promising primary legislation for a new licensing system. Following an inquiry by the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, the Government made a response promising further action. Most recently, Hugh Robertson, Minister for Sport and the Olympics, asserted that Her Majesty’s Government intend to establish a unit to target suspicious betting at the Olympic Games.

All those assurances are designed to give confidence that the Olympic Games will be comprehensively protected, but can that be the case? Is it not evident that the Government’s response is classically too little, too late? With only weeks to go, it would appear that the promised legislation is unlikely to be in place, so where will the protection be that is legally enforceable? Are the Government satisfied with the Sport and Recreation Alliance backing a voluntary code of conduct for the governing bodies? What safeguards does such a code provide? And what of the international aspect of illegal betting? What pan-European strategies are in place? Do we enlist the co-operation of our European neighbours to help us to enforce a clean Olympic Games? Are we, indeed, already speaking to our European neighbours? If recent actions at the European summit are anything to go by, it is unlikely that the warmest co-operation will be forthcoming.

Spreading even further abroad, worldwide co-operation is essential. What progress have the Government established with Governments who agree with us about the importance of integrity in sport? What progress has been made by policing units and government departments in setting up appropriate strategies for prevention and detection? All these questions, and many more, remain unanswered. The general public demand those answers.

We appear to have a Sports Minister who is rapidly running out of time and a Government who are running out of ideas, all of which fills me with total apprehension regarding the security of the Games. I wait to be told that I am wrong. All the nation’s sporting bodies need a detailed account of the Government’s pledges so that we can be reassured that the Games are not only fit for purpose but a beacon of integrity for all of us to look forward to.

14:13

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, when I saw the subject of this debate, I initially thought, “Oh, yes. That will be a problem this time, won’t it?”. When most of us think about betting, we do not think about the Olympic Games or the Games structure; we always think about certain activities. Traditionally it was racing but it has now expanded into football, with possibly boxing or the other martial arts being dominant.

The Olympic Games have not had the best of records, in ancient or modern times, when it comes to the integrity of the events. Not only has there been the great problem of doping but at times question marks have been raised over the impartiality of judges in any sport that requires judging. Casting my mind back to when Torvill and Dean were winning everything, I remember that one or two judges from the eastern bloc gave them high scores and were never seen on the international circuit again. There is a tradition of prestige in controlling what happens.

Now, we have a new threat, which basically is money. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, pointed out—or, at least, he made it clear to me—that the issue of money involves not just the medallists. The fact is that there is money to be made in an obscure market by making sure that an athlete who has made the grade to be a competitor but is expected to reach only the semi-finals does not get that far. One has only to look at the number of events to realise how many attempts can be made to interfere with the odds process by removing the competition at certain points. That is the challenge that faces us.

The noble Lord did an excellent job of going through the activity that has taken place, but I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, is correct that, as has always been the case, we are playing catch-up to events. We are in a reactive phase and have been for quite a long time. The previous Government may have started this but they still said, “Oh, there’s a bus ahead. I’m belting after it”. How much effort are we putting in to catch up? Perhaps the Government can give us some assurances about how they are progressing in this respect. The answer to this is surely to be open with information and share information in order to see where the flows of money and pressure are and what we should be looking at.

There was the example of a tennis match a few years ago when the person who was ahead suddenly dropped out. On that occasion, people were aware that something was wrong because it became clear from the betting markets. We have a huge ally here—the legitimate bookmakers, who are trying to make money out of their business, and accessing them is probably the best tool that the Government have available. They will not want to be ripped off, and those interfering in the markets will probably be targeting them predominantly. There is a huge mutual interest here in counteracting this problem. We have to make sure, as the noble Lord pointed out, that the representatives of the sports are looked after and remunerated properly, as that, too, is another defence against corruption in sport, as has been proven in the past.

We must take a holistic approach to this problem. Prevention will be better than cure here. It will be necessary to make sure that all countries that have athletes who are capable of winning or influencing the various stages are looked after, and the IOC itself is going to have to look after them. How the Government play into this is vital. There is a history of people trying to change things for the purposes of prestige and profit. Unless the Government encourage greater openness so that we are all aware of what is going on, people will find a way through. We need to put pressure on those who want to be associated with Britain—for example, Gibraltar and Malta—and make sure that we have total access to, and some way of dealing with, irregularities in betting there. That might be a way for those places to reassert how favourably they feel towards Great Britain and how much they want to be involved. I could put it much more strongly than that but life is too short. Perhaps my noble friend can give us some guidance on what we are doing on all these fronts.

One of the primary aims of the Olympics is to create a legacy. It is a legacy of how to deal with an existing problem and a legacy that will continue not only in relation to the Olympics but in relation to all future British sporting events. I hope that when my noble friend comes to reply she will be able to tell us what progress has been made in getting all those involved to pass on all the information they can to the relevant authority. Can she also tell us how soon they will be able to do that and how they will encourage the flow of that information? That is really the only way in which we can nullify, if not stop, the impact of corrupt betting.

14:19

[Lord Condon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for raising these very important questions and I apologise for the state of my voice. I declare two relevant interests in this debate. First, I am the Senior Independent Director of G4S Plc, which is the Olympic security contractor, but, more relevant to today’s debate on a personal and voluntary basis, I am a sports integrity adviser to LOCOG.

I do not share some of the pessimism that I have heard so far. I believe that London 2012 will be match-fit to deal with the threat of sports event fixing for betting purposes. Yes, there is a great deal to be done but one should not underestimate the huge amount of work that has been done so far. I am certainly not complacent. Vigilance remains the watchword but a great deal of thought, scenario planning, discussion and comprehensive planning has already taken place and continues to take place.

Based on my sports integrity work with international sports bodies in recent years, I believe and recommend that four things have to be in place to combat fixing for betting purposes. This applies to sport generally, but certainly to major events like the Olympics.

First, the criminal law and the sports disciplinary codes must be unambiguous and provide clear guidance and clear offences which may be involved in the event of fixing being alleged or suspected. There can be no ambiguity about what is and what is not allowed either in the criminal law or in the discipline codes of the sports. Certainly, we saw in the prosecution of the errant Pakistan cricketers how the criminal law could be used successfully in the United Kingdom. For the first time, the International Olympic Committee at this Olympics has adopted in its code of ethics comprehensive rules against betting and cheating at sport. These rules will complement the codes of behaviour that are being enforced by the individual sports federations. The regulatory framework, while not perfect, is certainly beginning to be put in place and is more fit for purpose in the London 2012 Olympics than in any previous Olympic Games.

Secondly, there is a need for a comprehensive education programme to raise the awareness of competitors and officials to the risks posed and the methods used by the fixers to groom and entice them into wrongdoing. Some sports are more advanced than others. They have had to be. Cricket and tennis have very comprehensive education programmes for everyone who plays international sport. Much has been done but much still needs to be done to raise awareness. I know that the International Olympic Committee and international federations know that they must do more in the build-up to the Olympics. Raising awareness and education is one of the vital ways of combating fixing in sport.

Thirdly, intelligence on fixing needs to be gathered, analysed, shared and, if necessary, turned into action. This is where there has been a great deal of work which perhaps has not been given sufficient publicity so far. We have planned, scenario-planned, modelled and looked at a variety of situations. During the Games an innovative joint assessment unit—JAU—will be formed. It will meet every day and comprise staff from LOCOG, the Gambling Commission, the Metropolitan Police, the UK Border Agency and the IOC Ethics Commission. There will be daily meetings to gather, share and assess all the relevant information and patterns on fixing and gambling coming in from whatever source—betting agencies, police agencies or the Gambling Commission.

Fourthly, there is a need to have the capacity to take swift and effective enforcement action. I can confidently report that the joint assessment unit has, in its planning and modelling, looked at the whole range of possible scenarios for our Olympics that could trigger criminal investigations and/or IOC investigations and individual sports federation investigations if and when required. Clearly there is no room for complacency, but a great deal of thought and preparation has already taken place and will grow in intensity over the next few weeks.

What is the level of threat to the Games by the fixers? Sports fixtures are not vanity or status fixers: they are not, like a train spotter or a bird spotter, seeking to fix an event at an Olympics because it is a prestigious event. They are grubby, seedy, mainly criminal people who look to make their sports fix wherever and whenever they can. They will target the Olympics only if they think that there are new or very easy opportunities to fix compared with the huge volume of betting and potential fixing that takes place every day of every year.

We must be vigilant, we must be prepared and we must do well, but let us not talk down our Olympics or over-scare about the size or reality of the threat. There is a bigger threat of fixing to sport generally than at the Olympics, because the bad guys are not stupid. They realise that it will probably be harder to fix at the Olympics than at a routine international event anywhere else in the world in a normal year, provided that they can bet and fix. We will remain vigilant and implement a very innovative joint assessment unit. Working together, we will do our very best to minimise the opportunities for the fixers to sour the atmosphere and integrity of London 2012. Your Lordships would expect or demand nothing less. Let us not talk down our Olympics unrealistically. Let us be proportionate about the threat and the response. I believe that although there is a great deal still to be done, a great deal has already been done, and I am confident that there will be a wonderful Games.

14:26

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on giving us the opportunity to debate this very important subject. He may not be aware of the significance of today’s date. It was seven years ago exactly—9 February 2005—when the report of the inquiry into the effects of betting on sport, which I chaired on behalf of the Parliamentary All-Party Betting and Gaming Group, was published.

Your Lordships may remember that that inquiry arose out of the work of the Joint Scrutiny Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill, on which I served. The scrutiny committee had had drawn to its attention a number of allegations over the integrity of betting in a number of sports but did not have time to go into them in detail. The all-party group asked me to chair the inquiry to look at the incidence of, and potential for, irregular and corrupt betting on sports and the proper use of inside information. We took evidence from a number of very distinguished witnesses, one of whom was the noble Lord, Lord Condon, who spoke just a moment ago. Our report contained 15 specific recommendations. I have to tell your Lordships that while a number of these recommendations have been accepted—by government, sports governing bodies or by betting organisations—several have still to be implemented seven years on. They have a direct relevance to this debate today.

Let me deal with just three of them. We proposed that there should be a proper definition of cheating. That call, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, was echoed in the report of the Sports Betting Integrity Panel set up by the Government and chaired by Rick Parry in 2010. Indeed, it was the very first recommendation that the panel made in its report. There is no evidence that the definition of cheating in the Gambling Act 2005 has yet been reviewed, and more needs to be done to investigate and prosecute those who are suspected of this crime.

A second recommendation of ours was that sport should have a direct involvement in determining the type of bets that may be facilitated and that these should be incorporated in future and existing memoranda of understanding between sports and betting organisations. The risk with the Olympics is enormous. All the major betting organisers have said that they will be taking bets on all the events. A lot of that will be spot and so called “in running” betting. These are bets on an event as it happens. The odds are adjusted after the event starts and are continually updated. It is unlikely that many bets will be placed after the start of the 100 metres race, but on something like a marathon or an event based on, say, the best of three attempts, the scope for betting as it takes place is very considerable.

We have seen recently how cricket was corrupted by players taking bribes to do something unusual—in this case bowling no-balls in a test match—to ensure that punters who knew what was going to happen won their bets. The inquiry that I chaired came to the conclusion that there was no one better to judge what sorts of bet should be permitted than the sports governing bodies, as they more than anyone should be able to understand how their sports integrity could be threatened. I asked the Gambling Commission whether any progress had been made in this area. The commission wrote to me on Tuesday and said that the betting operators that it licensed,

“face no restrictions as to the types of bets that can be offered”.

I put it to the Minister that this is an unsatisfactory and dangerous situation, and I hope that she will be able to offer some reassurances about it.

The third area is the exchange of information and the licensing of overseas betting operators. The situation here, too, is unsatisfactory and poses a risk to the integrity of the Olympics. Recommendation 6 in our 2005 report was that all major betting operators should sign MoUs with the sports on which they based their business. In some respects this has been a great success. The Gambling Commission's licence condition 15.1 makes provision for the exchange of information between licensed operators and sports governing bodies. This has generally worked well and has brought to light—and to the Gambling Commission's attention—a number of irregular betting patterns and events, particularly in horseracing.

Even though it is now licensed in Gibraltar, the betting exchange company Betfair made much of the large number of MoUs that it had signed with sports governing bodies around the world. The company is part of the IOC's working group investigating irregular and illegal betting in sport. That is fine, and it seems that Betfair does as much as it would legally be required to do if it was still licensed in the UK. However, the situation with Gibraltar as a whole is less satisfactory. There is still no MoU in place between its regulator and the Gambling Commission, although there may be one by the time of the Olympics. While it is positive about its operators getting involved with the European Sports Security Association, the exchange of information is hampered by Gibraltar's data protection legislation, and licensed operators such as the bookmaker Victor Chandler are not even members of the ESSA.

The Government are supposed to be tackling this by introducing legislation aimed at shifting regulation to the point of consumption, which would have the effect of ensuring that all operators that serve UK-based customers would have to be licensed by the Gambling Commission. That would bring Gibraltar and the white-listed jurisdictions together and would lessen the risk of corrupt or irregular betting practices. Bodies such as the Alderney Gambling Control Commission—I declare a past interest as I advised the commission some years ago—have an exemplary record of promoting integrity. However, that cannot be said of all those who need to be brought into the net. It is a great pity that this new primary legislation will not be in place for the Olympics. I hope that nothing awful occurs during the Games that could have been prevented had the Government found time for such a Bill.

14:33

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for securing the debate. I will declare my interests; I am vice-chair of the London 2012 athletes committee, I work with LOCOG in several areas, I sit on the boards of UK Athletics and the London marathon, and I am involved in several other sporting organisations.

I was fortunate to be in Singapore in 2005 when the bid was won. No one underestimated the logistical task of organising 1,000 sessions across 46 sports in the two Games. It is important as we go through the landmarks leading up to the start of the Olympic and Paralympic Games—this Saturday will be 200 days away from the start of the Paralympics—that we not only celebrate the successes along the way but bear in mind the challenges that might be thrown in our path. There is plenty to celebrate. LOCOG’s diversity programme has set new standards for procurement, inclusion of disabled people in the workforce, accessibility of venues and customer services. However, we will be remembered not just for organising a great Games but for the other work that we do.

The threat to the Games is relatively minor, but that should not stop us looking at this important issue. A number of stakeholders are focused on tackling match fixing, both from a sport and criminal perspective: the IOC, the IPC, LOCOG, the Government, the Metropolitan Police and the Gambling Commission. However, support is needed to continue this work. We have only to look at the recent court cases in sport to understand that there is a risk that must be managed. Sports people are held up as beacons of virtue but they also need to be protected, along with the integrity of their sport. Spectators need to know that medals have been won fairly.

Work that the BBC published last week, on 7 February, highlighted some of the risks in football. Although football is very different from the Olympics, the risks should be flagged up as the report makes stark reading. FIFPro conducted a survey of thousands of players in eastern and southern Europe. Almost one-quarter— 23.3 per cent—said that they were aware of match fixing in their leagues, and 11.9 per cent had been approached to fix a game. What is positive about this is that it recognises that the club licensing system is not working as well as it could. While as many as 100 clubs were denied licences last season, this gives us a very important baseline to work on, and sets a mark of which other sports should be very aware.

For the Games this year, rules have been put in place to tackle the issue. They are published on the London 2012 website. This is the first time that the IOC has done such work in detail for the Games. An e-mail hotline has been set up by the IOC for people to report any suspicious activity. That should be welcomed and far more publicity should be given to it. Any sport disciplinary action at the Games will rightly be led by the IOC, with the support of the international federations for that sport. It will look at wider sanctions beyond the Games. This is exactly the same process that is followed for anti-doping. Like the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I am a passionate advocate for ethical sport.

In the same way as we have extensive anti-doping education for athletes, we should look at international and ongoing education to discourage other forms of corruption. I welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Condon, about the clarification and guidance that will be needed for the athletes. That will be incredibly important. A sports person needlessly risking their career for short-term financial gain is something that we should continually and actively discourage, not just in the period leading up to 2012 but far beyond it. We should learn from the anti-doping experience and the benefits of intelligence data gathering. I understand that the DCMS has been leading the consultation to add the IOC and other international sporting bodies to Schedule 6 to the Gambling Act 2005. If these bodies were on the list, the Gambling Commission would be entitled to share its information with them. I hope that there will be a positive conclusion to this.

Finally, I am aware that much of the research available is around the Olympic Games. What measures will be in place for the Paralympic Games? We know that the risk for the Olympics is relatively low, and I assume that for the Paralympics it will be lower still, but as London 2012 raises the bar at all levels, will this be seen as a future potential risk for our athletes or for other international athletes around the world?

Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for securing this debate. I look forward to a fantastic Games this summer and take the opportunity to wish Team GB and Paralympics GB the best of luck.

14:37

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moynihan for securing this debate, which has allowed us the opportunity to consider how the Government are addressing the problems of match fixing and suspicious betting, and the threat that these might pose to the integrity of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. I pay tribute to his great expertise in Olympic and sporting matters.

It is an honour for the UK to host the 2012 Games, and we want to do all we can to make them a success. We must be prepared to tackle those things that threaten the spirit of the Games and to protect those involved from the corruption in sport that appears to have become a global issue, as a number of noble Lords highlighted in their contributions. It must be stressed that while match fixing is a growing dilemma, for every event tainted by this scourge there are thousands that are contested fairly and honestly at all levels and across all sports and nations. We must believe that those given the opportunity to participate in the Games will feel privileged to be part of such an historic and prestigious event, but we cannot ignore the evidence that there are those who will seek to corrupt the spirit of fair play and damage the integrity and spirit of sport, whatever the event and wherever it is held.

The IOC’s Olympic Charter states that it will,

“dedicate its efforts to ensuring that, in sport, the spirit of fair play prevails”.

We will do all we can to support this during the London Games. I welcome the announcement from the IOC last week that outlined co-operation in the fight against irregular and illegal sports betting. The UK Government agree that the most effective way to tackle this threat is to ensure effective collaboration between all the parties involved: sports governing bodies, betting operators, law enforcement agencies and the Gambling Commission’s Sports Betting Intelligence Unit.

We also welcome the efforts being made within the sporting world, international federations and national Olympic committees to educate those involved about the dangers of corruption. My noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Lord, Lord Condon, were among those who emphasised the importance of education. Those education programmes play an ever more important role in demonstrating the importance of integrity. Many use former Olympians and elite athletes to deliver the key message that striving to do your best must always win over bribery and corruption. The risks cannot be underplayed. Not only can corruption have a huge impact on the reputations of individuals and their sport, it can ruin lives and careers. We have seen evidence of this over the past few months with the cases involving the Pakistani cricketers.

I need to stress that currently no specific threat to the 2012 Games has been identified and many of the steps to provide effective protection against potential threats are already in place in Great Britain, as the noble Lord, Lord Condon, made clear. However, the London Games are the first Games where sports-betting integrity has been elevated to the level of focus that doping has warranted, bringing us a new challenge that we must address.

The noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, asked what international plans are in place. I will incorporate my answer to that in the remarks I make about the Joint Assessment Unit and the other mechanisms that are going forward. We are working with global representatives to look at how we can collectively tackle match fixing. The Council of Europe is proposing a convention that European states will work to.

The noble Lord, Lord Condon, spoke about the Joint Assessment Unit. We must pay tribute to the major contribution he has made in establishing the unit and drawing on his expertise from his distinguished career in the police force. The Joint Assessment Unit will help us meet the challenge and will provide the mechanism to focus our established, effective protection methods on the 2012 Olympics. Representatives from the IOC, the police and the Gambling Commission are working in partnership to create the unit and to collaborate with sports organisations, betting operators, overseas regulators and the Games organisers, bringing together a wealth of experience and expertise. These initiatives will mean that we are fully prepared to assess and determine the appropriate response to information about potentially corrupt betting activity involving Olympic sports.

The JAU will fully support the key decision-makers in deciding whether further action is justified. If an investigation is deemed to be required, the JAU will decide who should be invited to take the lead. As a general rule, the IOC will deal with sports issues under sport rules and if criminality is suspected the police will deal with it under criminal law. It is possible that a criminal investigation and a sports investigation will run simultaneously depending on the nature of the potential incident. Other relevant organisations will be involved in investigations as and when appropriate or necessary.

The JAU may not stop those determined to engage in corrupt or illegal betting activity, but this collaborative approach will ensure that any incidents of sports-betting integrity can be effectively co-ordinated and managed within existing business-as-usual protocols and processes. My noble friend Lord Addington, the noble Lord, Lord Condon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, emphasised the importance of publicising what we are doing. Certainly, by publicising this approach, we hope that those considering engaging in corrupt or illegal betting activity may be deterred from doing so.

The concept of the joint unit is new to the Games and provides a unique opportunity for the UK to demonstrate its capability. We can build on the working practices and protocols already established between organisations, and to a large extent this capability has already proved successful in tackling corruption.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, raised some key points arising from his valuable 2005 committee report and reminded us of the felicitous anniversary of its publication. His points were echoed in the contributions of my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Addington. The Government accepted the definition of cheating in the Parry report, and I do hear the concerns raised around the Chamber. The review of cheating was not considered a priority at this time, but that is not to say that it has been forgotten. We hope to address that issue. Along with the Gambling Commission, we are looking at the range of offences related to sports-betting integrity to see that we have the suite of powers necessary to combat the threat.

The codes of conduct by sports governing bodies included in the Parry recommendations include provisions that participants shall not use inside information that is not publicly available in relation to betting. My noble friend Lord Moynihan raised concerns about definitions of inside information. It is already within the codes of conduct of the sporting bodies.

The commission has the power to restrict the type of bets offered and to approve sporting bodies' rules before allowing betting on those sports. However, based on available evidence, it does not consider that at the moment intrusive or resource-intensive methods are warranted. It is working with the betting industry—my noble friends Lord Addington and Lord Moynihan mentioned the importance of working with the betting industry. It is in its interest that there is integrity. With the industry, we are looking to see whether the deterrents to cheating or getting others to cheat can be strengthened.

We look forward to the introduction of the recommendations put forward following our recent review of remote gambling. We recognise that one of the benefits that will accrue for tackling sports-betting integrity matters will be the availability of information through licence conditions. The Government are seeking the earliest possible legislative opportunity in a crowded timetable. As far as the Olympics are concerned, we believe that we have satisfactory arrangements in place for the duration of the Games.

The European Sports Security Association is planning a seminar in March and the audience will include betting operators, sports bodies and JAU stakeholders. The Minister for Sport will also attend, diary permitting. The aim of the seminar will be to agree how ESSA members and sports bodies will collaborate to minimise risk and maximise co-operation around Olympic-related incidents.

We are grateful to have the benefit of the advice and guidance of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The noble Baroness raised the issue of the Paralympics. She is right that they are outside the scope and remit of the Joint Assessment Unit, which will close shortly after the Olympic Games closing ceremony, but this is because advice indicated that the market for betting on the Paralympics would be small and has not been offered at previous Games. The risk of sports-betting integrity to the Paralympics is considerably lower than that to the Olympic Games. LOCOG reached agreement with the International Paralympic Committee based on this advice that it is not necessary to have the same structures in place for the Paralympics to deal with sports-betting integrity.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, asked what will happen if there is strong evidence of an incident and what guidance has been given to national Olympic committees. The IOC has asked national Olympic committees to appoint a nominated representative to be responsible for liaison on betting issues that may occur during the Games. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked whether we will be monitoring the betting information. We will be doing so through the ISM and through working with betting operators via the Gambling Commission’s Sports Betting Integrity Unit. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked whether we will be analysing data on betting markets. We will do a full threat assessment on all Olympic sports before the Games. He asked whether we will scenario-test the JAU and he was given a comprehensive answer by the noble Lord, Lord Condon. We have already done one day of scenario testing and another is planned. There is expertise which will be used to facilitate those tests.

The UK has proven success in tackling corruption and threats to betting integrity. We will build on the recommendations in the Parry report to develop viable and sustainable solutions so that we can have a legacy to be proud of. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this valuable debate on an extremely topical issue of international significance. With so much preparation, we can make a real and positive contribution to ensure an inspirational Games and a memorable year that will show the whole world the UK at its very best.

14:49

Sitting suspended.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Thursday 9th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Committee (9th Day) (Continued)

14:56

Amendment 178B

Moved by

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

178B: Before Clause 113, insert the following new Clause—
“Effect of life sentence
In Chapter 7 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (effect of life sentence) omit section 269(5) to (7).”

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, this amendment also concerns an innovation introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Prior to that Act it was the practice of the judges trying murder cases to write to the Home Secretary recommending the minimum period to be served in prison as punishment. The Lord Chief Justice always added his own comments, either increasing or decreasing the tariff, as it came to be called. The Home Office usually accepted the judicial recommendation but sometimes the tariff was increased by a year or two. I never in my experience remember it being reduced. Then came the case of Anderson in the House of Lords, in which it was held that Ministers could play no part at all in the fixing of the tariff; sentencing was for the judges and not for the Executive. Section 269 and Schedule 21 of the 2003 Act was the ministerial riposte to that decision. The purpose of Amendment 178B is to repeal Schedule 21.

Schedule 21 lays down an elaborate framework within which trial judges must work when fixing the tariff for a particular case. It has four different starting points: 15 years, 25 years, 30 years and whole life. It has seven different aggravating factors and seven different mitigating factors, all of which must be taken into account. The schedule was drafted within the Home Office without, as far as I know, any input from the judges. So far as I can remember, it was introduced at a late stage in the House of Lords without any debate in the House of Commons, but I may be wrong about that. In any event, the question arises: what was the reason for introducing Schedule 21? Why did the Government not leave the tariff to the judges? After all, it is the trial judge who fixes the tariff in all other life sentence cases, including manslaughter—why not murder?

15:00

One possible reason would have been that the Government wanted to introduce greater uniformity in the tariff in murder cases. However, that argument will not run now because we now have the Sentencing Council, whose whole purpose and raison d’être is to secure uniformity, so far as it can ever be secured, and to ensure some input, at any rate, from experts and other members of the public. The Sentencing Council is working well. It covers all other crimes—including, as I have said, manslaughter—so why not murder? It is surely far better placed to give guidance on the tariff in murder cases than Parliament could ever be because it has a feel for sentencing as a whole and how murder fits in with other crimes. That is important.

Another possible reason for Schedule 21 is that the Government wanted to raise the general level of tariffs in murder cases—in other words, their view was that the judges were being too soft on crime. If that was the intention, the Government could not have been more successful. The new starting points had an immediate effect. The average tariff in all murder cases before 2003—when the 2003 Act came into force—was just over 13 years. The average tariff now is 17.5 years, which is an increase of nearly five years. No wonder the prisons are overcrowded and that we now have more prisoners—I want your Lordships to listen to this—serving life sentences and indeterminate sentences for the protection of the public than the whole of the rest of Europe put together, including Russia and Turkey. How can that be justified?

Whether Schedule 21 was intended to have such a dramatic effect, I do not of course know. Nor do I know whether there was any impact assessment before Schedule 21 was enacted. But what we all know is the need to reduce the prison population now by some means or another. We know that that is the desire of the Lord Chancellor. Perhaps I may say with great respect that he has made an excellent start by abolishing the indeterminate sentence for the protection of the public. I suggest that he now looks with a very critical eye at Schedule 21.

I said earlier that sentencing is for judges and not for Ministers, but at least when the tariff was fixed by the Secretary of State in murder cases, he would have some knowledge of the facts of the particular case. Parliament obviously can have no such knowledge. The attempt to control sentencing from the sidelines, as it were, has two very great dangers. The first is that you tie the judges down so tight that they cannot do justice in the particular case. The second, which perhaps is even more sinister, is that the level of sentencing will become a sort of political football, with each side wanting to appear tougher on sentencing than the other. That may to some extent have already started but if it were ever to become a reality it would spell an end to the idea of a just sentence for the individual convict.

Sentencing must always in the end depend on the view taken by the individual trial judge, which is why it is such an anxious process. In my view, the more we can leave it to the judge, subject to guidance by the Sentencing Council and with as little interference from Parliament as possible, the better. We can make a start by repealing Schedule 21. I beg to move.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, as has already been said by others, this House should always listen with great respect and interest to the noble and learned Lord. I agree with him to an extent in relation to a number of the issues that he has raised. I agree with him entirely that the sentence for public protection, the IPP, has become extremely undesirable and has resulted in a very large number of people remaining in prison for far longer than is necessary or even proper. I think that he would agree with me in the criticism I have made consistently with others over the years about the mandatory life sentence for murder.

However, I am bound to say that I would urge the Minister of State not to accept this amendment for a number of reasons which I at least regard as cogent and also hope that the House would. The first is that although the noble and learned Lord is absolutely right that sentencing is for the judges, as successive Home Secretaries have emphasised—I am pleased to see a very distinguished former Labour Home Secretary in his place during this short debate—sentencing policy is not for the judges. It is for the Government.

Part of sentencing policy legitimately, I would suggest to your Lordships, is setting the framework in which sentences for murder are imposed. The provision that the noble and learned Lord wishes to have repealed has had two practical effects, apart from setting clear, public and consistent sentencing policy, which is well understood by all the judges who apply it. The first is that in reality, it has diluted, although not completely removed, the offensive consequences of the mandatory life sentence. Those of us who have appeared as counsel for the prosecution and for the defence in many murder cases know that the effect of the provisions that the noble and learned Lord criticises has been to enable those who advise people charged with murder to give a tariff before the judge gives his or her tariff at the end of the case. In reality, people charged with murder are able to be advised as to their likely sentence beyond its being a mandatory life sentence.

The second consequence has been an exponential increase in the number of guilty pleas in murder cases. Lawyers are able to advise the accused person—sometimes with the help of the judge based on these clear statutory guidelines—as to the sentence that he or she is likely to face. With that knowledge—I speak from experience as a criminal barrister—I have seen a number of people charged with murder plead guilty after it has been made clear where on the statutory tariff they lie. Certainly, in my early years in practice, it was almost unheard of for anyone to plead guilty to murder.

An obvious effect of that consequence is that witnesses who may have suffered extremely traumatic events—sometimes the children of the murder victim—do not have to give evidence in court. Surely, that is an advantage. My view is that the current provisions provide for fairness to victims, fairness to defendants and apply a degree of predictability. In my view, they increase, rather than decrease, public confidence in the system.

It is a very nice view, and I wish we could say it with complete confidence, that we should simply leave murder sentencing to the judges, with some guidance from the Sentencing Council. But that does not go far enough. It is the specificity of the statutory provisions that makes the real difference day by day in criminal courts up and down the country, where murder cases are tried these days in most instances not by High Court judges but by circuit judges, with what is rather unhappily called a murder ticket.

In conclusion, my advice to my noble friend—for what little it is worth—would be to leave well alone, albeit with the option, of course, of changing the guidelines from time to time to meet circumstances.

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

My Lords, I am probably the only person currently in the House who has actually carried out murder investigations. When you knock on the door and say you are investigating a burglary, nobody takes much interest. When you knock on the door and say you are investigating a murder, the reaction is very different. I am fully in support of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, because murder is different. It is not just any other crime. In my opinion, it is actually the crime by which the public judge the criminal justice system.

I find myself somewhat surprised to be arguing against the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, but I think that the combination he used of sentences for murder and indeterminate sentences does not, in this argument, add up, because this is about murder. I am fully in support of almost everything the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has said. I had expected to speak for longer; I came to the House to speak to this amendment. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has said almost everything that needs to be said—except for this emphasis that I would place before your Lordships’ House that murder is different. I believe that Parliament has a right—indeed, a duty—to set the tariffs from which judges then make their decisions about sentencing.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, lest there should seem to be unanimity on these Benches, I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in his amendment.

When I started out at the Bar, people did not plead guilty to murder at all. It was a throwback to the time when hanging was the only sentence that could be passed and therefore guilty pleas were sometimes simply not accepted and a person was told to plead not guilty so that the case could be properly proved. We have moved very far from that, to the present situation, which I find mechanistic. The gap between the 15-year starting point and the 30-year starting point is far too great, in my view. It is mechanistic in that once you get your starting point, you start to deduct for this and add for that, and at the end of the day, after this complicated arithmetic, you guess at what might possibly be the sentence and advise your client accordingly.

I do not find that a very helpful way of going about things. Today there are provisions for obtaining some guidance from the judge as to the sort of sentence he would pass in certain circumstances, and that is a better way of going. These artificial starting points of 15 years and 30 years have been laid down by people with no experience of how the courts work or how cases are brought to court, and with no personal contact with clients or anything of that sort, and are not the way we should be conducting our sentencing policy. I agree with everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has said.

15:15

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the Front Benches are occupied by somebody from the lowest levels of the legal profession and somebody who is even lower because, as we were told the other day, he has done only a short period of legal education. I do not know about the Minister, but I find myself oscillating between the very eloquent, articulate and lucid explanations of the various positions. I was totally persuaded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd—until I heard the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Then—with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Blair—I was made to think more by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. On balance, I am grateful that I was not a member of a jury to be addressed by any of these three eminent lawyers because I am not sure we would have reached a verdict even now—at least I would not.

On balance, I am persuaded by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, although I am concerned—as everyone in this House should be—at the very disturbing statistic that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, adduced about the number of people held on life sentences in this country being greater than that for the whole of the rest of Europe. That is not something about which the English system should feel at all complacent. Nevertheless, for what it is worth—which is clearly not much—I am persuaded by the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, advanced. It remains to be seen whether it endorses the position that the Minister will give us in a moment.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for those comments. I approach any discussions on Schedule 21 with great trepidation because very early in my ministerial career, I was lured by the eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, into agreeing with him about some of the flaws in Schedule 21, only to be hauled over the coals when I got back to the department and told that this was not departmental policy and I was not to listen to such siren voices.

I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, knows that both the Lord Chancellor and I—importantly, and less so—come instinctively to the view that judging is best left to the judges. This debate has taken place within this context. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Carlile for his intervention because he pointed out that what we are debating is where the responsibility of Parliament is in setting a framework, while leaving, properly, to the judges the flexibility to handle that framework.

I am also grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Blair, for two reasons. First, he made the unique point—certainly in this Bill—that he was going to shorten his speech because somebody else had made the speech earlier. All I say to the rest of the House is: “Go thou and do likewise”. Secondly, he made the important point that I think will come back again and again in our debates—I wrote it down—that murder is “the crime by which the public judge the criminal justice system” above all others. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Blair, said, it is right that Parliament has a duty to set a framework in these matters.

I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that it may seem an artificial framework, but in putting forward the 2003 Act Parliament allowed judges the necessary discretion to arrive at any minimum term from any starting point, which allows exceptional cases for minimum terms to depart from the norm. It is not as inflexible as is suggested. The 2003 Act puts in place arrangements for all minimum terms to be imposed judicially—something which I think has general approval. However, Parliament took the view at the time that it was right to have statutory guidance on sentencing for murder. The guidance provides for consistency of approach but still gives the court the necessary discretion to deal with each case appropriately.

I note what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said about the Sentencing Council and I pay tribute to its work, but the Government still believe, as Parliament believed in 2003, that it is right that Parliament should remain responsible for sentencing guidance for murder. It is for Parliament to reflect what circumstances should be considered as particularly or exceptionally grave for this, the most serious of crimes. With that explanation, I urge the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. If it is right for Parliament to give such guidance, how did judges get on before 2003? The answer is that they managed perfectly well. The only effect of the rigid 2003 framework has been to increase the average sentence—I repeat the figure—from just over 13 years to 17.5 years. I do not suppose that anyone did an impact assessment before the 2003 Act was passed, but in my submission it cannot be right that we should suddenly increase the average by so large an amount without considering whether the framework is responsible for it and considering again whether that increase is actually justified.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who made the main objection to this suggestion, has said that the tariff provides valuable help to counsel in advising what the likely sentence will be, but how did counsel manage before the 2003 Act? The answer is that they managed perfectly well and could manage perfectly well even today without Schedule 21. I can see that I have not persuaded enough of your Lordships, and in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 178B withdrawn.

Clause 113 agreed.

Amendment 179

Moved by

[Lord Wigley]

179: After Clause 113, insert the following new Clause—
“Abolition of certain sentences for dangerous offenders (No. 2)
All those already serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection for serious offences must either—(a) have access to relevant rehabilitation programmes, or(b) have their sentences rescinded,within 30 days of the commencement of this Act.”

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, the amendment, tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pertains to the abolition of sentences of imprisonment for public protection, more commonly known as IPP sentences, as provided for in Clause 113. Of course, some of these issues have already been aired in our debates today. The amendments linked to Amendment 179 in this group contain provisions to apply this abolition retrospectively for offenders serving existing IPP sentences and deal with associated issues. Indeed, they may do so more comprehensively than my own amendment, so I will listen with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham when they speak to their amendments in the group. I realise that I am very much a layman in discussing these issues and that I stand alongside colleagues with a lifetime of professional experience, so I am grateful for the indulgence of the Committee.

As I said at Second Reading, IPP sentences were the result of controversial measures which effectively introduced life sentences via the back door for a great number of offences. Although the courts were able to set a minimum tariff which was to be served before a prisoner could apply for parole, I am told that the system rarely worked as intended. Little thought was given to determining prisoners’ tariffs and not enough focus was put on directing IPP prisoners towards relevant rehabilitation programmes, with the result that over 6,000 prisoners are now lingering in our prison system serving indeterminate sentences, over half of whom are past their minimum tariff.

Because of the requirements set by the Government, far too few of these prisoners are able to access the necessary courses which would entitle them to be considered for release. When we consider that these prisoners are serving on average 244 days beyond their tariff and that it costs something like £30,000 to keep someone in prison for that period, it is abundantly clear that the system surrounding IPP sentences is costly and, indeed, unacceptable. The Government are certainly right to abolish the IPP sentence, although I have some misgivings about what will be introduced in its place. Clause 114 will introduce a mandatory life sentence for those convicted of a second listed offence, and my concern is that judicial discretion will be damaged, an issue that we have already touched on in other contexts. What is important when sentencing offenders is to ensure that they are given sentences that are the most beneficial to the public, the victims and, indeed, to the criminals themselves, as mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Judge in an earlier debate, and indeed by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern.

Consideration should also be given to the treatment programmes or courses that such prisoners should undertake when in prison in order to get them to understand the gravity of their crimes and the impact on their victims. Introducing what are effectively mandatory life sentences for a second listed offence will strip the courts of their obligation to consider the individual circumstances surrounding each case.

To return to the matter in hand, I welcome the abolition of indeterminate sentences for public protection as provided for in Clause 113, but the reason I have tabled Amendment 179 is to probe the Government on why abolishing the system cannot also apply retrospectively. As I have said, thousands of prisoners are still languishing in the system without hope of rehabilitation or release. Without being directed into rehabilitation courses, this state of limbo will continue. That is why Amendment 179 would require the Government to grant these prisoners access to rehabilitation programmes or to rescind their sentences within 30 days of the commencement of the Act.

I note that a similar principle lies behind the amendments in this group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham. However, Amendments 179ZA and 179ZB would require the Government to refer prisoners serving existing IPP sentences to the Parole Board unless there is compelling evidence that they continue to pose a significant risk of reoffending. Amendment 180 goes slightly further, calling for the Secretary of State to ensure that plans are in place to release within three months of the enactment of the Bill all prisoners currently serving IPP sentences. However, the amendments have in common the desire to end the indeterminate legal limbo in which prisoners serving existing IPP sentences find themselves. Perhaps I can put it to the Minister in this way. In the football parlance that he used in an earlier debate, he might be far from happy if a Blackpool player had incurred a red card and did not know for how long he would be suspended. I urge the Government to consider these amendments. I beg to move.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, I spoke about this matter at Second Reading and have great sympathy with the sentiment behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley.

In common with the overwhelming majority of people involved in the penal system, I am delighted to see the back of the sentence of imprisonment for public protection. The sentence has been a disaster for criminal justice and for the prison system, which, as a number of noble Lords have already commented, is now clogged, with more than 6,000 IPP prisoners having no certain release date. It is particularly unjust that many of those prisoners who have passed their tariff dates are on lengthy waiting lists to start offending-behaviour courses which could reduce the risk they pose and make them good prospects for release.

I share the Minister’s concern that everything possible should be done to speed up prisoners’ access to these courses so that they do not continue to languish in prison unnecessarily. Will he consider making one other change to help the position of those serving IPP sentences? This matter was referred to also by the noble Lord. The Secretary of State’s directions to the Parole Board include a very strong direction that a life-sentence prisoner should normally spend a period in an open prison before release. This is a sensible proposition for many life-sentence prisoners. They usually spend many years in prison; they are often institutionalised; and a gradual adjustment to freedom by going to an open prison will often increase their chances of a successful release.

15:30

However, there is another side to this coin. Many IPP prisoners have tariffs as relatively short as one or two years, and many others have tariffs of three, four or five years. When they come before the Parole Board, they have not been out of circulation for anything like as long as most life-sentence prisoners and there may not be the same pressing need for them to spend a period in an open prison before release. Yet the Secretary of State's direction means that the Parole Board will be very reluctant to release them from open conditions. As a result, the board may recommend that they go to an open prison before release, which will lengthen their stay by perhaps another two years. Surely this is unacceptable.

I agree that a period in open prison before release is appropriate for many IPP prisoners, but it by no means applies to all such prisoners. A blanket provision cannot be applicable to all cases. If the Government were to amend the Secretary of State’s direction to remove the present strong presumption in favour of a period in open prison, it would enable the Parole Board to make a decision on the merits of an individual case. I would be grateful if the Minister could consider this suggestion and perhaps report to us before the next stage of the Bill.

As one who was involved in the review of the parole system when the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, was Home Secretary, I have no doubt that the Parole Board would welcome this change, which after all fits in with the rehabilitation element of a sentence.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, I have Amendment 179ZA in this group. The Minister can surely take pride in the abolition of IPP sentences and in the fact that he and this Government are leading public opinion in this area. The Minister suggested earlier that the Government were not given enough credit for leading public opinion, but here they most certainly are.

There were many weaknesses to the IPP regime. It was imposed in far more cases than was ever expected when the regime was introduced, but a major weakness was that a defendant, a convicted person or a prisoner had to prove a negative: that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public that he should be confined. That was the great weakness. When he tried to prove that he could safely be released, all he could he do was produce certificates that he had completed courses from programmes that were offered to him in prison, but the second great weakness was that those programmes might not be available or a prisoner would be transferred in the middle of completing a course from one prison to another and would have to start again. That is the basic reason why people have been kept after the expiry of their tariff.

The new provision for extended sentences unhappily retains the necessity for a prisoner to prove that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that he be confined, so that great weakness in the existing system is being continued in the system of extended sentences.

I propose in this amendment that the whole system should be tightened up in relation to those who are beyond their tariff date and are serving at the present time. It should be tightened up to the point of becoming, for the first time, a fair system. In subsection (1) of my amendment, there is a duty on the Secretary of State to “immediately refer” the case of a prisoner who has served the entirety of his tariff to the Parole Board. That should not be a discretion; he must do it immediately. Then it is the duty of the Secretary of State—not a discretion—to release the prisoner,

“on license as soon as the Board has directed his release under this section”.

Subsection (3) attacks most directly the weakness that I described to your Lordships:

“The Board must direct P’s release unless the Board is satisfied, on the basis of clear and compelling evidence which post-dates P’s conviction, that there is a strong and immediate probability that P will commit a serious violent or sexual offence on release”.

If the tariff is 10 years, the Parole Board should look not at what happened 10 years earlier but the current situation and what sort of risk the prisoner now threatens the public with. What is the evidence that he will commit a serious, violent or sexual offence if he were released? At the moment, we ask the Parole Board to make that judgement without evidence, relying merely on certificates of programmes completed and so on. A judgment without evidence is otherwise called a guess. A person’s liberty should not be decided by how the Parole Board guesses the future.

Subsection (4) suggests that,

“where the Board has declined to direct release,”

the Secretary of State must—it is his duty to— demonstrate,

“that provision has been made for P to undergo relevant programmes”.

He must also,

“refer P’s case … at 6 monthly intervals until such time as the Board directs P’s release”.

In other words, P will not be left languishing with no programmes presented to him for an indefinite period of time. I happen to know that someone I represented has done all his programmes and got all the certificates but he is still being kept in. On what evidence has that been decided? It is just the way that the Parole Board guesses he will behave if he is released.

Most importantly, subsection (5) contains a limit—or final stop, or buffer—which means that if a person has been in prison for five years after his tariff expired he must be released in the case of specified violent offences, or after,

“8 years post-tariff custody in the case of a specified sexual offence”.

That limit for existing prisoners serving IPP sentences is based on the limit contained in the new provisions for an extended sentence. That limit—or final stop, or buffer—is put into Clauses 115 and 116.

Grouped with this are my Amendments 179BZA and 179BZB, which attempt to amend Clause 116 to introduce, again, the need for,

“clear and compelling evidence … that there is a strong and immediate probability that P will commit a serious violent or sexual offence on release”,

for the Parole Board to refuse to allow him to be released when his tariff has been fulfilled. Similarly, Amendment 179BZD indicates exactly the same provision.

This is an extremely important matter. More than 3,000 prisoners are still held after the expiry of their tariff. We cannot abolish IPP sentences and allow them to remain in prison indefinitely.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said about congratulating the Government on introducing change. I have to admit that, along with many others, I have hated IPPs ever since they were introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Of course there are people from whom the public must be protected, some of whom have been awarded sentences of natural life. I freely admit that all is not well with the release of prisoners about whose risk of committing violent or sexual offences prison governors feel uneasy. Yet I knew of the inability of the Prison Service to provide sufficient offending behaviour programmes for those who require them. Also, 60 per cent of lifers serving determinate sentences are already one year over tariff, mainly because of the inability to satisfy what the Parole Board requires before sanctioning release, so I simply could not see that such an ill thought through introduction could result in anything other than the prison population being needlessly increased by a steadily increasing number of those whose release date was deliberately made uncertain.

Cynically, having become used while Chief Inspector of Prisons to Home Office Ministers and officials living in a virtual criminal justice system and being unwilling to accept objective advice based on facts, I feared that no notice of any outsider warnings would be taken—and how right I was. Since then, attempts have been made in this House to alleviate the IPP problem by raising the minimum tariff threshold, but the numbers of those above the original ministerial forecast and those who have exceeded their tariff already have continued to grow.

I was therefore delighted to hear the Secretary of State announce that IPPs were to end and see that confirmed in Clause 113. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has stated, the Government have not said that they intend to alter the arrangements for those currently serving IPPs to earn their release, which will mean that such prisoners will continue to clog up the overcrowded prisons for years to come unless something is done. My amendments, and those to which I have added my name, are designed to end this situation as quickly as possible, in line with the Government’s aim of reducing the size of the prison population.

Before I speak to the amendments, I beg the indulgence of the House while I say something about some of the residual effects of indeterminate sentences, because they must not be disregarded when any meaningful consideration of the problem is taken. Prisons are fragile places in that, to work effectively, they depend on relationships of mutual trust, if not affection, between staff and prisoners. Let those break down and you are in trouble, which is precisely why it is so important that numbers of prisoners are kept as low as possible and that our understaffed and overcrowded prisons are looked at very carefully. As chief inspector, I introduced what I called the healthy prison test, in which I asked whether everyone felt and was safe, whether prisoners were treated with respect as fellow human beings, were enabled to improve themselves by access to purposeful activity and were enabled to prepare for release and maintain contact with their families.

IPPs fail every test on every account. The uncertainty that they introduce has encouraged too many of those awarded IPP sentences to take their own lives, and has also brought on much mental distress. It is inhuman to award anyone a sentence of 99 years, which is how indeterminate sentence length is described on the internet, when the prisoner does not know how or when he may qualify for release. It is patently wrong for release to be dependent on courses and programmes that simply are not available. I have lost count of the numbers of letters of complaint that I have had from families who simply do not know when their relative or loved one can qualify for release. In other words, IPPs have been an obscene, inhuman and expensive disaster.

My amendments are in two parts. Amendment 180 links with Amendment 179, tabled by my noble friend Lord Wigley, in that it seeks to establish a proper end game to the issue through a statement from the Secretary of State that individual plans have been made for the release of all those currently serving IPPs. I am not suggesting that all IPP prisoners should be released in three months, but that plans should be made in that period. For them all to qualify for that release, plans must ensure that those qualifications are both available and satisfied. Urgent plans must be made for the release of the 3,750 prisoners who are already over their tariff, which I accept will demand much detailed work, and probably resources.

However, urgent remedial action is required to put right a situation that should have never been allowed to develop, before it costs the taxpayer yet more millions of pounds. In saying this, I am conscious that the Parole Board, under its excellent chairman Sir David Latham, is already under extreme pressure, and that any alteration to current arrangements, such as the introduction of six-monthly reviews, would need to be very carefully considered because, at present, it would be unworkable. I know that Sir David is sympathetic to any proposal intended to produce release as soon as possible after tariff expiry, but it must be realistic. In the best interests of the Parole Board, therefore, and of enabling the Prison Service to better direct the use of its limited resources towards protecting the public by preventing reoffending, there is all the more reason for coherent planning of this release process.

15:45

Regarding coherent planning, I have said many times in this House that in every organisation I can think of, named individuals are made responsible and accountable for particular functions or activities. That is done not least because history tells us that unless someone is made responsible and accountable for making things happen, nothing happens. The only organisation in the world that I have come across where that is not the norm is our Prison Service, and it tells. That is why there is such inconsistency in the performance of individual prisons, and why overall progress never seems to be made. Management of an operational organisation is not easy and I am not criticising individuals currently in post. I merely point out that management is made a million times easier if someone is responsible and accountable for overseeing the execution of policy.

I do not believe that the IPP prisoner logjam will be cleared until and unless someone is made responsible and accountable to the Secretary of State for clearing it. Had such an appointment been made years ago, coherent release plans would already be in existence and problem areas, such as a shortage of courses, identified. Similar appointments are required for all other types of prison and prisoner, as well as groups of lifers, sex offenders and foreign nationals. I know that life would be much easier for Ministers and their officials if they could exercise their responsibilities through named, responsible and accountable subordinates. In order to give the resolution of the IPP problem the slightest chance of success, I must therefore ask the Minister to consider making such an appointment, which would be recommended by any management consultant—let alone a frustrated former Chief Inspector of Prisons.

I admit that the other amendments to which I have added my name are more prescriptive, and possibly more suited to a code of practice, but this is not a virtual problem and the details need to be spelled out. I do not need to say anything about Amendment 179ZA, because that has been more than ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. Amendment 179ZB refers to “prisoners” rather than P, because of my unfamiliarity with judicial wording, but I am suggesting consideration of changing the burden of proof in the case of those whose tariff has expired. At present, prisoners are required to prove their qualifications for release but I am trying to suggest that once a tariff has been exceeded, it should be up to the Prison Service to prove to the Parole Board why a prisoner should not be released.

Amendment 179BZA is consistent with Amendment 179BZB which, thanks to the legal background of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, expands, updates and is to be preferred to Amendment 179BZC. Amendment 179BZD is consistent with Amendment 180 in requiring the Secretary of State to satisfy himself or herself that, at all times, rather than being allowed to languish in their cells sentence plans—including participation in required programmes—have been made for all determinate and indeterminate prisoners. That brings me back to the need for someone to be responsible and accountable to the Secretary of State for ensuring that this happens. I cannot repeat that more strongly or often enough.

[Lord Goodhart]

My Lords, I was not involved in criminal law during my practice as a barrister, but I became very interested in IPPs in 2009 because we were then dealing with what became the Coroners and Justice Act. I became particularly concerned at this because Dame Anne Owers, who was then the Chief Inspector of Prisons, together with the Chief Inspector of Probation had written an absolutely devastating report on the defects of IPP. The defects disclosed in the inspector’s report are several. There is a lack of accurate pre-sentence reports on prisoners, which has led to a number of unjustified IPP sentences being imposed on people who should not have had them applied at all. There is a lack of resources for the Parole Board to enable it to determine the fate of prisoners after the prisoners have passed their tariff date. This means that the prisoners may languish for months or even years in prisons where they can not get the training that they require before they can apply for release, so prisoners under IPP are serving what is potentially a life sentence.

There have been some improvements of IPP as a result of amendments made in 2008 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, but those improvements were not enough. By 2009, it was clear in my view that IPP was a disaster. It could work only with a lot more money put into it; if it did not have that money, it was grossly unfair to at least some of the prisoners. The Parole Board does not have the money that it needs and, as matters now stand, it will not for the foreseeable future.

I am going to repeat something that I said in a debate in 2009 because it covers my views now. I said:

“The IPP is wrong in principle and wrong in practice. English courts have a long-standing system of sentencing. Under that system, only the most serious offences can be punished by life imprisonment. It is unnecessary and wrong to impose a de facto life sentence on convictions for an offence which does not carry the life sentence. The IPP is even more wrong in practice. It is wrong because many pre-sentence assessments are inadequate and lead to the imposition of IPPs on those who should not be subject to it. It is wrong because many IPP prisoners, especially in local prisons, have no access to training, without which they cannot get a hearing before a Parole Board panel”.—[Official Report, 28/10/09; col. 1249.]

Little has been done to correct the situation that was so clearly stated by Dame Anne Owers and her colleague. Now we have Clause 117 of the LASPO Bill and some further amendments from the Government. These are not good enough. What would be good enough is Amendments 179ZA and 179ZB in the names of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, which are nearly identical; I hope that they will be merged in time for Report. What the amendments would do has already been explained to your Lordships: they would limit extended sentences only to cases where it had been shown that there was a strong and immediate probability, based on clear and competing evidence, that the prisoner would commit a serious violent or sexual offence.

Indeterminate sentences are deeply unsatisfactory. Amendments 179ZA and 179ZB come more than close enough to this test and I strongly support them. I also strongly support other amendments including Amendment 180, to which I am one of the signatories.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, the real scandal is that IPP sentences have gone on for so long. The previous Government had the chance to do something about them in 2008, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has indicated, when it was already obvious that IPP sentencing was going badly wrong. I remember tabling an amendment at that time to raise the bar and therefore reduce the number of those eligible for IPP sentences. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, was sympathetic but met me only half-way. The Conservatives, I am sorry to say, opposed the amendment. As a result, we have the situation in which we now find ourselves. I entirely share the indignation so well expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. I add only that in my view something must be done, and done soon.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, it is quite clear that more people are serving longer sentences under the system introduced by the previous Government than was anticipated. It is also clear that insufficient resources were devoted to meeting the requirement that people should undergo training and courses, on programmes to be provided within the custodial setting, as a condition of release. As the Prison Reform Trust has pointed out, the situation is even worse for prisoners who are mentally ill or suffer from a learning disability. There is certainly a very real problem with how prisoners are to be assisted in demonstrating their fitness to be released. That undermines what would potentially have been a valuable way of protecting the public. It undoubtedly caused the system to fall into disrepute. The fifth report of the Justice Select Committee of the House of Commons made a number of perfectly valid criticisms of those matters.

Not the least irony of the situation is that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. He pointed out that the cost of keeping substantial numbers of people in prison is excessive in relation to the cost that would arise from investing in the necessary programmes to assist people to make their case and earn their release. I am bound to say that that position is likely to recur in conjunction with the Government’s proposals for extended sentences.

I do not dissent from the critique of indeterminate sentences, although I remain far from convinced that extended sentences necessarily resolve the problem. In that context, will the Minister indicate in replying what additional resources are planned for rehabilitation and the like under the new system? How will people who remain under the old system be dealt with? As has rightly been pointed out, a substantial number are still in that position.

I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the Answer given by the Minister in the House of Commons to a Question from Andy Slaughter MP about the number of people who were likely to be retained in prison as a result of the extended sentence programme. That was a very illuminating document. It showed that around 550 people a year would be sentenced and treated in that way, so that over 10 years 5,500 people could be in the same position as those who were sentenced under the previous regime. That is a formidable figure and, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, implied in respect of the existing system, a very costly one. I am not aware of any impact assessment or analysis of the cost of that new proposal. I do not know whether the Minister can direct me to any such analysis. In any event, the figures suggest a very significant cost.

Having said that, I have difficulties with various amendments that are being proposed. In particular, as has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, it is asking too much, even if the system were to receive an injection of money, for courses and the like to be laid on in such numbers and in so short a time as to meet the targets that some of the amendments suggest. Therefore, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, to require that within 30 days of the Act coming into force prisoners must have,

“access to relevant rehabilitation programmes”,

or be released simply does not seem realistic.

16:00

There is also an issue about the nature of the condition that would be imposed on those currently undergoing indeterminate sentences. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, directs the board to authorise release,

“unless the Board is satisfied, on the basis of clear and compelling evidence which post-dates P’s conviction”—

that is, the prisoner’s conviction—

“that there is a strong and immediate probability that P will commit a serious violent or sexual offence on release”.

In my submission, there are two problems with that wording. The first concerns “probability”. That seems to me to set the bar too high in respect of the protection that the public are entitled to expect. It amounts to almost a certainty that a prisoner would commit an offence. As I say, I think that is too high a bar.

The second problem, however, concerns the definition of the offences for which the test would be applied. A serious violent or sexual offence obviously should be included, but there are many other offences of a very serious nature which would not be caught by that definition. For example, arson and some terrorism offences would not be caught by it. A whole series of things could lead—although they were not necessarily intended to—to serious harm to individuals or the community at large. They would not be covered by the criteria suggested in this amendment. That would apply to a number of the proposed new clauses after Clause 113 and the relevant amendments to Clause 116.

That leaves us with two critical issues. The first is to deal with those who are currently held. To do that, it is clearly necessary—unless one is simply to open the doors, as it were—to provide precisely the originally intended programmes to facilitate their return to society, provided that they can satisfy the Parole Board that they are fit to be released. The timetable that is suggested is clearly inappropriate. However, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, states:

“The Secretary of State shall within three months of enactment report to … Parliament that plans have been made for the release of all … IPP prisoners”.

That is the plans, not the implementation. That seems to me much more worthy of consideration.

As has been explained, the situation in terms of numbers is much worse than was originally envisaged. However, it is somewhat curious that the Northern Ireland experience appears to be rather different. At the behest of Paul Goggins, who I think was a Northern Ireland Minister in the previous Government, correspondence took place between the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice and, I think, the Lord Chancellor—it might have been the prisons Minister; I cannot recall who was involved. That correspondence set out a rather different experience because—one might think, counterintuitively—the number of people who were sentenced to indeterminate sentences in Northern Ireland was significantly less than had been anticipated, whereas on the mainland, or at least in England and Wales, the situation was the opposite and there were significantly more. I do not know whether that issue has been explored to any extent. The Government might think that it is not necessary to do so because they are changing the system. On the other hand, it might also be worth exploring in the context of the Government’s own new system because unless something is done, on the basis of the figures already available and to which I have referred in terms of the parliamentary Answer, there will be a steady increase in people suffering the same sort of regime under extended sentences while the number on indeterminate sentences declines—one hopes more rapidly than hitherto—given the right resources. I should very much welcome the Minister’s views, either today or subsequently, on that interesting comparison with Northern Ireland.

Essentially, the Opposition cannot therefore support most of the amendments in the group, although we would certainly endorse the view—as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, suggested—that there ought to be a report to Parliament on the plans for release and how they are to be funded.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I am grateful to the noble Lord who is pointing out all sorts of difficulties. I am bound to say that I would be happier if he could at least feel the same sort of indignation that some of us feel at what has already gone wrong, and support the need to do something about it now. That is for the Government to do.

[Lord Beecham]

I share that view. I had hoped that I had made it clear that I think the previous Government did not invest anything like sufficient resources to fulfil their intentions. The intentions were reasonable but the means to fulfil them were not provided. That has to be acknowledged. However, I am afraid that the present Government are, to an extent, following the same course, if they do not look to avoid repeating the experience of under-resourcing a system that on their own figures is likely to lead to substantial numbers of people being held for a very long period—longer than is necessary for their good or society’s good—although there will always be some people who will have to be held for a long period.

[Lord Goodhart]

My Lords, would it not be more expensive to keep in prison these people who should not be there rather than going through the relatively simple processes that would be required to stop them having to remain on an indeterminate sentence?

[Lord Beecham]

Indeed, but the Government have, as I understand it, no real plans to deal with the 3,000 people who are still held on indeterminate sentences. My whole point is that just as the previous Government did not invest in this sufficiently, this Government are in danger of doing the same. Across your Lordships’ House there would be a view that this investment would repay itself in financial terms as well as in social terms.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned, IPP was identified long time ago as a train crash in waiting. I take pride that this Government have taken forward this reform. I note that, as always, there are those who say it does not go far enough—and that is the nature of reform. I was also pleased that there was a certain cross-examination of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, because he is such a reasonable and likeable person that one would think he was going to slip past the responsibility that the previous Administration have to carry for bringing in these reforms.

We are trying to disarm a time bomb and it has to be done in a careful and measured way. This afternoon, we have heard unanimity of views on prison reform. I have to say, in trying to argue the case for prison reform to both Houses and the public at large, it would be easier if the Labour Party, for which I retain a residual affection, had resumed some of its old and traditional campaigning for penal reform, instead of indulging in a kind of “We’re tougher than you” arms race with those who need to be convinced of the case.

That is a fact of modern political life. The Labour Party of Sydney Silverman and Roy Jenkins is perhaps not here any more. Successive Labour Home Secretaries were very keen not have the term “liberal” attached to their term of office. Thus we face a problem such as IPP. We are trying to deal with the issue. The National Offender Management Service prisoner co-ordination group is chaired at director level. It certainly does not meet the catchiness of the request by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for a named person, but that group is trying to manage the specific problem of IPP prisoners. The new specification for offender management, which will provide for the prioritisation of resources based on risk, will be phased in from April 2012. It means that the higher the level of identified risk or the likelihood of reoffending, the higher the level of service that will be provided. In particular, that will result in improved targeting of rehabilitative intervention for IPP prisoners.

To take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, the key rehabilitation stage for those prisoners is being able to demonstrate in open conditions or temporary release that they have learnt new behaviour. NOMS has identified special issues surrounding waiting lists for IPP prisoners who have been assessed as suitable to be held in open conditions. Work is under way to improve the speed of allocation to open prisons, and a temporary release policy is being reviewed to consider whether suitable prisoners might be given access to temporary release from closed prisons.

The Government took the view from an early stage that IPPs must be replaced, and we have brought forward proposals in the Bill to do so. Once those provisions are commenced, no further IPPs can be imposed, even for previous offending. That is a major step forward. We are now concerned with those who have or will receive an IPP sentence prior to abolition. A range of amendments have been tabled on the subject, which we are now debating. The noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Thomas of Gresford, have tabled amendments proposing that the Parole Board release tests be changed. Their amendments also propose the conversion of current IPP sentences to automatic release sentences; that cases are referred back to the Parole Board every six months; and that the Secretary of State should be required to demonstrate that he has made programmes available to prisoners who are refused parole.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, proposes that those offenders should either have access to a relevant rehabilitation programme or that their sentence be rescinded. By that, I presume he means that they should be given automatic release if programmes are not available. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and other noble Lords have asked through another amendment for the Government to plan release for those prisoners. I should make it clear that, as the statute stands, the Government could not implement any such plans, because the power to direct release would remain with the Parole Board. Again, a conversion to automatic release would be required.

Let me start with the question of the conversion of IPP sentences. We do not think that it is right or appropriate retrospectively to alter sentences that were lawfully imposed by the court simply because a policy decision has now been taken to repeal that sentence. That is what would be required to make release automatic for those prisoners. Generally, sentences already imposed are not substantively altered by subsequent legislation. In this case, it would be particularly difficult, as the court would have to impose the sentence with risk management issues in mind.

Several of the amendments relate to the availability of programmes for IPP prisoners. There is rightly concern that those currently serving IPP sentences should be supported in progressing their sentence and achieving release on licence. The National Offender Management Service is using a range of measures to improve the progression of those prisoners through sentence, including improvements in assessment, sentence planning, delivery and the parole review process. We continue to monitor outcomes to ensure that further improvements are identified and implemented.

16:14

There have historically been issues concerning the timely assessment of offenders and the supply of the necessary level of interventions to meet demand. NOMS has already made significant improvements to increase the supply of rehabilitation interventions for this group: almost all IPP prisoners now have comprehensive needs assessments; better use is already being made of sentence plans to prioritise interventions for existing IPPs where the need is greatest; work is under way to ensure that programmes can be delivered more flexibly, supporting greater access and the inclusion of offenders with more complex needs such as learning difficulties; and a greater number of rehabilitative programmes have been completed.

The Ministry of Justice has recently undertaken research into Parole Board decision-making in these cases to better identify barriers to release. The points that have come out of that research are now being taken forward by NOMS in its work on improving support for IPP prisoners. They are points that one might expect: good-quality risk management proposals for community life; evidence of sentence progression, including appropriate courses; and time spent in open conditions and on temporary leave. It is clear that courses are not the only issue for these prisoners, but it is one that we will continue to address, alongside others. A new specification for offender management, which will provide for the prioritisation of resources based on risk, will take effect from April 2012. Once embedded, this will result in the improved targeting of rehabilitative interventions for IPP prisoners.

A key rehabilitation stage for these prisoners is being able to demonstrate in open conditions or on temporary release that they have learnt new behaviours. Work is under way to improve the speed of allocation to open prisons, and other measures are being looked into.

[Lord Wigley]

Before the noble Lord comes to a conclusion, perhaps I may press him on one matter. He has given a list of steps that are currently being taken. When does he assess that all those who are currently being held back on IPP because of the non-availability of courses and rehabilitation will have been cleared? Have the department or the Government set themselves a target for getting this done?

[Lord McNally]

I do not think so, my Lords. I do not think that it would be sensible to go into such targetry. We are talking about individuals of whom individual assessments will be made. As I said, we are disarming a time bomb; we are looking at a backlog of, in many cases, extremely dangerous prisoners. Therefore, it is not just, as someone pointed out, a matter of throwing the gates open; this has to be a managed process. However, I hope that I have made it clear that that process is being managed—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham—and that we are trying to target resources to make sure that this is carried forward with due urgency.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

Is the group that the noble Lord mentioned making plans for every IPP prisoner or is it drawing up general plans for others to follow?

[Lord McNally]

I do not know the detail of how the group is managing its work, but I do know that we are bringing forward a coherent programme to deal with what I readily acknowledge is one of the problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and others referred. In some of these cases, there was a definite and horrible Catch-22 situation for prisoners. They were being asked to prove their fitness for release by carrying through certain programmes but were then told, “By the way, those programmes are not available”. That Catch-22 was not fair to those prisoners. We are trying to address that problem and focus resources on it. I will write to the noble Lord about whether the group to which I referred is an umbrella strategy group or an action group, but I know that all IPP prisoners will be assessed carefully and, where progress can be made with due concern for public safety, that will happen. I think that we can manage this safely and constructively out of the prison system very rapidly once the legislation is in place.

I should also say that parole hearing processes have become more streamlined, with reviews made through a combination of written evidence and oral hearing, and significant resources have been deployed to increase the ability of the Parole Board to increase its throughput. That has significantly reduced backlogs and significantly increased the number of parole dossiers produced on time. I note the suggestion that prisoners should be referred back to the Parole Board every six months. The maximum period that can elapse between the post-tariff review hearing is two years. All decisions on the timing of the next review are based on the individual circumstances of the particular case. Review dates are determined taking into account the extent and nature of the outstanding work that the prisoner needs to do to address his or her risk factors, and where necessary the testing and monitoring needed to demonstrate the impact and efficacy of the work done to address those risk factors.

A fixed period of six months between review periods would not take into account the prisoner’s individual circumstances, so could be counterproductive as it would require prisoner cases to be reviewed without consideration for the time needed to address the risk factors presented. Currently, review periods of between 12 months and two years are usual, but review periods of less than 12 months have been set.

On the Parole Board’s release test, to which several amendments relate—we are also debating whether Clause 117 should stand part of the Bill—I should say that I do not think it appropriate at this stage to change the release test in this legislation. Clause 117 gives the Secretary of State a power to change the release test, which is set in statute for IPP prisoners and prisoners serving the new extended sentence. We will continue to monitor the progress of current IPP prisoners and will consider the use of the power to change the release test, alongside careful consultation.

The Secretary of State is committed to such prior consultation. It is absolutely not the Government’s intention to use the power to make it harder for prisoners to demonstrate reduced risk. However, by way of safeguards, the use of this power is subject to an affirmative procedure in both Houses. I fully understand colleagues who say that we have not gone far enough and some of the detailed criticisms in this debate. I go back to the point I made in the earlier debate. Often these interventions are crafted compromises and, as such, they will have weaknesses and will not go as far as some would want. However, in getting rid of IPPs we are removing what is, to put it politely, an error of judgment in our penal policy, and we are doing it in a way that disarms the time bomb without raising public concern. I hope, in those circumstances, that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister but his opening remarks remain in the back of my mind—that IPP was something akin to a train crash. The victims of that train crash have been left in the wreckage for an indeterminate time before these issues will be sorted out. Of course, there has to be reference to the Parole Board and it may not be appropriate for some to come out. Surely, when the Government themselves have recognised that the system is not fit for purpose for the future, to continue it for those who are incarcerated without any indication of a timescale is doing them and the whole system a grave disservice.

I accept entirely that my amendment has faults and that there may be a version that meets the theme, which I suspect is accepted on all sides of the Committee, that further work needs to be done by the Government on this.

I very much hope that between now and Report the Minister will seriously consider how the Government can respond to the pressure that has come from so many sides, with many different suggestions for relieving the problem. I hope that they will consider this, and that an amendment will be tabled on Report so that their mind is focused on the issue and we do not allow the people who listened to the debate in this House to have all their hopes snuffed out by the response of the Front Bench. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 179 withdrawn.

Amendments 179ZA and 179ZB not moved.

Clause 114 : Life sentence for second listed offence

Debate on whether Clause 114 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I say at once that Clause 114 seems to be wholly pointless. The only explanation for it that I can imagine is that it was a quid pro quo for the abolition of the indefinite sentence for public protection in Clause 113, in case somebody should say that the Government were getting soft on crime. Since the official position of the Opposition is not to oppose Clause 113—I am very glad about that—I suggest that the Government might now look again at dropping Clause 114.

In brief, the clause states that if a person commits an offence for which he serves 10 years in prison, and then commits another offence for which he might expect 10 years in prison, the judge must give him a life sentence unless this would be unjust. It has been called a mandatory life sentence, but of course it is nothing of the sort. The clause explains that the judge has discretion to do what is just, so there is no “must” about it. So what on earth is the point of Clause 114?

Considering the sort of facts that might give rise to a life sentence under Clause 114, the judge would almost certainly have a life sentence in mind anyway. If he does impose a life sentence, Clause 114 serves no purpose. If he does not, because it would be unjust to do so, Clause 114 adds nothing. Have the Government made any estimate of the number of people who will get a life sentence under Clause 114 who would not be given a life sentence anyway under the existing law? There is no point in replicating existing law with ever more offences.

Is Clause 114 perhaps meant to be a deterrent? Let us consider that for a moment and imagine a man coming to the end of his 10-year sentence in prison. How will he hear about Clause 114? Will he be warned by his solicitor, or will he hear about it from a fellow prisoner who is something of a barrack-room lawyer? The idea that this would ever act as a deterrent is ludicrous.

In debating a previous amendment, I warned of the dangers of Parliament becoming too closely involved in the sentencing process. At one extreme, it results in the sort of sentencing complexity of which we have plenty of evidence in the Bill. At the other, one finds clauses such as Clause 114 which, as far as I can see, serve no purpose at all and simply clutter up the statute book.

[Baroness Mallalieu]

My Lords, I support the noble and learned Lord. “Pointless” is a very good description of Clause 114. It is pure political posturing. That is the trouble in the area of criminal law; there has been too much of this going on in recent years, and to little effect. Why on earth can we not leave the detailed business of sentencing in cases such as this, with the guidelines that already exist, to the people who hear the evidence and see the cases: namely, the judges?

We have seen far too much interference with the criminal law. As a practitioner, I go along to courts and am asked by people in the robing room, “How on earth did you let this happen? Didn’t you speak up and point out that it’s a waste of time or has consequences that are totally adverse to the interests of justice?”. Well, I am speaking up, but without a great deal of hope that my words will fall other than on stony ground. Surely we can avoid, at the very least, complicating the statute book with clauses such as this which do not do anything.

16:30

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, I, too, support what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that this kind of provision is ill understood by those who have everyday contact with sentencing provisions and looks more like political posturing than legislation based on merit.

This provision is strangely contradictory within itself. It seeks to introduce mandatory life sentences for people aged 18 or over convicted of a specified offence that is serious enough to justify a sentence of imprisonment of 10 years or more who have previously been convicted of a specified offence for which they were sentenced to imprisonment for life or for a period of 10 years or more, yet it raises the possibility of situations in which defendants who commit two wholly different scheduled offences separated by many years, or even decades, receive mandatory life sentences. On the face of it, it looks tough and even unfair. Yet new Section 224A(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as set out in the Bill provides for a series of exceptions that seem to negate the provision in its entirety. So what is all this about? If there is a mandatory life sentence, but the judge thinks it would unjust to impose one, he has the discretion not to do so. I welcome that but, if that is the provision, why bother?

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

I find myself in complete agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. As far as this clause is concerned, the onus rests firmly with the Government. Nobody around this Chamber—Labour, Conservative, Cross-Bench or Liberal—disagrees. It is vital for the Government to prove that this clause is relevant. So far, they have not done that. There has been a chorus of disapproval surrounding this clause from all Members who have spoken, and it is virtually impossible for the Minister to be able to convince us that this clause is relevant. I will listen with bated breath, as I always do, to what he has to say, but I have dismissed it already.

[Baroness Stern]

My Lords, I shall add a few remarks to the chorus of disapproval. I welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, raising this matter. I shall say a little about the use of life sentences in our law. I have some comparative figures for 2008 about the use of life sentences per 100,000 of the general population. For England and Wales, including IPP sentences, the figure is 20.9; for life sentences that are not IPP sentences, it is 12.71. I suppose the Minister might regard those as reasonable comparators. For France, the figure is 0.85, for Germany 2.41, for the Netherlands 0.14 and for Sweden 1.68. On the face of it—and I am reasonably confident about the accuracy of the data—there is an extraordinarily different way of sentencing within the criminal law in this jurisdiction from in the jurisdictions of continental Europe.

It says nothing about sentence length—that is an entirely different question—but it says a great deal about the admiration and affection that we seem to have for indeterminacy as a way of dealing with people. In the last group of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, spoke eloquently about the impact of indeterminacy on the sentenced person. The sentenced person is left in limbo. He has a very vague idea of what the future holds and of whether a sensible plan could be made for the years that stretch ahead. He has no idea of who has the power to decide whether, and when he is released, how those decisions are made and how he can have an influence, by behaving in a certain way, on what happens in the future. I would imagine that it is a less desirable option than a fixed sentence, where it is clear to the person and to the family in the outside world what the future looks like and how it can be affected.

The proposal for another mandatory life sentence is highly undesirable and I support the amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, in replying to the debate on the last group of amendments, the Minister spoke of his residual affection for the Labour Party in terms that he might have used about an elderly relative. I half expected him to cross the Floor and offer me a cup of tea and a biscuit. I appreciate his kind thoughts.

On the substance of what we are now discussing, I am not at all comfortable with the line the Government are adopting. I entirely support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. Either the Government intend there to be an effective mandatory life sentence policy, which would be wrong in principle; or they want to give the impression of so doing when they do not intend that, which would be disreputable. I am sorry that the noble Lord appears to be lending himself to either of those approaches.

The Minister referred to the party to which I belong as being less than liberal. Those who know me within the party I represent, here and elsewhere, know that I have not been uncritical from time to time of the penal policy of the previous Administration, for what that is worth. I was going to say that the noble Lord should perhaps look behind him, but there is only one Peer from the Conservative Party in the Chamber and she has the respect of us all.

I recall a poster in the 2005 election—I cannot resist reminding noble Lords about this—which I noticed en route from Heathrow Airport into London, which said:

“What would you think if a bloke out on licence raped your daughter?”.

That was the style of an election campaign of the noble Lord’s current partners. I do not for a moment imagine that he or his colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches, then or now, would approve of that approach.

One can debate the merits or otherwise of various party policies but that does not get us very far. However, the Minister talked about disarming a time bomb. The fear is that while he is disarming a time bomb he might be planting a minefield in terms of the effect of this provision about life sentences if it is carried out. Here I must plead guilty, before being charged, to inadvertently misleading the House when I gave statistics earlier, which I said related to the extended sentences. In fact, they related to the mandatory sentence provision. But they are the statistics and they demonstrate that over a decade around 5,500 would be added to the very long-term sentences if this provision should pass into law. A great proportion of them would involve serious crimes of violence against a person, as well as other offences. That was the substance of the Written Answer to the parliamentary Question to which I referred.

The noble and learned Lord has more than adequately, as one might expect, disposed of the case, such as it is, for Clause 114. I hope that the Minister today will agree that it should cease to form part of the Bill or at the very least undertake to look again at the provision and come back at Third Reading on the issue.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, it is very difficult debating against the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. He is such a reasonable man who puts forward such reasonable arguments. I sometimes think that surely he must be on the Lib Dem Benches. But no, there he is.

[Lord Beecham]

Perhaps the Minister should seek treatment for this condition of confusion.

[Lord McNally]

I asked for the House of Commons Hansard for 1 November. I could have picked quite a few but I shall pick one for the House to catch the flavour. As I have said, I have been faced with such unanimity today. Mr Sadiq Khan said:

“No amount of smoke and mirrors can disguise the fact that, by abolishing indeterminate sentences, he”—

the Lord Chancellor—

“is risking the safety of communities in each and every constituency”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/11/11; col. 793.]

You can imagine him banging the Dispatch Box and a growl of “Hear, hear” coming from behind him. That is the difficulty we have in this. Quite frankly, if the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, or perhaps my noble friend, was dishing out awards for political posturing, it would not be to only one side of the House or to this end of the corridor. I am also a little—

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend who I know will say that in the spirit of what he said earlier he regards all his Liberal Democrat colleagues in this House as entirely reasonable. But this is a bicameral Parliament. What are we to read into the fact that, as it happens in this House as we debate this important matter, there are seven Liberal Democrats on the Government side of the House and one Conservative Peer, who deserves credit for being here. If the Conservative Party is really committed in the way in which he has explained from that quotation, should its Peers not be here to say so?

[Lord McNally]

That perhaps is why my noble friend is on the Back Benches rather than enjoying the pleasures of coalition government. He will also know that—

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

What is that supposed to mean?

16:45

[Lord McNally]

I am sure that my noble friend’s comments will be noted in the proper places, particularly at reshuffle time.

There will always be debates about whether or not sentences are deterrent. I am not usually in favour of mandatory sentencing and deterrent sentencing, but it is hard to deny that deterrent sentencing could have an effect. It is not just a matter of some barrack-room lawyer; a hardened criminal would know the consequences of reoffending. I share a lot of the concerns about putting declaratory sections into Bills, but sometimes they have their place.

This clause introduces a new mandatory life sentence for an offender who has committed a second very serious sexual or violent offence. Both offences must be so serious as to merit a determinate sentence of 10 years or more. The offence must also be contained in Schedule 15B to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which is inserted by Schedule 16 to this Bill. Schedule 15B contains the particularly serious offences that were in Schedule 15A to that Act. Previous Schedule 15A convictions make offenders eligible for IPPs and EPPs even if they have not reached the two-year tariff threshold. Schedule 15B also includes further child sex and specific terrorism offences, and the offences of causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult.

The new mandatory life sentence will affect only those who have committed, on separate occasions, two very serious sexual or violent crimes deserving a custodial sentence of 10 years or more. That is a small number of offenders, but this provision is intended to provide reassurance to the public that very serious repeat offenders of this type can expect to be held indefinitely in prison.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

Perhaps the Box can have the chance to deal with this question. Has any analysis been carried out as to how many people would be liable to a life sentence for committing an offence that is not subject to a life sentence at the moment? It seems that they would be liable to a life sentence if the maximum was only 10 years. Has an analysis been carried out of how many offences in the schedule do not carry a life sentence?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, an impact assessment was made and I think they were talking about 20 cases a year.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

That is not quite the point that I am making. It may be that only 20 people would be sentenced to life imprisonment, but would they be sentenced to life imprisonment under this clause, when for the actual offence that they had committed, they could not receive a life sentence? In other words, many serious offences carry life sentences; some do not. I would be grateful for an analysis as to how many would not have a life sentence were it not for this clause.

[Lord McNally]

As far as I understand it, the second serious offence would carry a life sentence.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

That is not what it says, as I understand it—perhaps the Box can help him.

[Lord McNally]

That is as I understand it, but I will write to the noble Lord if I am wrong. The other point that has been made—but of course if you try to be reasonable, you are derided—is that the courts are exempted from imposing the mandatory life sentences where they believe it is unjust to do so in all circumstances. It is the policy intention that offenders who have committed two serious offences not carrying life sentences will be liable to the mandatory sentence. However, we cannot at this moment assess the likely numbers that would be affected by that.

As I said before, we have a sense of schizophrenia about this. Perhaps I may finish with a quote from Sadiq Khan:

“Through their “two strikes” policy, the Government absolve themselves totally of any responsibility to identify the serious, violent offenders who are most likely to reoffend. That should be done at the time when the first sentence is handed down for the commission of a heinous crime”.—[Official Report, 1/11/11; col. 796.]

There is not much sense of rehabilitation or reform there. We have to deal with a serious set of reforms and what we get is headline-grabbing attacks on the basis that we are going to let out violent criminals and the rest of it. That is why I hope that some of the unity that was shown earlier about penal reform will resolve itself around support for the Government as we try to manage these proposals through the House.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I am totally unconvinced by the arguments put forward here, and not for the first time. When is the Minister going to address the issue that has been raised around the Committee?

[Lord McNally]

When is the noble Lord going to go down the corridor and talk to Sadiq Khan and the other spokesmen from the Labour Party and engage in a serious debate about penal reform?

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support of those who have spoken, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, with her reference to political posturing, which to me seems to be what this clause really is; on this occasion for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for which I am always grateful, and for that of the Official Opposition. But once again it was my noble friend Lady Stern who put her finger on it with those extraordinary statistics that she gave us of the comparison between those serving life sentences in England and Wales and all other countries. We seem to have a thirst for life sentences, and that bears out the only statistic that I gave earlier. I shall say it again: we have more people serving life sentences and indeterminate sentences than the whole of the rest of Europe put together.

Clause 114 agreed.

Amendments 179A and 179B

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

179A: Before Schedule 16, insert the following new Schedule—
“SCHEDULEAmendments of the Criminal Justice Act 2003: transitional and consequential provisionsPart 1Transitional provisions1 The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.
2 After section 267 insert—
“267A Application of Chapter 6 to pre-4 April 2005 cases
Schedule 20A (which modifies certain provisions of this Chapter as they apply to persons serving a sentence for an offence committed before 4 April 2005) has effect.”
3 After Schedule 20 insert—
“SCHEDULE 20A Section 267AApplication of Chapter 6 of Part 12 to pre-4 April 2005 cases1 In this Schedule—
“the 1991 Act” means the Criminal Justice Act 1991;
“the commencement date” means the date on which section (Simplification of existing transitional provisions) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2011 comes into force.
2 Paragraphs 3 to 9 apply in relation to any person serving a sentence for an offence committed before 4 April 2005, whenever that sentence was imposed (see section (Simplification of existing transitional provisions)(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2011).
3 (1) Any relevant period is to be treated, for the purposes of section 240ZA, as if it were a period for which the offender was remanded in custody in connection with the offence.
(2) “Relevant period” means any period which would (but for the repeal of section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967) be a relevant period within the meaning of that section (reduction of sentences by period spent in custody etc).
4 Section 246 applies as if, in subsection (4)—
(a) the reference in paragraph (a) to section 227 or 228 were a reference to section 85 of the Sentencing Act;(b) the reference in paragraph (d) to paragraph 9(1)(b) or (c) or 10(1)(b) or (c) of Schedule 8 were a reference to paragraph 4(1)(d) or 5(1)(d) of Schedule 3 to the Sentencing Act;(c) in paragraph (g)—(i) the reference to section 246 included a reference to section 34A of the 1991 Act,(ii) the reference to section 255(1)(a) included a reference to section 38A(1)(a) or 39(1) or (2) of the 1991 Act, and(iii) the reference to section 255(3) included a reference to section 38A(3) of the 1991 Act;(d) the references in paragraph (h) to sections 248 and 254 included references to, respectively, sections 36 and 39(1) or (2) of the 1991 Act; and(e) in paragraph (i), the words from “in the case of” to “relates” were omitted.5 (1) Where the person has been released on licence under Part 2 of the 1991 Act or under section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 before the commencement date, the person is to be treated as if the release had been under this Chapter.
(2) In particular, the following provisions apply.
(3) A licence under section 34A of the 1991 Act is to be treated as if it were a licence under section 246.
(4) A licence under section 36 of the 1991 Act is to be treated as if it were a licence under section 248.
(5) Any condition of a licence specified under section 37 of the 1991 Act is to have effect as if it were included under section 250 (whether or not the condition is of a kind which could otherwise be included under that section).
(6) Where the licence is, on the commencement date, subject to a suspension under section 38(2) of the 1991 Act, the suspension continues to have effect for the period specified by the court despite the repeal of that section.
(7) A licence under section 40A of the 1991 Act is to be treated as if it were a licence under this Chapter, except that in respect of any failure (before or after the commencement date) to comply with the conditions of the licence, the person is liable to be dealt with in accordance with section 40A(4) to (6) (despite the repeal of that section) and is not liable to be dealt with in any other way.
(8) Sub-paragraph (1) does not affect the duration of the licence.
6 (1) Where a person has been recalled under Part 2 of the 1991 Act before the commencement date, the person is to be treated as if the recall had been under section 254.
(2) In particular, the following provisions apply.
(3) If the Secretary of State has not referred the person’s case to the Board under section 39(4) or 44A of the 1991 Act, the Secretary of State must refer the case under section 255C(4).
(4) If the Secretary of State has referred the person’s case to the Board under section 39(4) or 44A of the 1991 Act, that reference is to be treated as if it had been made under section 255C(4).
(5) A determination of a reference under section 39(4) or 44A of the 1991 Act is to be treated as a determination under section 256(1).
(6) If the person is released on licence, the duration of that licence is determined in accordance with section 249 (subject to paragraphs 17, 19 and 26 of Schedule 20B).
7 Rules made by virtue of section 42 of the 1991 Act have effect as if made by virtue of section 257.
8 (1) A person removed from prison under section 46A of the 1991 Act before the commencement date is to be treated as having been removed from prison under section 260.
(2) Section 260 applies as if, in subsection (7)—
(a) the reference to an extended sentence imposed under section 227 or 228 were a reference to an extended sentence imposed under section 85 of the Sentencing Act, and(b) the reference to the appropriate custodial term determined under section 227 or 228 were a reference to the custodial term determined under section 85.9 An order made under section 47 of the 1991 Act is to have effect as if it were an order made under section 243.
10 Section 264 applies as if the definition of “custodial period” in subsection (6) included, in relation to an extended sentence imposed under section 85 of the Sentencing Act, one-half of the custodial term determined under that section.”
Part 2Consequential amendmentsRepatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 (c. 47)4 In section 2(4)(b)(i) of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 (power to provide for prisoner to be treated as having been released) for “section 244 or 246” substitute “Chapter 6 of Part 12”.
Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53)5 In Schedule 12 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991, omit paragraphs 8 to 13 (transitional provisions relating to the coming into force of Part 2 of that Act).
Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (c. 43)6 Schedule 1 to the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (transfer of prisoners within the British Islands) is amended as follows.
7 In paragraph 8 (transfers to Scotland)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (2)(a), after “246 to 264A” insert “, 267A and 267B”;(b) in sub-paragraph (4)(a), for “and 249 to 264A” substitute “, 249 to 264A, 267A and 267B”.8 In paragraph 9(2)(a) and (4)(a) (transfers to Northern Ireland), for “and 254 to 264A” substitute “, 254 to 264A, 267A and 267B”.
Extradition Act 2003 (c. 41)9 The Extradition Act 2003 is amended as follows.
10 In section 59 (return of person to serve remainder of sentence), in subsection (11)—
(a) omit paragraph (a);(b) in paragraph (b), for “section 244” substitute “Chapter 6 of Part 12”.11 In section 132 (return of person to serve remainder of sentence), in subsection (11)—
(a) omit paragraph (a);(b) in paragraph (b), for “section 244” substitute “Chapter 6 of Part 12”. 12 In section 153B (return of person in pursuance of undertaking), in subsection (10)(a)—
(a) omit sub-paragraph (i);(b) in sub-paragraph (ii), for “section 244” substitute “Chapter 6 of Part 12”.Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44)13 The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.
14 In section 240A(1)(a) (crediting of periods of remand on bail), omit the words “committed on or after 4th April 2005”.
15 (1) The repeal by section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 of provisions in section 247 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes fully into force.
(2) Accordingly, in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (Commencement No.2 and Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1586), omit “and 25”.
16 Omit section 262 and Schedule 20 (prisoners liable to removal from United Kingdom).
17 Omit section 265(1A) (restriction on consecutive sentences for released prisoners).
Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (c. 28)18 Omit paragraph 46 of Schedule 10 to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.
Police and Justice Act 2006 (c. 48)19 Omit paragraph 33 of Schedule 13 to the Police and Justice Act 2006.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (c. 4)20 In the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, omit—
(a) sections 20(4)(b), 26 to 28, 32 and 33(1), (3), (5) and (6);(b) paragraph 29(2) to (5) of Schedule 26;(c) paragraphs 8 and 9 of Schedule 27.Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (c. 25)21 In the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, omit—
(a) section 145;(b) paragraph 43 of Schedule 22.Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (Commencement No.1 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1466)22 Article 3 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (Commencement No.1 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1466) is revoked.”

179B: Before Schedule 16, insert the following new Schedule—
“SCHEDULECriminal Justice Act 2003: restatement of transitional provisions1 The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.
2 In section 244 (duty to release prisoners on licence), after subsection (3) insert—
“(4) This section is subject to paragraphs 5, 6, 8, 25 and 28 of Schedule 20B (transitional cases).”
3 In section 247 (release on licence of prisoner serving extended sentence), after subsection (7) insert—
“(8) In its application to a person serving a sentence imposed before 14 July 2008, this section is subject to the modifications set out in paragraph 15 of Schedule 20B (transitional cases).”
4 In section 249 (duration of licence), at the end insert—
“(5) This section is subject to paragraphs 17, 19 and 26 of Schedule 20B (transitional cases).”
5 (1) Section 258 (early release of fine defaulters and contemnors) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Subsection (2) is subject to paragraph 35 of Schedule 20B (transitional cases).”
(3) In subsection (3) after “in this section” insert “or in paragraph 35 of Schedule 20B”.
6 In section 260 (early removal of prisoners liable to removal from UK), after subsection (7) insert—
“(8) Paragraphs 36 and 37 of Schedule 20B (transitional cases) make further provision about early removal of certain prisoners.”
7 In section 263 (concurrent terms), after subsection (4) insert—
“(5) This section is subject to paragraphs 21, 31 and 32 of Schedule 20B (transitional cases).”
8 In section 264 (consecutive terms), after subsection (7) insert—
“(8) This section is subject to paragraphs 21, 22, 31, 32 and 33 of Schedule 20B (transitional cases).”
9 After section 267A (inserted by Schedule (Amendments of the Criminal Justice Act 2003: transitional and consequential provisions)) insert—
“267B Modification of Chapter 6 in certain transitional cases
Schedule 20B (which modifies this Chapter so as to restate, with minor amendments, the effect of transitional provisions relating to the coming into force of this Chapter) has effect.”
10 After Schedule 20A (inserted by Schedule (Amendments of the Criminal Justice Act 2003: transitional and consequential provisions)) insert—
“SCHEDULE 20B Section 267BModifications of Chapter 6 of Part 12 in certain transitional casesPart 1IntroductoryInterpretation1 (1) The following provisions apply for the purposes of this Schedule.
(2) “The commencement date” means the date on which section (Simplification of existing transitional provisions) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2011 comes into force.
(3) “The 1967 Act” means the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
(4) “The 1991 Act” means the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
(5) A “section 85 extended sentence” means an extended sentence under section 85 of the Sentencing Act and includes (in accordance with paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 11 to that Act) a sentence under section 58 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
(6) In relation to a section 85 extended sentence, “the custodial term” and “the extension period” have the meaning given by that section.
(7) References to section 86 of the Sentencing Act include (in accordance with paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 11 to that Act) section 44 of the 1991 Act as originally enacted.
(8) A “1967 Act sentence” is a sentence imposed before 1 October 1992.
(9) A “1991 Act sentence” is a sentence which is—
(a) imposed on or after 1 October 1992 but before 4 April 2005, or(b) imposed on or after 4 April 2005 but before the commencement date and is either—(i) imposed in respect of an offence committed before 4 April 2005, or(ii) for a term of less than 12 months.(10) A “2003 Act sentence” is a sentence which is—
(a) imposed on or after the commencement date, or(b) imposed on or after 4 April 2005 but before the commencement date and is both—(i) imposed in respect of an offence committed on or after 4 April 2005, and(ii) for a term of 12 months or more.(11) Where an offence is found to have been committed over a period of two or more days, or at some time during a period of two or more days, it is to be taken for the purposes of this Schedule to have been committed on the last of those days.
Explanation of dates2 The following dates (which are mentioned in this Schedule) are dates on which changes to the law relating to the release and recall of prisoners came into force—
1 October 1992 is the date on which Part 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 came into force;
30 September 1998 is the date on which certain provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 came into force;
4 April 2005 is the date on which this Chapter came into force;
9 June 2008 is the date on which section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 came into force;
14 July 2008 is the date on which certain other provisions of that Act came into force;
2 August 2010 is the date on which section 145 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 came into force.
Part 2Prisoners serving 1991 Act sentences etc3 (1) This Part applies to certain persons serving a 1991 Act sentence.
(2) This Part also applies to a person serving a 2003 Act sentence which is—
(a) a section 85 extended sentence, or(b) an extended sentence imposed under section 227 or 228 before 14 July 2008.(3) But this Part does not apply to a person who—
(a) has been released on licence under Part 2 of the 1991 Act,(b) has been recalled to prison, and(c) (whether or not having returned to custody in consequence of that recall) is unlawfully at large on the commencement date.Duty to release on licence at two-thirds of sentence4 (1) This paragraph applies to a person in relation to whom—
(a) all the conditions in sub-paragraph (2) are met, and(b) the condition in any one or more of sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) is met.(2) The conditions in this sub-paragraph are that—
(a) the person has been convicted of an offence committed before 4 April 2005,(b) the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed in respect of that offence on or after 1 October 1992 but before the commencement date,(c) the sentence or (in the case of a section 85 extended sentence) the custodial term is for a term of 4 years or more, and(d) the person has not previously been released from prison on licence in respect of that sentence.(3) The condition in this sub-paragraph is that the offence (or one of the offences) in respect of which the sentence was imposed is—
(a) an offence specified in Schedule 15 (specified violent offences and specified sexual offences) as it had effect on 4 April 2005,(b) an offence under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63 of the Terrorism Act 2000,(c) an offence under any of sections 47, 50 and 113 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001,(d) an offence under section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956,(e) an offence of aiding, abetting counselling, procuring or inciting the commission of an offence listed in any of paragraphs (b) to (d), or(f) an offence of conspiring or attempting to commit an offence listed in any of paragraphs (b) to (d). (4) The condition in this sub-paragraph is that the person has served one-half of the sentence or (in the case of a section 85 extended sentence) of the custodial term before 9 June 2008.
(5) The condition in this sub-paragraph is that—
(a) the person is serving the sentence by virtue of having been transferred to the United Kingdom in pursuance of a warrant under section 1 of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984,(b) the warrant was issued before 9 June 2008, and(c) the offence (or one of the offences) for which the person is serving the sentence corresponds to murder or to any offence specified in Schedule 15 as it had effect on 4 April 2005.5 (1) As soon as a person to whom paragraph 4 applies has served two-thirds of the sentence, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to release the person on licence under this paragraph.
(2) If the person is serving a section 85 extended sentence, the reference in sub-paragraph (1) to two-thirds of the sentence is a reference to two-thirds of the custodial term.
(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) apply in place of section 244 (release on licence of prisoners serving 12 months or more).
Duty to release on direction of Parole Board6 (1) After a person to whom paragraph 4 applies has served one-half of the sentence, the Secretary of State must, if directed to do so by the Board, release the person on licence under this paragraph.
(2) The Board must not give a direction under sub-paragraph (1) unless the Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the person should be confined.
(3) If the person is serving a section 85 extended sentence, the references in this paragraph to one-half of the sentence are references to one-half of the custodial term.
(4) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) apply in place of section 244 (release on licence of prisoners serving 12 months or more).
Release on licence at one-half of sentence: section 85 extended sentence prisoners7 (1) This paragraph applies to a person if—
(a) the person has been convicted of an offence committed on or after 30 September 1998 but before 4 April 2005,(b) the person is serving a section 85 extended sentence in respect of that offence,(c) the person has not previously been released from prison on licence in respect of that sentence, and(d) paragraph 4 does not apply to the person.8 (1) As soon as a person to whom paragraph 7 applies has served one-half of the custodial term, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to release the person on licence under this paragraph.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) applies in place of section 243A or 244, as the case may be (release of prisoners serving less than 12 months, or serving 12 months or more).
Duty to release unconditionally at three-quarters of sentence9 (1) This paragraph applies to a person if—
(a) the person has been convicted of an offence committed before 30 September 1998,(b) the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed in respect of that offence on or after 1 October 1992,(c) the sentence is for a term of 12 months or more,(d) the person has been released on licence under Part 2 of the 1991 Act, and(e) the person has been recalled before 14 July 2008 (and has not been recalled after that date).(2) But this paragraph does not apply if the court by which the person was sentenced ordered that section 86 of the Sentencing Act (extension of periods in custody and on licence in the case of certain sexual offences) should apply.
10 As soon as a person to whom paragraph 9 applies would (but for the earlier release) have served three-quarters of the sentence, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to release the person unconditionally.
Duty to release on licence at three-quarters of sentence11 (1) This paragraph applies to a person who—
(a) has been convicted of an offence committed on or after 30 September 1998 but before 4 April 2005,(b) is serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 12 months or more imposed in respect of that offence,(c) has been released on licence under Part 2 of the 1991 Act, and(d) has been recalled before 14 July 2008 (and has not been recalled after that date).(2) But this paragraph does not apply if the person has been released and recalled more than once.
(3) Nor does this paragraph apply if the sentence is a section 85 extended sentence (paragraph 13 applying to such a case instead).
12 As soon as a person to whom paragraph 11 applies would (but for the earlier release) have served three-quarters of the sentence, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to release the person on licence.
Release on licence: re-release of section 85 extended sentence prisoners13 (1) This paragraph applies to a person who—
(a) has been convicted of an offence committed on or after 30 September 1998 but before 4 April 2005,(b) is serving a section 85 extended sentence imposed in respect of that offence, (c) has been released on licence under Part 2 of the 1991 Act, and(d) has been recalled before 14 July 2008 (and has not been recalled after that date).(2) But this paragraph does not apply if the person has been released and recalled more than once.
14 (1) If a person to whom paragraph 13 applies is serving a sentence with a custodial term of less than 12 months, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to release the person on licence as soon as the person would (but for the earlier release) have served the period found by adding—
(a) one-half of the custodial term, and(b) the extension period.(2) If a person to whom paragraph 13 applies is serving a sentence with a custodial term of 12 months or more, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to release the person on licence as soon as the person would (but for the earlier release) have served the period found by adding—
(a) three-quarters of the custodial term, and(b) the extension period.Release of section 227 or 228 extended sentence prisoners: Parole Board direction15 (1) This paragraph applies to a person (“P”) who is serving an extended sentence under imposed section 227 or 228 before 14 July 2008.
(2) Section 247 (release of prisoner on licence) applies to P with the following modifications.
(3) The Secretary of State must not release P under subsection (2) of that section unless the Board has directed P’s release under that subsection.
(4) The Board must not give a direction under sub-paragraph (3) unless the Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the person should be confined.
(5) As soon as P has served the appropriate custodial term, the Secretary of State must release P on licence, unless P has previously been recalled under section 254.
Licence to remain in force to three-quarters of sentence 16 (1) This paragraph applies to a person to whom paragraph 4 applies.
(2) This paragraph also applies to a person if—
(a) the person has been convicted of an offence committed before 4 April 2005,(b) the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed in respect of that offence on or after 1 October 1992 but before the commencement date,(c) that sentence is for a term of 12 months or more but less than 4 years, and(d) the person has not previously been released from prison on licence in respect of that sentence.(3) This paragraph also applies to a person if—
(a) the person has been convicted of an offence committed before 4 April 2005,(b) the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed in respect of that offence on or after 1 October 1992,(c) that sentence is for a term of 12 months or more,(d) the person has been released on licence under Part 2 of the 1991 Act, and(e) the person has been recalled before 14 July 2008 (and has not been recalled after that date).(4) But this paragraph does not apply if the person has been released and recalled more than once.
(5) Nor does this paragraph apply if—
(a) the person is serving a section 85 extended sentence, or(b) the court by which the person was sentenced ordered that section 86 of the Sentencing Act (extension of periods in custody and on licence in the case of certain sexual offences) should apply.(6) If a person has been—
(a) released under section 34A of the 1991 Act or section 246 (home detention curfew), and(b) recalled under section 38A(1)(b) of the 1991 Act or section 255(1)(b) (no longer possible to monitor curfew),the release and recall are to be disregarded for the purposes of this paragraph.17 (1) Where a person to whom paragraph 16 applies is released on licence under section 244 or paragraph 5 or 6, the licence shall remain in force until the date on which the person would (but for the release) have served three-quarters of the sentence.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to any revocation under section 254.
(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) apply in place of section 249 (duration of licence).
Period for which licence to remain in force: section 85 extended sentence prisoners18 This paragraph applies to a person who—
(a) has been convicted of an offence committed on or after 30 September 1998 but before 4 April 2005,(b) is serving a section 85 extended sentence imposed in respect of that offence, and(c) has not previously been released from prison on licence in respect of that sentence.19 (1) Where a person to whom paragraph 18 applies is released on licence and the custodial term is less than 12 months, the licence shall remain in force until the end of the period found by adding—
(a) one-half of the custodial term, and(b) the extension period.(2) Where a person to whom paragraph 18 applies is released on licence and the custodial term is 12 months or more, the licence shall remain in force until the end of the period found by adding—
(a) three-quarters of the custodial term, and(b) the extension period.(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) are subject to any revocation under section 254.
(4) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) apply in place of section 249 (duration of licence).
Concurrent or consecutive terms20 Paragraphs 21 and 22 apply where a person (“P”) is serving two or more sentences of imprisonment imposed on or after 1 October 1992 and—
(a) the sentences were passed on the same occasion, or(b) where they were passed on different occasions, the person has not been released under Part 2 of the 1991 Act or under this Chapter at any time during the period beginning with the first and ending with the last of those occasions.21 (1) This paragraph applies if each of the sentences is a 1991 Act sentence.
(2) Sections 263 and 264 (consecutive and concurrent terms) do not apply in relation to the sentences.
(3) For the purposes of any reference in this Chapter, however expressed, to the term of imprisonment to which P has been sentenced or which, or part of which, P has served, the terms are to be treated as a single term.
(4) If one or more of the sentences is a section 85 extended sentence—
(a) for the purpose of determining the single term mentioned in sub-paragraph (3), the extension period or periods is or are to be disregarded, and(b) the period for which P is to be on licence in respect of the single term is to be increased in accordance with sub-paragraph (5).(5) That period is to be increased—
(a) if only one of the sentences is a section 85 extended sentence, by the extension period;(b) if there is more than one such sentence and they are wholly or partly concurrent, by the longest of the extension periods;(c) if there is more than one such sentence and they are consecutive, by the aggregate of the extension periods.22 (1) This paragraph applies where two or more sentences are to be served consecutively on each other and—
(a) one or more of those sentences is a 1991 Act sentence, and(b) one or more of them is a 2003 Act sentence.(2) Section 264 does not affect the length of the period which P must serve in prison in respect of the 1991 Act sentence or sentences.
(3) Nothing in this Chapter requires the Secretary of State to release P until P has served a period equal in length to the aggregate of the length of the periods which P must serve in relation to each of the sentences mentioned in sub-paragraph (1).
(4) If P is also serving one or more 1967 Act sentences, paragraphs 32 and 33 apply instead of this paragraph.
Part 3Prisoners serving 1967 Act sentences23 (1) This Part applies to certain persons serving a 1967 Act sentence.
(2) But this Part does not apply to a person who—
(a) has been released on licence,(b) has been recalled to prison, and(c) (whether or not having returned to custody in consequence of that recall) is unlawfully at large on the commencement date.(3) In this Part, references to release under Part 2 of the 1991 Act include release under section 60 of the 1967 Act.
Sentence of more than 12 months imposed before 1 October 199224 (1) This paragraph applies to a person if—
(a) the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed before 1 October 1992,(b) the sentence is for a term of more than 12 months, and(c) the person has not previously been released from prison on licence in respect of that sentence.(2) This paragraph also applies to a person if—
(a) the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed before 1 October 1992,(b) the sentence is for a term of more than 12 months,(c) the person has been released on licence under Part 2 of the 1991 Act, and(d) the person has been recalled before 14 July 2008 (and has not been recalled after that date).(3) But this paragraph does not apply if, on the passing of the sentence, an extended sentence certificate was issued (see paragraph 27).
(4) If a person has been—
(a) released under section 34A of the 1991 Act or section 246 (home detention curfew), and(b) recalled under section 38A(1)(b) of the 1991 Act or section 255(1)(b) (no longer possible to monitor curfew),the release and recall are to be disregarded for the purposes of this paragraph.25 (1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to release a person unconditionally under this paragraph—
(a) in the case of a person falling within paragraph 24(1), as soon as the person has served two-thirds of the sentence;(b) in the case of a person falling within paragraph 24(2), as soon as the person would (but for the earlier release) have served two-thirds of the sentence.(2) After a person falling within paragraph 24(1) has served one-third of the sentence or six months, whichever is longer, the Secretary of State must, if directed to do so by the Board, release the person on licence under this paragraph.
(3) The Board must not give a direction under sub-paragraph (2) unless the Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the person should be confined.
(4) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) apply in place of section 244 (release on licence of prisoners serving 12 months or more).
26 (1) Where a person to whom paragraph 24 applies is released on licence under paragraph 25, the licence shall remain in force until the date on which the person would (but for the release) have served two-thirds of the sentence.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to any revocation under section 254.
(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) apply in place of section 249 (duration of licence).
Extended sentence of more than 12 months imposed before 1 October 199227 (1) This paragraph applies to a person if—
(a) the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed before 1 October 1992,(b) the sentence is for a term of more than 12 months,(c) on the passing of the sentence an extended sentence certificate was issued, and(d) the person has not previously been released from prison on licence in respect of that sentence.(2) This paragraph also applies to a person if—
(a) the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed before 1 October 1992,(b) the sentence is for a term of more than 12 months,(c) on the passing of the sentence an extended sentence certificate was issued, (d) the person has been released on licence under Part 2 of the 1991 Act, and(e) the person has been recalled before 14 July 2008 (and has not been recalled after that date).(3) In this paragraph “extended sentence certificate” means a certificate was issued under section 28 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (punishment of persistent offenders) stating that an extended term of imprisonment was imposed on the person under that section.
28 (1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to release a person to whom paragraph 27 applies on licence under this paragraph—
(a) in the case of a person falling within paragraph 27(1), as soon as the person has served two-thirds of the sentence;(b) in the case of a person falling within paragraph 27(2), as soon as the person would (but for the earlier release) have served two-thirds of the sentence.(2) After a person falling within paragraph 27(1) has served one-third of the sentence or six months, whichever is longer, the Secretary of State must, if directed to do so by the Board, release the person on licence under this paragraph.
(3) The Board must not give a direction under sub-paragraph (2) unless the Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the person should be confined.
(4) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) apply in place of section 244 (release on licence of prisoners serving twelve months or more).
Additional days29 (1) Prison rules made by virtue of section 257 may include provision for applying any provisions of this Chapter, in relation to any person falling within sub-paragraph (2), as if the person had been awarded such number of additional days as may be determined by or under the rules.
(2) A person falls within this sub-paragraph if—
(a) the person was released on licence under section 60 of the 1967 Act before 1 October 1992 and the licence was in force on that date, or(b) the person was, on that date, serving a custodial sentence,and (in either case) the person has forfeited any remission of the sentence.Concurrent or consecutive terms30 Paragraphs 31 to 33 apply where a person (“P”) is serving two or more sentences of imprisonment and—
(a) the sentences were passed on the same occasion, or(b) where they were passed on different occasions, the person has not been released under Part 2 of the 1991 Act or under this Chapter at any time during the period beginning with the first and ending with the last of those occasions.31 (1) This paragraph applies where each of the sentences is a 1967 Act sentence.
(2) Sections 263 and 264 (consecutive and concurrent terms) do not apply in relation to the sentences.
(3) For the purposes of any reference in this Chapter, however expressed, to the term of imprisonment to which P has been sentenced or which, or part of which, P has served, the terms are to be treated as a single term.
32 (1) This paragraph applies where—
(a) one or more of the sentences is a 1967 Act sentence, and(b) one or more of them is a 1991 Act sentence.(2) Sections 263 and 264 (consecutive and concurrent terms) do not apply in relation to the sentences mentioned in sub-paragraph (1).
(3) For the purposes of any reference in this Chapter, however expressed, to the term of imprisonment to which P has been sentenced or which, or part of which, P has served—
(a) the terms mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) are to be treated as a single term, and (b) that single term is to be treated as if it were a 1967 Act sentence.(4) If one or more of the sentences is a section 85 extended sentence—
(a) for the purpose of determining the single term mentioned in sub-paragraph (3), the extension period or periods is or are to be disregarded, and(b) the period for which P is to be on licence in respect of the single term is to be increased in accordance with sub-paragraph (5).(5) That period is to be increased—
(a) if only one of the sentences is a section 85 extended sentence, by the extension period;(b) if there is more than one such sentence and they are wholly or partly concurrent, by the longest of the extension periods;(c) if there is more than one such sentence and they are consecutive, by the aggregate of the extension periods.(6) If P is also serving a 2003 Act sentence, sub-paragraph (3) is to be applied before the period mentioned in section 263(2)(c) (concurrent terms) or paragraph 33(3) (consecutive terms) is calculated.
33 (1) This paragraph applies where two or more sentences are to be served consecutively on each other and—
(a) one or more of those sentences is a 1967 Act sentence, and(b) one or more of them is a 2003 Act sentence.(2) Section 264 does not affect the length of the period which P must serve in prison in respect of the 1967 Act sentence or sentences.
(3) Nothing in this Chapter requires the Secretary of State to release P until P has served a period equal in length to the aggregate of the length of the periods which P must serve in relation to each of the sentences mentioned in sub-paragraph (1).
Part 4Provisions applying generallyLicence conditions34 (1) This paragraph applies to any licence (a “Parole Board licence”) which falls within sub-paragraph (2) or (3).
(2) A licence falls within this sub-paragraph if—
(a) it is or was granted to a person (“P”) on P’s release (at any time) on the recommendation or direction of the Board, and(b) P has not been released otherwise than on such a recommendation or direction. (3) A licence falls within this sub-paragraph if—
(a) it is or was granted to a person (“P”) on P’s release (at any time), and(b) condition A or condition B is met.(4) Condition A is that, before 2 August 2010, the Board exercised the function under section 37(5) of the 1991 Act of making recommendations as to any condition to be included or inserted as a condition in a licence granted to P (including by making a recommendation that no condition should be included in such a licence).
(5) Condition B is that, before 2 August 2010—
(a) P was released on licence under section 33(2), (3) or (3A) or 35(1) of the 1991 Act, and(b) the Board exercised the function under section 37(5) of that Act of—(i) making recommendations as to the inclusion or insertion of a condition in a licence granted to P (including by making a recommendation that no condition should be included in such a licence), or (ii) making recommendations as to the variation or cancellation of any such condition (including a recommendation that the condition should not be varied or cancelled).(6) The Secretary of State must not—
(a) include on release, or subsequently insert, a condition in a Parole Board licence, or(b) vary or cancel any such condition,except in accordance with directions of the Board.Fine defaulters and contemnors35 (1) This paragraph applies to any person if—
(a) the person has been committed to prison or to be detained under section 108 of the Sentencing Act—(i) in default of payment of a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction, or (ii) for contempt of court or any kindred offence,(b) the person was so committed or detained before 4 April 2005, and(c) the term for which the person was committed or detained is 12 months or more.(2) As soon as a person to whom this paragraph applies has served two-thirds of the term, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to release the person unconditionally.
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) applies in place of section 258(2) (early release of fine defaulters and contemnors).
Early removal of prisoners liable to removal from UK36 (1) This paragraph applies to any person who—
(a) has served one-half of a sentence of imprisonment, and(b) has not been released on licence under this Chapter.(2) The reference in sub-paragraph (1)(a) to one-half of a sentence is—
(a) in the case of a section 85 extended sentence, a reference to one-half of the custodial term;(b) in the case of an extended sentence imposed under section 227 or 228, a reference to one-half of the appropriate custodial term.37 (1) If a person to whom paragraph 36 applies—
(a) is liable to removal from the United Kingdom, and(b) has not been removed from prison under section 260 during the period mentioned in subsection (1) of that section,the Secretary of State may remove the person from prison under that section at any time after the end of that period.(2) Sub-paragraph (1) applies whether or not the Board has directed the person’s release under paragraph 6, 15, 25 or 28.””

Amendments 179A and 179B agreed.

Schedules 16 and 17 agreed.

Clause 115 agreed.

Schedule 18 agreed.

Clause 116 : New extended sentences: release on licence etc

Amendments 179BZA to 179BZD not moved.

Amendment 179BA

Moved by

[Lord Dholakia]

179BA: Clause 116, page 95, line 40, leave out “two-thirds” and insert “half”

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, I can assure my noble friend the Minister that this is a reasonable amendment from a reasonable Liberal Democrat.

The purpose of the amendment is twofold. It would retain the current position whereby prisoners serving extended sentences are released after serving half their sentence, but it would also give the Minister an opportunity to explain the reasoning behind the provision in the Bill that offenders with extended sentences should in future have to serve two-thirds of the custodial term in custody before release compared with serving half the term, as they do at present.

Up to now, the point of an extended sentence has not been to increase the period that offenders spend in custody. Extended sentences are intended to make sure that, when offenders who pose a risk to the public are released, they are subject to a longer period than usual of post-release supervision on licence. This means that they are subject to restrictive conditions and controls at the same time as being provided with constructive, rehabilitative help. If offenders breach a condition on their licence, they can be recalled to prison. It is a very useful provision that means that society maintains control over the offender’s behaviour for a long period.

However, let me say where I see the anomalies. First, the Bill increases the time that an offender given an extended sentence spends in prison. This means that the time that he or she spends under supervision will be correspondingly reduced, which does not make much sense. Surely supervision is an essential element for the rehabilitation of offenders. The second anomaly is that, as the Bill stands, a court wishing to impose an extended period of post-release supervision will be able to do so only if it passes a sentence that also increases the length of time spent in custody before release. My noble friend must have an explanation as to why this provision is necessary.

If a judge does not want to increase the time that an offender spends in prison but wants to make sure that he or she has an extended period of supervision on release, why should they not be able to order this as they can under the current provisions for extended sentences?

If the Government are not willing to leave the release point at half the sentence as at present, will my noble friend agree to consider giving courts discretion over the issue? I am sure that this matter can be looked at before Report. In essence, will my noble friend consider amending the Bill so that a court can specify that the offender must serve either half or two-thirds of the sentence in custody depending on the circumstances of the individual case? The Minister and I are agreed on the final outcome that we all desire. Surely my formula will offer this. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

Perhaps the Minister could indicate what assessment has been made of the effect of the new extended sentence provision on prisoner numbers and the time that prisoners will spend in custody, as well as the cost. In so far as the indeterminate sentence will, one hopes, reduce numbers when various changes have been made, this measure is likely, like the mandatory provision, to drive up both numbers and costs. Has an assessment been made of that? If it leads to extra costs, how will the Government manage the process? The noble Lord is to be congratulated on the amendment. The current provisions simply do not make sense in the context of what purport to be the Government’s objectives.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the point raised by my noble friend Lord Dholakia. The two-thirds release point applies only to the new extended sentence. The court must specify both the custodial term and an extended licence period when it imposes an extended sentence. The offender is released or can apply for release at the two-thirds point of the custodial term. The extended licence will start when the custodial term is concluded, so offenders will receive an appropriate licence period regardless of the point during the custodial term at which they are released. I listened to my noble friend’s idea about discretion. This is not something that courts would have discretion on. They will decide on the appropriate custodial term plus an appropriate extended licence. Yet, as always with suggestions from my noble friend, I will ponder this one between now and Report.

17:00

The impact assessment of our reforms anticipated that, in the long term, 2,500 fewer prison places are projected than in the current statute. That of course presumes that we will make progress in clearing the IPP numbers. As we heard, there have been numerous issues with IPP sentences, and we have proposed a replacement regime. A key element of that regime is the new extended determinate sentence—the EDS—for dangerous offenders. This sentence will apply where an offender commits a sexual or violent offence that merits four years’ imprisonment or more, or has very serious previous offending, as with the current IPPs and EPPs, and the court finds that he is dangerous. The court will set a custodial term, some of which may be served on licence, and also a further extended period of licence set by the court. The offender will always serve at least two-thirds of the custodial term in prison. In the most serious cases, release will not be automatic: the offender will have to apply to the Parole Board for release. This may mean that they stay inside until the end of the term.

My noble friend Lord Dholakia proposed that the minimum time in prison that offenders on the new extended sentence should serve is one half of the custodial term rather than the two-thirds that the Bill provides for. It is true that the current extended sentence has release at the halfway point, as do ordinary determinate sentences. Headline sentences should be equivalent to ordinary determinate sentences, whereas an IPP tariff is half the equivalent determinate sentence. These offenders will have a longer minimum time in prison than they would had they received an IPP or ordinary determinate sentence. However, in June last year the Government committed to introducing a tougher determinate sentencing regime to replace IPPs.

A key part of that tougher regime is that those on public protection sentences, now that they are no longer liable to receive IPP sentences, will spend more of their determinate sentence in prison. That is needed to enhance public protection and deliver public confidence. It will provide more time for offenders and NOMS to work towards rehabilitation. Overall, offenders who receive the new EDS sentence will have a finite, rather than a possibly indefinite, time in prison. That may be to the end of their sentence, before release. On that basis, it is justifiable for prisoners who have committed such dangerous offences to serve two-thirds of the custodial term in prison.

We will also step up rehabilitative support for dangerous offenders to help them to progress to release as soon as it is appropriate. We are introducing compulsory intervention plans for these offenders while they are in prison so that they are supported to change their ways and rehabilitate themselves. Sentence plans will include appropriate interventions, assessed as necessary, to address the risk that the offender presents. Offenders who engage with these requirements should be able to demonstrate reduced risk. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, on a point of clarification, the Minister referred to the impact assessment disclosing that 2,500 fewer people would be in prison. Does that relate to the overall package or to this particular amendment? That was the point that I was raising.

[Lord McNally]

It relates to the overall package and, in that wonderful save-all term, the long term. As we are already seeing, predicting prison numbers is not an exact science.

[Lord Beecham]

Perhaps not now, but could the Minister advise me on the implications of this amendment in terms of numbers, as opposed to the generality to which he has referred?

[Lord McNally]

I do not have a specific number, but I will write to the noble Lord and make it available to the House.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the explanation that he offered. The purpose of my amendment is not to dwell too much on whether it is half or two-thirds of the sentence; all I care about is the need to look carefully at whether the supervision period is affected by the decision. I would be very grateful if the Minister could write to me before Report. It may be that his explanation will suffice in this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 179BA withdrawn.

Clause 116 agreed.

Schedule 19 agreed.

Clause 117 : Power to change test for release on licence of certain prisoners

Amendment 179C

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

179C: Clause 117, page 96, line 3, leave out “an IPP prisoner or an extended sentence prisoner” and insert “a discretionary release prisoner”

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, if Clause 117 is to stand part of the Bill, Amendments 179C to 179F will ensure that the Secretary of State’s power to amend by order the release test that the Parole Board must follow when considering the release of prisoners applies consistently to all categories of determinate sentence prisoner whose release is determined by the board. Currently, the clause applies to the release test for IPP and extended sentence prisoners but there are some other types of determinate sentence which also include a period of parole eligibility and are subject to the same release test. We think the order-making power to change the test should apply equally in those cases. These amendments therefore propose to extend the order-making power to the other categories of determinate sentence to which it does not currently apply. These are: first, the 1991 Act prisoners serving four years or more who are parole eligible between the half and two-thirds points of sentence; and, secondly, the 2003 Act extended sentences imposed before 14 July 2008, when release between the half and end points of the custodial period is at the discretion of the Parole Board. This is simply about ensuring the order-making power in this clause is applied consistently to all determinate sentences when the same release test is used. I beg to move.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

Your Lordships will recall that in connection with an earlier amendment I referred to the existing test—which will continue to apply under this Bill—for the Parole Board to apply in considering whether a person should be released. The existing test is that the board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined. Your Lordships will recall the criticisms that I made of that. In his reply, the Minister said that Clause 117 gives power to the Lord Chancellor to change that test. I am a little bit puzzled, and I ask my noble friend to explain why that power to change the test is in there. Furthermore, I am very pleased that it is, because I think that the present test is neither fair nor just. The power to change the test is in subsection (1), where,

“the Parole Board … must direct the prisoner’s release if it is satisfied that conditions specified in the order are met, or … must do so unless it is satisfied that conditions specified in the order are met”.

I know that my noble friend, as he earlier confessed, is a follower of Blackpool football club, but at the weekend he may have had the opportunity of watching the Wales versus Ireland rugby match at Lansdowne Road. An incident there perfectly illustrates the situation. There was a pile-up over the line and the referee, instead of making the decision and awarding the try which Wales had so clearly scored, called in the TMO and said, “Has the try been scored—yes or no?”. Immediately, that illustrious and brilliant commentator Jonathan Davies, a brilliant player in his own day, said, “He’s asking the wrong question. The question he should ask is: ‘Is there any reason why this try should not be awarded?’”. By asking it as, “Has he scored it—yes or no?”, the referee was pushing the decision over to the TMO; but if he were to ask the second question, he would be taking responsibility by saying, “I am going to award the try unless you tell me that there is a reason why I should not”.

Applying the same approach to the release of a prisoner, the Parole Board should not be asking whether the prisoner has complied with this or that test; it should be asking: “Is there any reason why we should not release this prisoner? Is evidence being produced for us to look at in reaching a conclusion on whether this prisoner can be safely returned to the community?”.

That is the reason why I support Clause 117—in the hope that the second alternative, in subsection (1)(b), is adopted, and that the Lord Chancellor will then very quickly see the necessity of changing the Parole Board’s test to one that is far fairer: “Is there any reason why, after serving the period of the tariff that the judge has imposed”—which is supposed to be what the judge would have awarded by way of a sentence had he taken that course—“this person should not be released?”. I commend this clause and suggest that the power should be exercised very quickly.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I gave notice of my intention to oppose that the clause stand part in order to be consistent with my now failed hope that the Government would accept the earlier amendments on the IPP. As they did not, it is obviously irrelevant now to say that the clause should not stand part. I shall therefore not oppose it. For all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, outlined, the clause contains some very important measures which provide the Secretary of State with tools to bring about many of the things that we hope will happen to the IPP sentence.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, this amendment is perfectly sensible. Before we get to Third Reading it would perhaps be helpful, if it is at all possible, to have a clear indication of how the Government propose to proceed. Presumably it will not be long before the affirmative resolution procedure is put into place once the Bill is enacted, and that might just allay some doubts around the House and outside it about what is likely to happen. Subject to that, we certainly take the view that it is sensible to proceed on the lines set out in the amendment.

[Lord McNally]

I am grateful for that. As to what I was watching on Saturday afternoon, being a gentle soul, I take the view that rugby is a gentleman's game played by hooligans. I am not as keen on watching it—the violence is too much. I am glad, however, that everybody has noticed the point of Clause 117. It goes back to what I said before in that analogy about disarming the time-bomb. We need a little flexibility and a chance to see how the present probation rules apply, but this gives the Secretary of State the opportunity to adjust what we are doing in the light of the experience of the overall reform of IPP. I am therefore grateful for the support from all sides of the House and I hope that Clause 117 will stand part of the Bill.

Amendment 179C agreed.

Amendments 179D to 179F

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

179D: Clause 117, page 96, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) “Discretionary release prisoner” means—
(a) an IPP prisoner,(b) an extended sentence prisoner, or (c) a person to whom paragraph 4, 15, 24 or 27 of Schedule 20B to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (determinate sentence prisoners subject to transitional provisions) applies.”

179E: Clause 117, page 96, line 13, at end insert—
“( ) amend paragraph 6, 15, 25 or 28 of Schedule 20B to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (release on licence of determinate sentence prisoners subject to transitional provisions),”

179F: Clause 117, page 96, line 18, leave out “IPP prisoners and extended sentence prisoners” and insert “each of the categories of discretionary release prisoner mentioned in subsection (1A)”

Amendments 179D to 179F agreed.

Amendment 180 not moved.

Clause 117, as amended, agreed.

17:15

Amendment 180A

Moved by

[Baroness Gale]

180A: After Clause 117, insert the following new Clause—
“Disclosure of information about convictions etc. of violent abusers to members of the public
(1) The responsible authority for each area must, in the course of discharging its functions under arrangements established under section 325 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, consider whether to disclose information in its possession about the relevant previous convictions of any violent abuser managed by it to any person deemed by the authority to be at risk.
(2) In the case mentioned in subsection (3) there is a presumption that the responsible authority should disclose information in its possession about the relevant previous convictions of the offender to the particular member of the public.
(3) The case is where the responsible authority for the area has reasonable cause to believe that—
(a) a serial violent abuser managed by it poses a risk in that or any other area of causing serious harm to a particular at risk person, and(b) disclosure of information about the relevant previous conviction of the offender to the particular member of the public is necessary for the purpose of protecting the at risk person from serious harm caused by the offender.(4) The presumption under subsection (2) arises if the person to whom the information is disclosed requests the disclosure.
(5) Where the responsible authority makes a disclosure under this section—
(a) it may disclose such information about the relevant previous convictions of the offender as it considers appropriate to disclose to the member of the public concerned, and(b) it may impose conditions for preventing the member of public concerned from disclosing the information to any other persons.(6) Any disclosure under this section must be made as soon as is reasonably practical having regard to all the circumstances.
(7) The responsible authority for each area must compile and maintain a record about the decisions it makes in relation to the discharge of its functions under this section.
(8) The record must include the following information—
(a) the reasons for making a decision to disclose information under this section,(b) the reasons for making a decision not to disclose information under this section, and (c) the information which is disclosed under this section, any conditions imposed in relation to its further disclosure and the name and address of the person to whom it is disclosed.(9) Nothing in this section requires or authorises the making of a disclosure which contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998.
(10) This section is not to be taken as affecting any power of any person to disclose any information about a violent abuser.”

[Baroness Gale]

My Lords, this amendment and Amendment 180B are tabled in the names of my noble friends Lady Royall of Blaisdon, Lord Bach and Lord Beecham.

I begin by paying tribute to Michael and Adam Brown. It is as a result of their campaign that we are here today and are debating this important issue in order that we can protect vulnerable women and men from the very small percentage of people who think that they have a right to hurt the partners they claim to love. In 2007 Michael’s daughter and Adam’s sister, Clare Wood, a resident of Salford, began a relationship with George Appleton, a man she had met through the social networking website Facebook. A year later she ended the relationship but became the target of a sustained campaign of violence and harassment from Appleton. Over the next six months Appleton stalked Clare, sexually assaulted her and threatened to kill her. Then in February 2009 he strangled her, killing her before setting her body on fire. After a six-day manhunt he fled to an abandoned pub in Salford and hanged himself.

Appleton had a long background of violence against women, including repeated allegations and convictions of harassment, threats to kill, and kidnapping one of his ex-girlfriends at knifepoint. Clare had no way of knowing this. Had she had that information, it could have saved her life. I think we would all agree that this is a horrifying story.

My right honourable friend Hazel Blears, MP for Salford, has advocated for this change of law and worked on this amendment, as Michael Brown is a constituent of hers. We need to change the law urgently to save lives.

At the inquest into Clare’s death, the coroner made the following recommendation:

“Subject to appropriate risk assessment and safeguard, I recommend that consideration should be given to the disclosure of such convictions and their circumstances to potential victims in order that they can make informed choices about matters affecting their safety and that of their children”.

Since Clare’s death, her father Michael Brown and brother Adam have campaigned for a change in the law to enact precisely the coroner’s recommendations to give women and men at risk of domestic violence the right to know of any threat that they face. The Respect & Protect: Clare’s Law campaign calls for women and men to be given the right to know. It has received cross-party support and has been backed by Fabulous magazine and Key 103 radio.

In 2009 a report commissioned by ACPO and compiled by Chief Constable Brian Moore of Wiltshire Police advocated the creation of a right to know, but by the creation of a positive duty on the police proactively to disclose information. This is not just a compassionate issue but one with serious public order, health and economic implications. Domestic violence represents 18 per cent of all violent incidents. The cost of domestic violence was calculated to be £15.7 billion in 2008 in public services, loss to the economy and victims. In 2009-10 in England and Wales, 21 men and 94 women were killed by a partner or ex-partner. Over the past 10 years, an average of between 111 and 146 people a year have been murdered by their partner or ex-partner. ACPO estimates that there are 25,000 serial perpetrators of domestic violence in the country. It has the highest rate of repeat victimisation of any crime, with 44 per cent of victims victimised more than once in the past 12 months. Therefore, if we act today we know that we will stop a significant number of repeat abusers and help a huge number of men and women to take control of their personal safety.

The public support this initiative. Polling conducted by Fabulous magazine in the summer of 2011 found that 91 per cent of women agree that they should be given the right to know whether their partner has a history of domestic violence; 84 per cent think that such a change in the law could save lives; and 77 per cent would consider leaving their partner if they found that he had history of abuse.

On 25 October 2011, the Home Office launched a consultation on the introduction of a domestic violence disclosure scheme. This followed a meeting between the Home Secretary, Theresa May, Michael Brown and my right honourable friend Hazel Blears. The consultation paper established the three following options: to continue current arrangements under the existing law; to create a “right to ask” national disclosure scheme; and to create a “right to know” national disclosure scheme. On 27 October 2011, Hazel Blears MP tabled a new clause to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill that would have introduced Clare’s law. The new clause was based on the legal framework established by Sarah’s law, which created a disclosure law for paedophiles living within a locality. Therefore, while the Home Secretary’s consultation on Clare’s law, which has just ended, is welcome, for the law to be changed, legislation surrounding crime and justice needs to be passed. The passage of the Bill through Parliament provides a legislative vehicle to which the change can be attached. At the moment, while there is some common law provision for disclosure, it is unclear and needs clarification. The Clare’s law proposal aims to empower men and women by giving them the right to request this information. A codification of the law will make it easier for men and women to make a request, and provide clearer guidance to the agencies on their roles and responsibilities.

The Hazel Blears clause represents the second option in the consultation. The first option does not offer a change to the current situation and the third creates obligations for the police that might be difficult for them to meet. The second option—a right to ask—gives men and women the opportunity to make a request without putting the police in the position of having to make a disclosure or risk negligence claims. Any change in the law needs a legislative vehicle. The passage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill offers an opportunity to change the law. As this matter relates to crime and security, any change must be appended to a Bill that deals with either justice or crime prevention. With no other Bill to address these issues on the horizon, this offers the Government an easy way to change the law quickly, before more people are killed at the hands of serial domestic abusers.

Under the consultation put forward by the Government—the second option—a four-step process will take place. After an initial enquiry by A to the police, the police undertake an initial check on the police national database to identify whether any information is held on B. The police then meet A face-to-face to confirm their identity and that of B, to confirm the relationship between them, and to enable A to complete a formal application for disclosure. The police will then conduct full checks on the police database systems to inform a risk assessment for A. The police refer information about B to an appropriate multi-agency setting, probably a multi-agency risk assessment conference, which would then make a decision on whether to disclose the information to A. Such a decision would be informed by the risk assessment and whether appropriate safety measures could be put in place for the applicant. If disclosure was approved, it would be made by the police with an independent domestic violence adviser present to provide support to A, if required.

The introduction of the police national database in 2011 offers the opportunity easily to identify serial perpetrators of domestic violence. The PND gives police the ability to create national markers, such as a domestic abuse serial perpetrator marker, which could flag up prolific and dangerous subjects operating across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This is a very important subject. I, Hazel Blears and, of course, Michael and Adam Brown, are thankful that we are able to debate this matter today. Debate was prevented in another place as, due to the timetabling on Report, this amendment was not reached.

When can the Government’s response to the consultation be expected? What was the weight of opinion in the replies? I trust the Minister can give an assurance that the Government will support this amendment to bring about Clare’s law. I can assure him that we would welcome further discussions with him, if required, to ensure a positive outcome which would do so much to provide a safety net for these people. I look forward to hearing a positive response from him on this matter. I beg to move.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, earlier today we gave support to Jane’s law. The noble Baroness referred to Sarah’s law. Now we are discussing Clare’s law. Those all stem from tragedies that have befallen families. The measure may be viewed as a case of slamming the stable door but we are trying to learn lessons from those tragedies and to give the families concerned at least the comfort of knowing that the lessons we have learnt will save others in the future. Therefore, I assure the noble Baroness that we have great sympathy with this proposal. We pay tribute to the campaign that Hazel Blears, the Member for Salford and Eccles, has pursued in co-operation with Clare’s family, and her work in tabling this amendment in the other place.

As the noble Baroness explained, the amendment would place a duty on responsible authorities such as the police, probation and Prison Service to consider disclosing information held in their possession about the relevant previous convictions of any violent abuser to any person deemed by the responsible authority to be at risk. The amendment is born of the circumstances referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, of the tragic murder of Clare Wood by her ex-boyfriend. Noble Lords will know that the Government have been considering this issue very carefully. The Government are committed to ending violence against women and girls. The fact that approximately two people are killed by their current or former partner each week underlines how serious this issue is, and we are committed to looking at new ways of protecting victims.

17:32

However, disclosing information raises serious and complex questions about the appropriate circumstances in which information could be disclosed, particularly for the continued safety of a potential victim. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, explained, the Home Secretary launched a consultation so that everyone with an interest or concern could express their views to the Government and the Home Office. The Home Office is currently considering the 259 responses that have so far been received to that consultation.

As the noble Baroness explained, the options set out in the consultation included a right to know, which is the spirit of the amendment, and a right to ask, which could be modelled successfully on Sarah’s law—the child sex offender disclosure scheme. In considering the options, the Government’s paramount duty is the safety of the potential victim but, as the noble Baroness demonstrated in presenting her case, the options are more complex than might be thought at first blush.

The noble Baroness undoubtedly produced some powerful arguments and equally powerful statistics for action in this area. The Government want to consider the wide range of views on this important and sensitive issue before taking matters further. However, I hope that she will accept my reassurance that we intend to take the matter further. We can talk in the margins about whether further discussions would be helpful, and I would certainly be happy to try to facilitate them. I hope that she will accept my assurance—and that she can assure her colleagues—that we share a determination to address this problem and that if Clare’s law is the best way forward we will certainly progress in that way.

The noble Baroness has presented a formidable case. The Home Secretary has consulted and is considering those consultations. I think that we can work together to take this matter forward in a positive fashion. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Gale]

I am grateful to the Minister for his positive response, and I know that he understands that this is a crucial and serious issue. We have seen the success of Sarah’s law and I am sure that we will eventually get to Clare’s law. We look forward to working with the Minister to see in which way we can progress successfully on this matter. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 180A withdrawn.

Amendment 180B not moved.

Clause 118 : Employment in prisons: deductions etc from payments to prisoners

Amendment 181 not moved.

Amendment 181A

Moved by

[Lord Ramsbotham]

181A: Clause 118, page 97, line 7, at end insert—
“(c) arrangements for private companies to provide employment and training for persons who are required to be detained in prisons, young offender institutions and secure training centres;(d) the provision of resources for vocational training and skills training for persons who are required to be detained in prisons, young offender institutions and secure training centres; and(e) arrangements designed to ensure that all work carried out by prisoners provides them with nationally recognised qualifications, provides opportunities for learning and skills progression, and is evaluated for learning and employability outcomes.”

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, the amendment is tabled in the context of something mentioned in the Green Paper that has occurred many times in statements by the Government relating to what they intend to do with prisoners—in other words, to make prisons become working prisons and to increase the amount of time that prisoners spend at work; the 40-hour working week has been mentioned.

Clause 118 amends Section 47 of the Prison Act, which lays down what may happen. New subsection (2) refers to secure training centres and young offender institutions; new subsection (3) adds that different provision may be made for different cases; and new subsection (4) talks about employment rules made by the Secretary of State in that context.

My reason for this amendment, which may look a little prescriptive, is that from experience I know perfectly well that there is no way in which under current circumstances the Government will be able to enact what they say they want to do. I have known for years and years that the problem is that NOMS and the Prison Service simply are not orientated or equipped, nor do they have the ethos, to provide the business-like structure that is necessary if work is to be provided. They never have and they never will. The NOMS bureaucratic procedures involved in dealing with private contractors are ludicrously complicated and frustrate those who would like to contribute by providing work.

I have always contended that the ideal in a prison is a full, purposeful and active day for every prisoner, designed to tackle what has prevented them from living a useful, law-abiding life, with the idea that they come out and do not reoffend. That is not realised by prisoners spending all day in their cells doing nothing. A census done now of prisons would, I believe, come up with a figure of nearly 50 per cent of all prisoners doing nothing, which means that there is no help for them to live a useful and law-abiding life.

I have said again and again that there is a need for someone to be in charge, responsible and accountable. I have said for years that until and unless a businessman is appointed to be in charge of the overall direction and provision of work in prisons, nothing will happen.

I have spoken to two distinguished providers of work in prison: Mr James Timpson, who not only runs four academies but has taken on almost 200 ex-prisoners in his employment around the country, and Mr Edwin Lucas, who has been working in the recycling trade as well as providing work in prisons for years. I listened with horror to the frustrations that they have expressed about trying to deal with prisons where no one has a clue about how to deal in a business-like way. For example, a van will arrive with deliveries of materials to be used by prisoners only to be sent away because people say, “We do not accept vans until four o'clock in the afternoon. It is now 11 o'clock in the morning, and you will have to wait”. That is not how business works. People do not answer letters. Invoices are invariably late. People bring in pallets of material and are sent bills by prisons.

Until and unless there is proper oversight, run by businessmen, which includes trained people responsible for conducting business activities in each prison, nothing will happen. The present inefficiency of the system, where every governor is allowed to do his own thing, is telling against that, because the businessmen who are working with prisons tell me that probably only 20 of all the governors are capable of conducting the sort of activities that are needed. The others simply do not have the understanding or the ability to do it. There is no reason why they should. It should not be part of the requirement for a prison governor, who is there for another purpose.

In order to make the rehabilitation revolution work, I desperately want work to be provided. I know that a number of things could happen. For example, one of the best programmes in prison currently is Toe by Toe, where prisoners teach other prisoners to read. I seriously believe that in the prison population many skills are held by existing prisoners which could be put to good use in acting as trainers, and which are free and therefore will not act as a resource problem for the Prison Service. You get a double whammy, because the person doing the teaching gets as much out of the process as the person being taught.

For years, there has been an inhibitor on prison governors using their initiative to bring work in: grant in aid, which is required by the Treasury. Under that, a governor can declare that he will make a profit from an activity that he is to conduct, including prisoners making things. He declares that profit and, if he makes it, he is allowed to keep it and apply it within the prison. If he makes more, he has to surrender it to the Treasury. If he does not reach what he has said he will make, he has to provide it from his budget. For years, the impact of this has been that people have not been willing to risk making a loss and therefore they have not encouraged the uptake of work as much as they might have done.

The three additional aspects that I have suggested the Secretary of State should consider are all to do with the provision of work. The amendment would make certain that those contracted were properly overseen and that all the activities, both vocational and educational, carried qualifications of worth that could be used outside. As I said, I admit that this is prescriptive but I feel so strongly that this work ethic must be encouraged and enabled that I could not resist proposing the addition of these paragraphs to Clause 118. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I support the amendment so eloquently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. From what he said, I got the sense that it is really a probing amendment and that he did not expect to receive much support for it. However, he made such a powerful case that I hope the Minister might be swayed to think again about some of these points. As we have already heard in this Committee, it is obvious that many people enter prison without the capacity to read and write, let alone to hold down a job when they come out on release. Therefore, examples such as the Toe by Toe programme should be mandatory. Indeed, it is a pity that the amendment has not specified that it should be a requirement on the Secretary of State.

We have no objection at all to what is being proposed. Indeed, we would regard its prescriptive nature as being of benefit in the sense of tying down, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, what is required of prisoners—that they should have a full, purposeful and active day, and that every prisoner should undertake something instead of staying in their cells so as to at least become engaged and appreciate what is necessary in order to succeed outside prison. It would therefore also reduce the level of reoffending.

There are some good examples of work with prisoners having been done by private employers. National Grid had a project at Reading in which I was involved in an earlier life, and I thought it was absolutely exemplary. It provided what seemed to be the critical path forward for those due to leave custodial sentences in the sense that it provided them with housing, jobs and training. It started before the prisoners left in order to bring their reading and writing up to speed, and it allowed them to learn a skill—in this case, fitting—which meant that they were able to operate as soon as they left. As I understand it, that programme is still going. The recidivism rate was very small indeed, so the programme was certainly worthy in that regard. It also had the advantage of satisfying a need on the part of employers—they had realised that they were not getting an adequate supply of people to do the necessary jobs, and they found that this programme provided a ready supply.

Therefore, there can be a win-win in what the Government and private enterprise are looking for. Indeed, one might say that it could apply to charities and public bodies and not just to private companies. However, the essential point of the amendment is that, if it is decided that there will be employment from such activities in prisons, it should be done properly so that those who benefit from it have skills and qualifications that are nationally recognised, and it should be done in all cases so that we have a better outcome from the prison element.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I have had the opportunity to look at some organisations that have become involved in providing work for prisoners and, like him, I am impressed. It is encouraging that those who have taken the risk, as some may see it, of employing ex-prisoners, helping to train them, and doing work in prisons, find it a very fruitful experience.

Sometimes I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is a little hard on NOMS. I fully accept that it is obvious that the vast majority of the prison estate was not designed for operating work regimes. Many very competent prison governors and prison officers are not equipped to run businesses. That is a given, which makes the idea of work in prisons difficult but not impossible. One of the things that we have tried to do in the past 18 months is to tackle in a practical way the realities to which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred. Several hundred organisations already provide work and training opportunities inside prisons, but many are small and want to do more to attract business.

We aim to provide a competitive package for business. We will make involvement as straightforward as possible and get the commercial model right for both prisons and the private sector, subject to our paramount interest in ensuring security, in line with our legal obligations. NOMS is developing new structures and putting in place the right people to operate in a businesslike way. That includes the recruitment of a new chief executive for the prison industries team within NOMS and a business development manager who will have responsibility for finding new businesses and managing relations with customers.

We are trying to address some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and as of now around 9,000 prisoners are employed in prison industries, which my rough arithmetic makes it to be around 10 per cent, or perhaps just a little over of the prison population. It is clear that there is much to do, but there are great prizes if we can get this right. Clause 118 is central to our plan to achieve our aim to make prisons places of meaningful and productive work where prisoners make reparation. Ensuring that prisoners and those detained in young offender institutions or secure training centres have access to training and can obtain qualifications is important. The Government certainly recognise the importance of this area and agree with the intent behind the amendment.

Let me assure noble Lords that we are already doing much of what we aim to do. Through our desire to increase the amount of meaningful and productive work done in prisons, the Government will give many more offenders the chance to learn the discipline and skills of working. As study after study has shown, offending patterns diminish once employment has been found. However, it is not just through prison working that we aim to reduce reoffending. Experience of a proper working week will be augmented by ensuring that their work links them to the right opportunities to develop the skills necessary to their finding employment when they are released.

We plan to deliver learning bases on clusters of institutions that regularly transfer offenders between them. The learning and skills offer will focus on the needs of employers in the areas into which prisoners will be released, as well as on key issues, such as numerous, literacy and communication skills. Here again, I pay tribute to Toe by Toe, which is a marvellous way of tackling illiteracy—one of the problems that comes through time and again in offending. Decisions on the most appropriate learning and skills offer will be taken locally with the key aim of giving offenders the skills that they need to find and keep jobs and apprenticeships on release. There will be no one size fits all approach, nor should there be. Within this new framework we are retendering the offender learning and skills services—a process that gives the chance to look afresh at how to work with the best range of providers. As well as learning the necessary skills and having the right qualifications, many offenders have barriers to entering the labour market that must first be tackled.

As the Deputy Prime Minister announced in August 2011, from the summer of this year offenders leaving custody and claiming jobseeker’s allowance will have to engage with a work programme provider on release, who will be paid for getting them into work. As well as creating this “day one” service, we are bringing together the claiming of jobseeker’s allowance and the processing of benefits before release rather than after it, so prisoners should have a shorter wait for their first benefit payment, which will help their resettlement. In addition, any prison leaver who claims jobseeker’s allowance within 13 weeks of release will be mandated to the work programme from the point of claim. We will also test, in two work programme areas, the addition of a reducing reoffending payment as part of our payment by results approach, in which we will use a variety of methods in the pilot phase.

We recognise that equipping children under the school leaving age with the skills they will need to succeed in life is vital. There is already an expectation that they will be in education rather than paid work. The raising of the participation age will mean that from 2013 all young people, including those in custody, must continue in education or training until the age of 17, and until 18 from 2015. Young people in secure training centres and under-18 young offender institutions will have access to a full day of education and constructive activity. In secure training centres, young people participate in education or training for at least 25 hours per week. In the under-18 young offender institutions, each young person will receive at least 25 hours per week of education and other constructive activity.

We believe that the amendment is constructive but unnecessary. Section 47(1) of the Prison Act 1952 allows the Secretary of State to make rules concerning the regulation and management of prisons, young offender institutions and secure treatment centres, and the treatment of those required to be detained therein. Subsection (3) states:

“Rules … may provide for the training of particular classes of persons”.

Clause 118 will not change those aspects of the 1952 Act, which cover the same ground as Amendment 181A.

For adults detained in custody, the rule-making powers contained in the Prison Act are augmented by provisions in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, including a duty on the chief executive of Skills Funding to,

“secure the provision of reasonable facilities for education suitable to the requirements of persons who are subject to adult detention”,

and, in doing so, to take account of a range of factors such as facilities and equipment. In carrying out this duty, the chief executive must have regard to various matters, including the desirability of prisoners continuing the education or training that they have begun, and making the best use of resources.

I have listened often to—and have always welcomed—the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, championing the concept of making work, training and education a priority. They are the key to rehabilitation. I hope that what I have said has convinced him that, although we may not have achieved all that he desired, we are listening and trying as best we can to move in the direction that he advocates. For that reason, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the care that he put into his response, and in particular for his closing remarks. I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his words. As I said, the purpose of the amendment is to encourage something that I very strongly support. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that the business manager whom he said would be appointed will be a businessman and not a civil servant from NOMS. I do not decry civil servants who do civil servants' jobs, but we need a businessman in there, and I hope that one will be appointed.

I also hope that one of the first things that the business manager will do is carry out an inquiry with the people who currently provide work in prisons and allow them to tell him frankly of the frustrations and problems that they currently experience when trying to take work into prisons. The person concerned would find that very illuminating. If they take action on those frustrations, many of which I am very happy to pass on to the Minister because I have some censuses here, they would find it much more possible to deliver precisely what the Minister says he wants. If that happens—and, knowing the Minister, I am sure that it will—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 181A withdrawn.

Amendment 182 not moved.

Clause 118 agreed.

Amendment 182ZA

Moved by

[Lord Ramsbotham]

182ZA: After Clause 118, insert the following new Clause—
“Benefits payments to prisoners
(1) Regulations shall provide that a person undergoing imprisonment or detention in legal custody who, at the time that imprisonment or custody commences, is in receipt of any of the qualifying benefits, shall be assessed, during his or her time in imprisonment or custody, for eligibility for those benefits at the time of his or her imprisonment or custody.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the qualifying benefits are—
(a) universal credit;(b) jobseeker’s allowance;(c) income support;(d) personal independence payment, to the extent provided for in regulations made under section 84 (prisoners) of the Welfare reform Act 2012; and(e) any other benefits provided for in regulations made under this section.(3) Regulations made under this section shall provide that the assessment required under subsection (1) shall commence as soon as a person is received into imprisonment or custody.
(4) Regulations shall in particular provide that a person appointed by the Secretary of State shall record, at the time a person is received into imprisonment or custody, details of any qualifying benefits which are in payment at that time, together with any personal information needed to establish the person’s identity, including but not limited to their national insurance number.
(5) An assessment of eligibility under subsection (1) shall be completed in such time as to ensure that the person assessed receives payment of any benefits for which he is assessed as being eligible no later than one week after his release from imprisonment or custody.
(6) Regulations under this section shall be made by the Secretary of State and shall be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

[Lord Ramsbotham]

I am sorry to be hogging the Floor. This amendment refers to an amendment that I have already tabled to the Welfare Reform Bill, and to something that has been worrying me ever since 1996 when I first came across it. It refers to the fact that when prisoners are released from prison they are given a release grant of £46, on which they are expected to live until their benefit payments, which they have had to apply for on release from prison, come through. That can take up to three weeks, and I defy anyone to live for three weeks on £46. Some prisoners qualify for double payment if they are of no fixed abode, but this became a Catch-22 situation when tagging was introduced because, in order to qualify to be tagged, you had to produce an address—and if you produced an address, you got only £46.

During the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill, I suggested that it should be made the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions, using the jobcentre staff who are present in every prison, to process benefit claims during a sentence so that when prisoners leave, if they are entitled to benefits, they receive not a release grant but the first payment of the benefit so that the following week they get the next one and so on, so that financial planning can begin on the certainty of the benefit payment.

It should not be too difficult because when they come into prison a very large number of prisoners are already on one form of benefit or another, which has to be suspended during the sentence, so it is not a question of starting again but merely of resuming something already there. All the information necessary—the national insurance number and so on—is already held, so it should not be too difficult. I have never understood why first the Home Office and then the Ministry of Justice did not insist on that happening because they must be desperately worried at the very large number of people who reoffend very quickly on release, literally in order to survive because they cannot live on £46. In many ways, this system is merely setting people up to offend and reoffend, which is therefore avoidable.

During the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill, I talked with the Minister and with officials in the Department for Work and Pensions, who told me that they had gone as far as they could. They have set up a scheme for employment benefits to be processed in prisons, starting this year, so they are covered, but all the others—those for the disabled, the elderly, children and so on—are not covered, so there is still a gap. There is also a problem because, under the new system that the Welfare Reform Bill will introduce, payment is in arrears—in other words, a prisoner has to come out and be out for a period of up to a week in order to qualify for a payment in arrears—so there is still a gap. This gap has got to be filled.

I believe that this is something that the Ministry of Justice should take on and ask for help with from the Department for Work and Pensions, which it is willing to give. Again there is the danger of being prescriptive but, having been worried about this for so long, and being quite certain that the Minister will be the first to want to stop a totally avoidable cause of reoffending, I suggest that when somebody is received in prison a standard set of questions should be asked to establish the national insurance number and the benefits. Then everyone should be interviewed by the jobcentre staff so that everyone knows what has to be done, and plans should be made for release a long time before the release process starts, rather than leaving it until the last moment, as now.

As much as probing whether the Ministry of Justice will take on this issue, the amendment suggests that the Department for Work and Pensions is waiting to co-operate in any way it can to eliminate an avoidable source of reoffending, thereby indirectly helping with the various matters that the Government hope to bring about in their Green Paper and a reduction in the size of the prison population. I beg to move.

18:01

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, as has been set out very clearly, the amendment seeks to ensure that anyone leaving custody gains swift access to the benefits to which they are entitled. We often think that coming out of prison is very positive, but it can be traumatic for people, particularly those with multiple needs. With no financial contingencies, these people usually rely on a benefits system that they experience as complicated, slow and unhelpful. In extremis, some return to crime, as the noble Lord said, because before they went into prison that was their proven source of income. Delays in accessing benefits can lead to financial hardship, stress and an increased risk of reoffending.

The Prison Reform Trust in its Time is Money report found that eight of 10 former prisoners claim benefits, so it is essential that we make sure the process of claiming is as simple and as hurdle-free as possible to give these post-custody people the best chance of staying away from crime.

One report on adults with multiple needs documented the problems that they faced on coming out of prison, including delays of up to four weeks before the first payment, with no explanation; problems with claims made before they went to prison that had to be resolved before any new claim could be made; claims delayed because of no fixed address, as has already been referred to, or other unstable living arrangements; disputes over prison admission and release dates; and problems caused by not closing down a claim on entry to prison, which results in a fraud investigation and the new claim being suspended.

We also know that a third of people in prison do not have a bank account. This makes the payment of a deposit for housing or early expenses even harder to organise on release. Help beforehand and immediate access to benefits are key if the person is not to feel the need to return to using other people's money just to survive.

The report also emphasises the need for help and advice while still in prison—even more so over the coming years as the benefit system will, for most prisoners, have changed phenomenally by the time they come out from what they saw and knew about when they went into prison. For all the advantages in the Welfare Reform Bill—and, despite the arguments that we will have on Tuesday about its disadvantages, there are undoubtedly some advantages in it—the system of social security facing prisoners on release will be very different from the one they knew before. That will affect their re-emergence into a household. The payment of the universal credit to only one partner in the couple and other complications will need to be sorted out in advance.

In addition, half of prisoners have debts awaiting clearing on release, according to one survey, and one in three owes money for housing, which also makes access to a new home even more difficult.

The Centre for Social Justice has also highlighted similar problems faced by people leaving custody. Its report, Locked Up Potential, recognised that delays in processing benefits mean that many people who are discharged have no source of income when they most urgently need it. The report concluded:

“To bridge the finance gap, with the objective of reducing the resulting crime which it can fuel, we recommend that all prison employment and benefit advisers be required by the … DWP and the MOJ to initiate core benefit applications at least three weeks prior to a prisoner’s nominated release date”.

Along with the noble Lord, we consider three weeks to be rather too short. Nevertheless, will the Minister let us know what discussions his department has had with the Department for Work and Pensions about responding to the recommendations in that report, thus ensuring that those leaving prison are not left with gaps and delays in accessing the financial support that may be essential to them for starting a new life?

I welcome the comments that the Minister made in response to the earlier amendment about access to the work programme. Undoubtedly, that is of great advantage to people coming out of prison. Access to advice on the whole new system of universal credit well before a prisoner’s release date, and preferably when they first go into prison, would be of great advantage to them and to the rest of us. We hope very much that the Minister will accept this amendment.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, it is very nice to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, at the other side of the Dispatch Box. I presume that she is on the night shift. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is correct. We recognise a certain familiarity about the amendment from another Bill but it is none the worse for that. The reality is that the MoJ and the Department for Work and Pensions are in close contact on these issues and are trying to work through them.

I am reminded of a visit I made to a Turning Point project in Birmingham when I talked to a young man who was being helped and trained. He said, “You can’t imagine the cold feeling in the pit of your stomach on your day of release”. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, indicated that there is a broad consensus that one of the trigger points for reoffending is problems in resettling in the community on release. It is also true that some face problems in accessing benefits. In addition, we should do more to equip offenders to work, enabling more of them to be productive members of society on release and not a burden on the state, which was the subject of our earlier debate.

The National Offender Management Service is working to develop financial capability in custody by increasing access to money advice services. A number of prisons also commission financial advice from local CABs and through contracted housing advice services. We also encourage rent arrear repayment schemes. NOMS has also granted funds to Unlock, of which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is president, to increase offender access to financial services. I was very pleased to attend and to speak at the launch of a handbook produced by Unlock to help prisoners with financial issues. We recognise that more work needs to be done to encourage prisoners to save towards their discharge across the estate and to make use of the IT available, which would support them in preparing for release.

More than half of those sentenced to custody are claiming benefits at the start of their prison sentence, and two years after release nearly half are still claiming out-of-work benefits. That is why we are working so closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to overcome the gap in access to benefits, which the noble Lord has outlined, and to ensure that our plans to get Britain working will get more offenders into jobs. However, I do not believe that the noble Lord’s amendment will assist in achieving these aims. It would require us to conduct unnecessary assessments for all prisoners. This is because the work done on entering prison is highly likely to need updating as the sentence continues. At this time of fiscal constraint, it is vital that we look extremely carefully at how resources are targeted.

Staff working in prisons already take relevant steps when someone comes into custody to help sort out their benefits. New prisoners are specifically asked about this at induction and are referred to one of the 140 Jobcentre Plus employment and benefit advisers currently working in prisons. However, support does not end there, as we also recognise that release from prison into the community is a key transition point in the journey from crime to rehabilitation. Prison staff and employment and benefit advisers also take steps to help individuals make an application for a community care grant, usually about six weeks prior to discharge, so that payment can be forwarded to the prison and made available on release. They will also help in explaining how an individual can apply for a crisis loan on release.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I am not so much the night shift as the Welfare Reform Bill shift. Of course, the grants that the noble Lord has just referred to are to be abolished. I trust that prisoners will be aware that they will no longer be available because the Welfare Reform Bill abolishes them.

[Lord McNally]

Yes, but not instantly, and there will be a transition to the new scheme that I will explain shortly. It is unfair, if the noble Baroness sat through the Welfare Reform Bill, to start brandishing her knowledge at this time of night!

All this activity is aimed at ensuring that ex-prisoners can access advice on employment and benefits. It is backed by the new NOMS specification for rehabilitation services which requires, as a minimum standard, that prisoners are supported to sort out their financial problems.

As I mentioned earlier, during the debate on the noble Lord’s amendment on employment and training in prisons, we are working to overcome the remaining barriers as part of the Government’s welfare reforms. This includes our plans to use the work programme as the primary vehicle for help and support, whereby all prison leavers who claim jobseeker’s allowance will enter the work programme from day one of release from prison. This means some 30,000 prisoners a year will claim jobseeker’s allowance and start the work programme on release from prison or within the following 13 weeks.

These changes will also mean that instead of arranging an appointment for the prison leaver to attend and claim jobseeker’s allowance on release, the claim for jobseeker’s allowance will be taken in prison, to start entitlement immediately on release, allowing mandatory referral to the work programme. We will also continue to work with the DWP, Jobcentre Plus and other agencies, including in the voluntary sector, to ensure that prisoners have all necessary information about claiming benefits on release, and in pursuing programmes that prevent reoffending.

The noble Lord has specifically raised concerns about what will happen in the case of ex-prisoners who are not seeking work. As the noble Lord, Lord Freud, also explained in the debate that touched on this issue, we are aiming to address the finance gap through our plans for universal credit payments, which are paid monthly in arrears. Under the proposals, an applicant, on leaving prison and with a valid claim, can be paid their claim immediately through payment on account. I think this will strike the right balance, in ensuring that ex-prisoners can access their benefits quickly through payment on account, and that our resources are primarily focused on getting more offenders into work.

I hope with those explanations that the noble Lord will be reassured to the point that he will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, knows that I cede to no one in my admiration for him. He demonstrates that he understands the problem, and I am sure that he understands it much better than I do—I am a complete amateur in these matters. I found his argument very telling, particularly the £46 Catch-22. I also found the statement by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, very telling.

I have the impression that the Minister recognises there is a problem. He is describing various means which are already in hand of perhaps reducing the scale of the problem, and that is good. However, what is wrong with accepting the amendment? If the means of amelioration which the Minister has described reduce the need to impose a deadline—I take it that the nub of my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham’s amendment is in subsection (5), with the one-week deadline—and mean that it would bite in fewer cases, that would be excellent. But would it not be good to have this provision anyway? I hope that the noble Lord will think further about the amendment because the arguments he has made are not arguments against it. He has made the argument that the scale of the problem which the amendment seeks to deal with may turn out, because of what the Government are doing or are planning to do, to be smaller than it was in the past. I accept that because it could well be true. However, that would still leave the core of a problem which the amendment would deal with. I hope that this matter will not be put away for ever.

18:15

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, if the noble Lord was the head of a department of state he would not be advising me to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, with such alacrity. However, I take the point. At the beginning of my remarks I made the point that we are now in close discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions in what we hope will be a genuine exercise in joined-up government. I remember one of the first experiences I had when I took over this office—and I should say that I am not the prisons Minister; my honourable friend Crispin Blunt is the Minister, and he has addressed these problems with great energy and commitment, but because of my responsibilities in this House I take an interest in this area. At any rate, I was reading in what was the strangest of all places, the Daily Telegraph, an article about a young man being released from prison with £46 in his pocket, but with a cold feeling in the pit of his stomach. The article went through the 48 hours after his release, by which time he was using that money to buy drugs and was back with the gang he had been associated with and which had sent him to prison in the first place. So we are not unaware of the problem.

I have said before that there is a revolving door of crime which sometimes our treatment of prisoners only exacerbates. What we are doing, in what I hope is a non-ideological way—I know about the fierce debates on the welfare Bill, but the noble Baroness was kind enough to comment that there are aspects of the reforms that are genuinely useful—is to see if we can stitch those reforms into our prisons. That will go a long way towards addressing the problems raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. As I have already indicated, I do listen to what he says and I will take back his ideas to see where they can mesh in with what we are trying to do with the DWP and the various initiatives that NOMS has taken.

[Lord Judd]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He has been talking with a great deal of sensitivity and imagination in response to this amendment and I am encouraged and reassured by that. He seems to have a real grasp of the realities. I hope that he will be able to deal with a couple of points. He talked about a young man with a cold feeling in the pit of his stomach. I have encountered too many conversations of exactly that character. I remember something that I think I may have mentioned in the House before. A former chief constable was doing great work as a volunteer in a young offender institution, but he was bowled over when a youngster who was about to be released started to weep in his presence. He asked him, “Why are you weeping? You are about to be released”. The youngster said, “Because I am absolutely scared of what I am going to encounter outside”.

There are two things that we must bear in mind: first, that for some people—not, of course, the majority, but some—perhaps the very last thing they need is to go straight into a job. They need a great deal of support and counselling to prepare them. Front-line staff in prisons working with these youngsters often make that point. Secondly, agencies, advice and everything else are tremendous—what the Minister has been saying is terrific; the more of it that is available, the better—but it is not just that. What so often is needed in the context of the cold hole in the stomach is stable relationships and friendship. I hope that the Minister can give us reassurance that, in all the work that the Government are doing with the voluntary sector, they will give every encouragement to those voluntary organisations that are moving into this sphere and trying to provide a stable relationship—as it were, walking with the individual back into full rehabilitation into society.

[Lord McNally]

Part of the problem with this debate is that we cover two areas, which we were discussing earlier. First, there are dangerous people from whom society needs protection, and we have to deal with them within our criminal justice system. Secondly, you do not need to be in this job very long, or to visit very many prisons, to realise that there are people in our prisons who have no place there and who, with a proper policy of rehabilitation in its broadest sense, can be stopped from reoffending. We are really fighting on those two fronts.

On whether there should be a glide path into work, perhaps that is where we can get the work-in-prison regimes working properly. That in itself can help in that direction. The other thing that I am also very enthusiastic about and would like to see developed, and where the voluntary sector is superbly equipped to help, is mentoring schemes, and finding people who are willing to act as mentors. That could have a powerful effect. I do not think that there is division in the Committee on that. We are trying the perhaps revolutionary idea of joined-up government in making sure that the move from prison to a proper, productive, law-abiding life is not aborted at those first steps through the prison gates because of lack of basic support.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Perhaps the Minister would use joined-up government to do one other thing. I mentioned when I intervened just now that the Social Fund was going to be abolished and that both grants and loans would become the responsibility of local authorities. The DWP has undertaken to issue a “settlement letter” about it to local authorities. One of the areas that we were worried about with regard to the Welfare Reform Bill was that a person would have to have a local connection to be able to claim either their replacement for social care grants or crisis loans. It is exactly ex-offenders who are least likely to be able to qualify because they may not have ties with the place that they go back to. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could in discussions with the DWP stress the importance of that settlement letter making it clear that ex-offenders should be eligible for those payments even if they go to a local authority area where they have not just moved from because they are coming out of prison. His help on that would be greatly appreciated.

[Lord McNally]

I will gladly draw that to the attention of DWP.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I was very glad that the night shift had started so that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, with her great experience of these issues, was here to contribute to the debate. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Kerr and to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for their contributions. They added value to the debate.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister, who demonstrated, as has been mentioned, that he understands the problem. Yet, in 1996 I first received an official pat on the head from an official in the Home Office who said, “Do not worry, we are talking to the Department of Employment about this”. Absolutely nothing has happened about it and that was more than 15 years ago. In the run up to putting my amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill, I questioned officials in the Department for Work and Pensions who were not aware of any people in the Ministry of Justice involved in such discussions. I am glad that that is happening. It would be sensible to bring this amendment back on Report so that the Minister can tell us precisely what has happened since that time. I know that the Department for Work and Pensions is poised and waiting. The suggestions that I made to the Minister were requests from that department that would help it to help the Ministry of Justice. Hoping that that will happen, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 182ZA withdrawn.

Clause 119 agreed.

Clause 120 : Transit of prisoners

Amendment 182ZB

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

182ZB: Clause 120, page 101, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) The relevant Minister may issue a transit order where—
(a) international arrangements apply to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man which provide for the transfer between that island and a country or territory outside the British Islands of persons to whom subsection (2B) applies; and(b) the relevant Minister has received a request from the appropriate authority of that island for the transit of a person to whom subsection (2B) applies through a part of Great Britain.(2B) A person falls within this subsection if—
(a) that person is for the time being required to be detained in a prison, a hospital or any other institution either—(i) by virtue of an order made in the course of the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction by a court or tribunal in the island from which the transit request is made; or(ii) by virtue of any provisions of the law of that island which are similar to any of the provisions of this Act; and(b) except in a case where a transit request is made in the circumstances described in section 6D(1), that person is present in that island.”

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I cannot resist commenting on the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. He is such an old Whitehall warrior that he is always between one department and another, asking, “What are the difficult questions that I can ask them?”.

Clause 120 provides that prisoners who are being transferred under escort from one state to another for the purpose of serving a sentence of imprisonment may transit through the territory of Great Britain. Transit will normally involve a prisoner and escort changing aircraft at an appropriate UK international airport. The clause is required to enable the UK to fulfil its international obligations under existing and future prisoner transfer arrangements. Following discussions with the authorities of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, it has become clear that further powers are necessary to enable escorts from these territories to transit through Great Britain when transferring a prisoner to another state. This group of amendments address that particular issue with the Crown dependencies. They have no other, wider or ulterior motives, despite talking about transiting through territories et cetera. They are to enable the Crown dependencies—the Channel Islands and the Island of Man—to participate in what are already international obligations. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am deeply sad that my appearance before the witching hour did not receive the approbation of the Minister, who did not welcome me to the Front Bench with my comments. I make no further comment on that. I also make it absolutely clear that the comments which follow have not been solicited by me creeping around Whitehall. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has gone, but I will obviously take lessons from him about how to do that in future. He concealed his briefing very well to the end. Perhaps he should have done so until after the Minister responded.

The Minister is right. The wording of these amendments looks pretty innocuous on the surface but we wonder why they are there. I have five questions to leave with the Minister. He said that these were necessary to fulfil international obligations. That of course raises in one’s mind the words “extraordinary rendition”. Could he reassure the Committee that, as he said at the end, there is nothing that one should be worried about in that? Clearly, we are worried about extraordinary rendition. Is this a part of that overall process and, if not, could he explain precisely why the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man need to have this legislation at this time? I am sure that there is an innocuous explanation, but we would be grateful to have that. Perhaps in answering that he could also say what he estimates the effect will be of the provision. I cannot imagine that many international flights carrying prisoners and escorts, or without escorts, land in the Channel Islands and require this sort of arrangement; so it would be interesting to have the figures and, if he does not have them to hand, perhaps he could write to me.

Since we are on extraordinary rendition, which has been a sensitive issue for some time, perhaps the Minister could use the opportunity to refresh our memories about where we are on this. Is it still the case that the UK will not undertake extraordinary rendition of detainees in a manner that may be illegal? Confirmation of that would be gratefully received.

[Lord McNally]

On the last point, of course I can give that guarantee. I very much welcome the noble Lord as part of the nightshift. I apologise for the omission during his earlier contributions.

The Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey are not part of the United Kingdom; they are Crown dependencies. Whether it was an oversight or not, I do not know, but this just clears things up so that they can operate through UK airports if that was needed. I understand that there have been two or three cases in the past three or four years, so this is not some mass movement of people. They are applications on a voluntary basis, with people wanting to be repatriated back to their own country, and for prisoner exchange purposes.

It may help if I speak to Clause 120. The clause would enable prisoners who are being transferred from one state to another for the purpose of serving a sentence of imprisonment to transit through the territory of Great Britain. Transit will normally involve a prisoner and escort changing aircraft at an appropriate UK international airport. It is required to enable the UK to fulfil its international obligations under existing and future prisoner transfer arrangements. The United Kingdom is party to a number of international prisoner transfer arrangements which require the United Kingdom to facilitate transit wherever possible. In the absence of a specific power to authorise transit, and where necessary to detain a prisoner during transit, applications have been routinely refused.

Clause 120 will enable the relevant Minister to authorise transit through the territory of Great Britain where a request is made in accordance with a relevant international prisoner transfer agreement to which the UK is party—in particular the Council of Europe’s framework decision which requires a member state to facilitate transit between member states when requested. It also provides a power for the police to detain a prisoner in transit only for a period necessary to complete the transit.

The Government fully support the principle that foreign national prisoners should be able to serve their sentences in their own country and we need to support partner jurisdictions in achieving this end. For this system to work effectively, Governments must to co-operate with each other in facilitating transfer. Indeed, the UK regularly seeks and obtains permission to transit through other countries when returning British nationals here.

I recognise that concerns have been raised about the rights and protection of individuals subject to transit, but I remind the House that only when a person has been convicted and sentenced by a court of law and when that person is being transferred for the sole purpose of the enforcement of that sentence in another country would transit through the UK take place. The prisoner concerned is unlikely to have any connection with the United Kingdom and any challenge to the prisoner’s transfer and detention should be made either to the sentencing or receiving state, not the United Kingdom.

This is a technical amendment and has none of the sinister implications that might have arisen at first blush. I hope that the assurances that I gave at the beginning to the noble Lord’s questions will satisfy him.

Amendment 182ZB agreed.

Amendments 182ZC to 182ZF

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

182ZC: Clause 120, page 101, line 10, after “(2)(a)” insert “or (2B)(a)”

182ZD: Clause 120, page 101, line 14, after “(1)(b)” insert “or (2A)(b)”

182ZE: Clause 120, page 101, line 23, at end insert “or (2A)(b)”

182ZF: Clause 120, page 103, line 25, after “6A(2)(a)” insert “or (2B)(a)”

Amendments 182ZC to 182ZF agreed.

Debate on whether Clause 120, as amended, should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I do not intend to detain the Committee long on this. This was not so much a probing matter as a sort of defensive one, in case the answers to the questions on the previous group of amendments proved in any way suspicious or raised questions about extraordinary rendition. I think I got it, although I found it a bit confusing as sometimes we were in Great Britain and sometimes we were in the United Kingdom. I will read Hansard very carefully. If there were any other points I am sure we can sort them out but, on that basis, we will not press this.

Clause 120, as amended, agreed.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 6.36 pm.