House of Commons

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

Monday 19 November 2012

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

1. What change in the number of front-line police officers there has been since May 2010.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

May I take this opportunity first to welcome the 41 police and crime commissioners who were elected last Thursday? They have important responsibilities and will be an important voice for people in their force areas in policing local communities. Police and crime commissioners take up their office officially this Thursday. I look forward to working with them in future to do everything we can to ensure that we can continue to cut crime.

Between March 2010 and March 2012, the total number of front-line officers fell by 6,778.

[Mr Slaughter]

There are more people here than voted for police and crime commissioners.

The Mayor of London has cut 3,500 police officers and police community support officers in the last two years. The Metropolitan police is getting rid of borough commanders and neighbourhood sergeants, and closing 65 police stations to the public across London, including Shepherd’s Bush in my constituency and South Norwood in Croydon North. Does the Home Secretary think that will make the public in London feel safer or less safe?

[Mrs May]

Of course, the Metropolitan police has put forward some proposals today in relation to its budget, including proposals to cut central costs significantly and actually increase the number of constables. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor those on his Front Bench are able to get it yet. The Opposition have continually claimed that it is not possible to cut budgets without damaging front-line services or without crime going up; yet budgets are being cut, front-line services are being protected, the number of neighbourhood officers is going up and crime is falling.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

As the Home Secretary correctly says, it is possible to do more with less, as the recent crime statistics have demonstrated. Does she agree that the election of PCCs, such as the excellent Angus Macpherson in Wiltshire—the first ever to be announced—is central to deciding how we can use scarce resources to best effect in tackling crime?

[Mrs May]

I congratulate Angus Macpherson on his election; indeed, it was good to see that as the first result. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that PCCs will have an important role to play in ensuring that police forces are delivering against their budgets in a way that we all want, which is by ensuring the protection of services such that we can continue to cut crime.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

In last week’s elections for the Home Secretary’s flagship policy, 85% of the public decided not to vote. She chose to spend £100 million on having these elections and this transition, which could have been spent on 3,000 police officers this year. She chose to hold the elections in November, to get the Home Office to run them and to deny the public proper information. She was warned in the Commons and the Lords, and by the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Reform Society, that those decisions were wrong. Given the overwhelming public message she received last week, will she now tell us which of those decisions she regrets?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady really needs to get her story straight on this. She complains about the amount of money that was spent on the police and crime commissioner elections, yet in the same breath she wants more money to be spent on them. Which is it: too much money or too little?

[Yvette Cooper]

That was not an answer to the question. The Home Secretary has to take some responsibility for the shambles that she has created. In April she got the decision and the date wrong over Abu Qatada by accident; in November she got the date wrong on the elections deliberately. By not holding them in November, she could have saved £25 million alone, but she chose not to. People did not want these elections last week. They said it was a waste of money, they said they did not know anything about it, they objected to the policy and they did not want to vote in the dark. She did not listen to those warnings and she is not listening to the public now or the message that they sent last week. Why does she not listen to them and apologise for the shambles that this Home Secretary and her decisions have created?

[Mrs May]

I make no apology for introducing police and crime commissioners, who have a democratic mandate for the first time. For the first time, the public know that there is somebody who has been elected who is visible, accessible and accountable to them. PCCs have replaced invisible, unaccountable, unelected police authorities. I think police and crime commissioners are going to make a real difference to cutting crime in this country.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

Last week there was also a parliamentary by-election in Manchester Central, where the turnout was 18%, yet I notice that nobody is arguing that it was in any way a shambles or that there was a lack of a democratic mandate. Does my right hon. Friend agree that all this says more about the Opposition’s party political point scoring than about any concern for police matters?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I would also point out to the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), that I believe that there was a freepost in that by-election, although it did not seem to drive up the turn-out. I have heard no comments about the legitimacy of the individual who has been elected as a Member of Parliament.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

2. What plans she has to review the timing, frequency and communication of changes to the immigration rules and associated guidance.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

Changes to the immigration rules and associated guidance are scheduled twice each year, with additional urgent changes being made when required. Guidance explains how the rules must be applied, and it may be updated more frequently. We keep the need for changing the rules and the guidance under constant review.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the Minister for his reply, but he will know that there have been 15 changes to the UK Border Agency’s guidance to the higher education sector in relation to tier 4 sponsors over the past couple of years. Does he acknowledge the concern on both sides of the House and beyond at the inclusion of international students in net migration targets? Will he also acknowledge that, despite the damage that that has caused to university recruitment, the Government said in their response to the Lords Science and Technology Committee that they were committed to the growth of the university sector? Will he commit to a period of stability in relation to guidance, and to providing better support for tier 4 sponsors?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman knows this area very well as a result of his long experience in the sector. He will be aware that we did a full consultation before we introduced the changes to tier 4 rules, and that we rolled them out in three tranches in order to give the sector time to adjust to them. He is wrong on this point: we deliberately protected the university sector, and the UCAS figures that we have just seen show that international student acceptances to universities are up by 4%. Our education sector is open for business.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

I very much welcome the coalition Government’s efforts to manage and control immigration, but does the Minister agree that we would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we were to exclude specialist temporary workers who were the existing employees of British companies? We cannot say to inward investors, “We want your money, but we don’t want your workers or your expertise to help us to grow the company.”

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Lady will know that we have a cap on skilled workers, and that, so far, we have not come anywhere near to it taking effect. No business that has wanted to hire a skilled worker who meets the requirements has been unable to do so. Our policies are sound: we are keeping control of immigration but contributing very successfully to economic growth.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I represent Tech City, and in my regular meetings with representatives of those technical businesses, immigration comes up as one of the main challenges. For all the Minister’s comments just now about there being no cap, he is causing confusion and complication in a sector that could be driving the British economy. When will he rethink?

[Mr Harper]

I really do not think that the hon. Lady is right. We have a cap on skilled migration, but we have not come anywhere near it. We have a clear system for businesses being able to bring in skilled workers. If she has specific examples from businesses in her constituency, I would be delighted to meet the people involved so that I can set out clearly what our policies are, and if there are genuine issues, I will absolutely look at them.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that all changes will be properly announced? In particular, I should like an assurance that there will be no repeat of what happened from 1997 onwards, when there was a massive increase in the number of work visas granted to non-EU workers, without proper announcement, and the implementation of a de facto open-door immigration policy—even though it sounds very much as though the Opposition would like to do the same thing again.

[Mr Harper]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We want to ensure that we have firm but fair immigration controls, and that we have a cap on immigration, not least so that businesses can give British workers a proper opportunity to get into employment. If there are skill shortages, they can be dealt with. Our university sector is protected. We have sensible policies that have been announced to the House, and I am very happy to defend them.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

3. What recent assessment she has made of the Government’s drugs strategy; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

The Government published an assessment of the drug strategy in May 2012. We are making good progress. Drug use remains at its lowest since measurement began in 1996. We have the highest numbers completing treatment, and the drug sector is refocusing its approach to move beyond treatment and achieve recovery.

[Paul Flynn]

The Welsh police unit involved in Operation Tarian reports that the effect of a ban on mephedrone has been to double its use in Wales. Will the Minister bear that in mind when considering a ban on the drug khat, which would almost certainly lead to an increase in use and drive a wedge between the police and the Yemeni and Somali populations?

[Mr Browne]

We are always open to strong evidence-based research on how to reduce the harm from drugs, but it is worth bringing to the House’s attention the fact that existing illegal drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine have seen a dramatic fall in their use, while there has been quite a big increase in legal drug consumption. It is not automatically the case that making something legal leads to a reduction in its consumption.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Given that the number of legal highs detected in Europe has more than doubled since 2009, what action is the Government taking against those who are supplying these drugs?

[Mr Browne]

My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to this increasing problem, which has been raised with me at the constituency level as being a serious reason to be alarmed. We are obviously making sure that the law is adjusted to take account of the threat to society, but it is a difficult field because it is, of course, evolving very quickly. We need to make sure that we take the necessary measures to protect society. Just because a drug is legal, does not necessarily mean that it is not harmful, especially if taken in the wrong way, so members of the public need to be mindful that this is a potentially hazardous area.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Government promised swift action against legal highs and official figures show that 57 legal highs have hit the UK market just this year—nearly two a week—yet there has been only one temporary banning order in two years. These dangerous substances are killing people, so when will the Government act to protect young people in particular with timely bans and to ensure that the drug strategy promise of good-quality drugs education is delivered in our classrooms?

[Mr Browne]

On the hon. Lady’s second point, I think there is an awareness and knowledge, particularly among young people, of the harms that drugs can cause. I see that among 11 to 15-year-olds there has been a quite marked decline in drug consumption over the periods for which surveys have been carried out. Of course legal highs are a new threat—not just to young people, but to the population as a whole—which is why we have to consider how best to respond to them. This is an increasing threat, but I repeat the point that overall, drug consumption in this country is falling.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to reform the student visa system; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

We have overhauled the student visa regime with a series of reforms designed to drive abuse out of the system while improving standards in the sector. As I said in reply to the previous question, we have seen that being successful. The overall number of visas in the part of the sector where there has been abuse is down, but the number of non-EU students accepted into our universities is up. Our universities are very much open for business, and there is no cap on recruitment to them.

[Mr Jones]

Many of my constituents have been appalled at the systematic abuse of the student visa system. Will my hon. Friend reassure us that his Department will continue to pursue bogus colleges, which for far too long under the previous Labour Government just opened doors for people to come to this country on bogus student visas?

[Mr Harper]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The point of having student visas is to allow students to come here to study, not to work illegally. We have a very good offer for our higher education sector; students can come here, study and take up work appropriately, and then come here after their studies for post-study work. It is a very good offer. Our good universities should have no trouble converting it into attracting students and saying that they are very much open for business.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister take this opportunity to wish the international students at London Metropolitan university all the best for their continuing studies there and assure those who have been given one year that they will indeed be allowed to complete the totality of their degree course? Will he confirm that he is having discussions with the university to allow it once more to recruit international students to what is an excellent course of study offered by it?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman will know that London Metropolitan university did not carry out the obligations it was supposed to under its sponsor licence, yet it was given plenty of notice to do so. He will also know that the legitimate students who were here appropriately have been given the opportunity to stay either to the end of their course or to the end of the academic year. They have all been written to, and all had the opportunity to reply. UKBA is working closely with the university to make sure that those legitimate students are properly protected.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

23. I am pleased to hear that the Government are cracking down on the number of bogus students. However, with the closure of the post-study work route, what reassurance can the Minister give me and the House that we are not discouraging bright and capable international students from studying in the UK in the light of the short time frame they are given to find graduate employment?

[Mr Harper]

Those students who are here to study at universities have an opportunity to find graduate level employment for several months after the end of their course. They can then convert their visa into a work visa and stay here after their course. I think that gives bright students every opportunity to do so, without letting people stay here to do unskilled work that is not of economic benefit to the United Kingdom.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that, while it is entirely right to bear down on abuses in the system, it is widely felt by higher education institutions throughout the United Kingdom that a message is being conveyed to areas such as south-east Asia and China that this country is no longer as welcoming as other European countries to overseas students who wish to study here? Does he recognise that that is potentially very damaging to the long-term health of the UK economy?

[Mr Harper]

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that Ministers take every opportunity—as I have today—to make clear that we have a very good offer to make. The only people whom I ever see quoted in the media saying that the UK is closed for business seem to be people from the education sector. I have pointed out to them directly, and will do so again, that there is a great offer for our university students. They should help us to sell and market Britain abroad, as I take every opportunity to do.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

5. What recent assessment she has made of policing levels in the east midlands; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

I congratulate the chief constables and police officers of Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire on rising to the challenge of cutting crime with reduced budgets. The latest recorded crime statistics show a 15% reduction in recorded crime in the east midlands in the two years to June 2012, with officer numbers down 6% in the past year.

[Mr Leigh]

Clearly the new police and crime commissioner will have a very challenging role in the current environment. Should not we as a Government show a degree of humility in admitting that very serious errors were made in the way in which we publicised last week’s elections, show determination to make the system work, and explain to people that replacing anaemic police authorities with a single identifiable head is the right way forward?

[Damian Green]

I agree very much with my hon. Friend’s second point, but less with the first. The police and crime commissioners, including the very good commissioner who has just been elected in his own county—[Hon. Members: “The Tory candidate lost.”] Unlike the Opposition, I am being non-partisan about this.

The new commissioner can build on work that is already under way. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has found that forces expect the proportion of officers working in front-line roles to increase from 83% in March 2010 to 89% in March 2015. That 15% fall in crime in the east midlands is the biggest percentage decrease in all the regions of England and Wales, which demonstrates that the effectiveness of a police force depends not on overall numbers but on how well it deploys its resources.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

My constituents are puzzled by the fact that the Government’s priority was to spend £100 million on an election that was unwanted rather than spending that money on 3,000 more police officers. What explanation can the Minister give my puzzled constituents?

[Damian Green]

The hon. Gentleman is merely repeating the question asked by his right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary. Let me point out to him that—as was pointed out to his right hon. Friend on television yesterday—the figure that Labour Members keep producing would involve employing 3,000 police officers for one year and then sacking them all. I think his constituents would be pretty puzzled by that.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

6. What assessment she has made of the morale of staff in the UK Border Force.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

The morale and professionalism of the staff in the Border Force is obviously vital to the defence of our border security. They performed very well during the Olympic and Paralympic games, and I think that the country was very proud of that. The Home Office has just conducted its annual staff survey, and we will use the results to work with our staff to continue to improve the performance of the Border Force.

[Mr McKenzie]

The number of cases in which people have been refused the right to remain in the UK but the UK Border Agency does not know whether they have left has shot up by 8% in the last quarter. Is the Minister overseeing a new low in the UK Border Agency, and when will he get to grips with that increasing figure?

[Mr Harper]

I think that the hon. Gentleman has got his UK Border Agency and his Border Force muddled up. His question was about the Border Force. I have to say, on the basis of my limited time in this job and the visits that I have made to our border controls at Heathrow and Gatwick and the juxtaposed controls in Paris, that the staff whom I have met have been incredibly professional and very hard-working, and have delivered excellent border security. Long may they continue to do so.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Speaking as a member of the Home Affairs Committee, which has produced a number of reports on this subject, I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees with me that, in fact, there has been a lot of progress with the Border Force and a great deal of improvement on the situation we inherited from the previous Government.

[Mr Harper]

I do agree. I mentioned the Border Force’s performance during the Olympic and Paralympic games. There was some scepticism as to whether it would be able to continue that during the very busy September-October period for student arrivals, but I am pleased to say that it performed very well during that period; we did not see a resumption of queues at Heathrow, and it can be very proud of that level of performance.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

7. What plans she has to speed up the removal of people refused asylum in the UK.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

Swift action will be taken against all those who have no lawful permission to remain in the UK. That includes not only failed asylum seekers, but everyone who does not have permission to be here. We are not repeating the last Labour Government’s mistake of focusing only on one thing at a time and letting everything else get out of control, which resulted in the situation we inherited when we came to power.

[Stephen Phillips]

Speaking as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I am extraordinarily grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. He will know that the issue of those who remain in this country illegally is of huge concern to all our constituents. Can he update the House on what action is being taken to deal with it specifically in the east midlands and my constituency?

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that question, and I will enjoy being scrutinised by him, as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, in due course. I can give him a couple of examples. Obviously, we have conducted enforcement operations in his constituency, and he might also be interested to know that this summer in London Operation Mayapple led to more than 2,000 individuals from the London area without permission to be in the UK leaving the country. The number of enforced overstayer removals is up 21% compared with April to September 2011, and arrests are up 16% this year compared with last year.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

As the Minister will know, the report published last week by the Home Affairs Committee showed that the current backlog in the UKBA had reached one third of a million cases, which is equivalent to the population of Iceland. While I absolutely accept that this backlog began under the previous Government and was there under successive Governments, it has risen by 25,000 in the last three months. What steps is the Minister going to take to ensure this backlog is cleared, and will he commit to ensuring there are no more bonuses to senior UKBA officials until it is cleared?

[Mr Harper]

The right hon. Gentleman—who, of course, chairs the Home Affairs Committee—will know that we inherited 500,000 cases on asylum alone from the previous Government, and we have been diligently working through them. He will also know that that will be the focus of a report in due course. Some of the cases will be closed because we see no evidence that the person concerned is in the country, but others will have to be worked through. I will make sure that there is a clear timetable to work through all of them, to ensure that all the people concerned are given a clear decision and matters are concluded on a timely basis so we can finally clear up the situation we inherited from the previous Government.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

8. What steps she is taking to reduce bureaucracy in policing.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

We have swept away central targets, removed red tape, and extended police powers to prosecute. These measures will cut inefficiency, save time and taxpayers’ money and bring swifter justice, freeing up more than 4.5 million police hours—the equivalent of putting over 2,100 officers back on the beat.

[Mr Ruffley]

I thank the Minister for that reply, and may I congratulate the Home Secretary on setting out a very robust plan for putting more officers back on the beat by reducing bureaucracy? Does the Minister agree that part of the responsibility for cutting red tape lies with chief constables, and some of them are not doing enough to reduce unnecessary form-filling in their forces? Will he also set out what he sees as the newly elected police and crime commissioners’ responsibilities in respect of reducing unnecessary form-filling?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend has been a member of the Treasury Committee for many years, and he is keen on cutting public spending where it is wasteful. He is right that police and crime commissioners will play a key role in encouraging chief constables who need to do better on this to do so. Indeed, the PCC in his county of Suffolk made practical commitments on reducing bureaucracy, including the idea that the time spent supervising criminals or offenders in detention centres, hospitals and behind desks could be carried out by other staff, not by trained police officers. It is that kind of practical approach that will cut bureaucracy and release police officers to serve on the front line, where we want them.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

As a member of the Select Committee on Justice, I recall that some years ago, Jan Berry, the ex-chair of the Police Federation, was appointed to conduct a review of police bureaucracy and identify how it could be cut. She well understood the need for a balance between keeping the spirit of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and doing away with needless paperwork. How many of her recommendations have, in fact, been adopted by the Government? If the Minister cannot answer today, will he send me a note—[Interruption.] I do not mean to be offensive, but perhaps he can write and tell me?

[Damian Green]

I cannot off the top of my head give the right hon. Gentleman the number, but I am pleased to assure him that I have worked closely with Jan Berry, who comes from Kent and still lives there, and has continued to take an interest in police affairs after standing down from the Police Federation. The right hon. Gentleman is right that many of her ideas are extremely good, and I shall write to him with the details.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the Home Office is not best placed to lecture on bureaucracy, given that it presided over a shambles of an election that cost an extra £25 million just because it took place in November? Will he remind the House of the basis on which November was chosen for the election date?

[Damian Green]

The election date was chosen by Parliament. There have been many elections in November. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the American public went to vote earlier this month—they do not seem to object to a November election. He would do well to take the advice of the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, who said on Friday after the elections were over:

“We shouldn’t carp, we should now move on and we should accept the elections of the new commissioners as they come through and…make sure that it works because they are there, they’re in place, the public have spoken”.

I think that the Chair of the Select Committee is wiser than the shadow Minister.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that participation in future PCC elections will improve, as excellent candidates such as Sir Clive Loader in Leicestershire will be able to point to a record of achievement? Does he agree, too, that one method of increasing voter participation that should not be encouraged, and should be resisted at all costs, is giving prisoners the vote in these or any other elections?

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the Minister that we are discussing reducing bureaucracy in policing.

[Damian Green]

I will happily obey you in this instance, Mr Speaker, as I always do.

Sir Clive Loader will make an excellent PCC, and he will be keen to reduce bureaucracy. It is precisely on their record of releasing the energies of the police to do what we want them to do and serve on the front line that PCCs will be judged when the elections come round again. I am sure that that will engage the public more.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

9. How many student visas she expects to be issued in 2013.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

Our student visa reforms are tackling abuse of the system while protecting universities.

We do not publish forecasts of numbers of grants, but the recently published entry clearance visa statistics for the year to June 2012 show that the number of tier 4 study visas was 214,000. That is a 30% decrease on the year before, mainly from the non-university sector. There is no cap on recruitment to universities and, as I have said, UCAS acceptances of non-EU students are up 4%.

[Pamela Nash]

I thank the Minister for his answer. He has said that the number of visas granted has gone down. Does he want that trend to continue, or does he agree with me that that will damage any attempt to promote our higher education system as a great British product?

[Mr Harper]

As I have said, there is no cap on the number of students going to universities. I want the number of visas granted to people who plan to come to the United Kingdom to abuse our immigration system to go down, which is exactly what has happened. We have got rid of the abuse and we are making sure that our university sector is open for business. I make no apologies for the fact that I have said that three times during questions. We have a good offer for our university sector, and it can make a success of it.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Given the scale of the earlier abuse, does my hon. Friend agree that the integrity of the student visa system depends on interviews? Is he satisfied that there will be sufficient staff at our embassies and consulates overseas to cope with the valued and welcome arrival of students in this country?

[Mr Harper]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. We have started to do some interviewing in some high-risk countries, which has been very successful and has demonstrated the value of interviewing in certain locations, which allows us to drive out some clear abuse. Where that makes sense, we will continue to do it and will increase our ability to do so.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister told students in Dubai—he has a habit of answering questions when he is abroad, if not when he is in this country—that there is no limit on international students in the UK, and the Minister has repeated that this afternoon. However, the Migration Advisory Committee states that there will have to be 86,600 fewer students over the next three years if the Government are to meet their target. Who is right? Is Boris Johnson right to say that we are losing a massive business opportunity? Is the director general of the CBI right to say that it is putting people off? Or is the Minister just confused?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman should understand that we have a net migration target, so those students who come to the UK, study and leave make no contribution to the net migration statistics. Our universities can go out, recruit smart students and educate them and they will make no difference at all to net migration. The Prime Minister is absolutely spot on and I think that it is the hon. Gentleman who is confused, as someone who does not believe in having a net migration target at all.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

10. What steps her Department is taking through the visa system to enable business and tourist visitors to contribute to economic growth.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The UK Border Agency supports economic growth through delivering an effective visa service, which processed almost 2 million applications for visitor visas in 2011, and exceeding our public commitment to process 90% of cases within 15 working days. We take our economic responsibilities seriously and the UK Border Agency is constantly looking to improve the service it offers. Amongst other measures, it has launched priority services, such as providing a five-day visa service, premium lounges for high-value customers and out-of-hours appointments at visa application centres.

[Peter Aldous]

What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to speed up clearance and entry for Chinese business visitors, tourists and investors who have been identified by Visit East Anglia, Suffolk chamber of commerce and chambers of commerce across the UK as a vital means of growing international trade and export markets?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the issue of Chinese visitors to the UK. That is an important market for the UK and I am pleased to say that we have seen some strong growth in the number of Chinese visitors to the UK for both business and tourism. It is one of our priority markets, so we have undertaken a number of changes to our system. Half our Chinese business customers, for example, now benefit from access to a priority scheme. We have opened new expanded visa application centres in a number of cities, but we will continue to look at what we do to ensure that our clear message is that Britain is open for business and has a functioning visa system that ensures that those whom we wish to welcome to the UK can come.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

It is no good saying that we are open for business when the perception out there is that we are not. Will the Home Secretary consider meeting admission tutors from the Russell group and representatives of chambers of commerce to familiarise herself with what is happening on the ground? The perception is that we are not open for business and that access is not as quick as it should be.

[Mrs May]

One problem is that a lot of people are claiming that the UK is not open for business because of our visa system. The former Immigration Minister went out to visit China and clearly gave out the message. The former and current Immigration Ministers and I have met people from the universities, the CBI and other business sectors to talk to them about the issue. It is not just for the Government to go out and say that Britain is open for business—business organisations and universities should give out that message. As the Immigration Minister said earlier, UCAS figures show that the number of applications from non-EU overseas students to our universities has gone up. The universities should stop claiming that there is a problem and go out and say that they are open for business.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

11. What assessment she has made of the potential for achieving savings through economies of scale in police procurement.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

The Government estimate that savings of £200 million per year, including from economies of scale, can be made through joining up police procurement by the end of March 2015.

[David Mowat]

One area with potential benefits is IT spend, which should not continue to be replicated 42 times. Will the Minister give us an update on the progress of the Police ICT Company, announced in July, and confirm that the police and crime commissioners, including the excellent John Dwyer in Cheshire, will be expected to use it?

[Damian Green]

I echo my hon. Friend’s praise for the new PCC in Cheshire. We hope that the PCCs will eventually own, take over and run the Police ICT Company because its purpose is to ensure that the PCCs have the opportunity to secure critical services and help to make savings. The company will offer services that help individual forces achieve efficiencies through the procurement, re-use and management of their ICT, and I very much hope that a large number of commissioners will take up this offer.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

In Kent the new PCC was the outgoing chair of the police authority. When she was elected, she made it clear that she would have no truck with privatisation. It should be said that she resoundingly beat the Tory candidate by nearly 2:1. Is that not an indictment of the Government’s policy on PCCs, and is it not an example showing that the existing chair was much preferred—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s question is rather long and it is only tangentially related to the matter on the Order Paper. I have indulged—[Interruption.] Order. I have indulged him adequately.

[Damian Green]

I am not entirely sure that the hon. Gentleman had got to a point yet. It will clearly be in PCCs’ own interest to look at the best way of spending most efficiently the money that they control so that police are visible on the front line and are able to cut crime. In the end PCCs have been elected, they are responsible for their own actions and what they say, and the electorate will judge them after a few years. I urge all PCCs to take a sensible and pragmatic view about the Police ICT Company and collaboration.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

12. What progress her Department has made in reducing levels of alcohol-related antisocial behaviour.

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

Last month, the Government commenced new powers to help local authorities and the police tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder. They can now impose early-morning alcohol restriction orders and charge a late-night levy on pubs and clubs to go towards the costs of policing the late-night economy. We have already reformed alcohol licensing laws. We will also give front-line professionals faster, more effective powers to protect the public from antisocial behaviour.

[Stuart Andrew]

Alcohol-related antisocial behaviour can be a blight on some of our towns and cities and is particularly distressing for victims. Will my hon. Friend urge the newly elected PCCs to work with local authorities to implement this welcome new tool?

[Mr Browne]

I recognise the problem identified by my hon. Friend and I urge all PCCs who were elected last week to work in partnership with local authorities, the police and others to use the new powers that we have given them to enhance the safety of the communities they represent.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

In Wrexham CCTV has played an important role in reducing alcohol-related antisocial behaviour. Is it the Government’s policy to reduce the number of CCTV cameras?

[Mr Browne]

In my constituency, Taunton Deane, CCTV plays a useful role in protecting the public as well. The Government’s policy is that CCTV can play an important role in community safety and reducing crime, but it is not the same as Labour’s position, which is that the more CCTV cameras there are, the better the society we live in. We think these things have to be proportionate. CCTV has a role to play but it is not as big a role as the hon. Gentleman perhaps feels.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

13. When she plans to meet the police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I welcome Tony Lloyd to his new role as the first police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester. I am writing, I hope today, to all PCCs in advance of their assuming office on Thursday, to congratulate them and to invite them to join me and my ministerial team for an event on 3 December.

[Paul Goggins]

I am grateful for that answer and for the warm welcome from the Home Secretary. I am sure that when she meets Tony Lloyd, she will want to thank him for standing in the election because without Labour last Thursday, the turnout in Greater Manchester would have been lower than 7%. Given the level of concern expressed during the campaign about antisocial behaviour, will she review her current approach and, instead of rebranding and weakening antisocial behaviour orders, will she work with Tony Lloyd and other police and crime commissioners to strengthen the law in this respect so that those who make other people’s lives unbearable can be dealt with effectively?

[Mrs May]

I note that Tony Lloyd, referring to the turnout at the elections, said:

“It doesn’t take away the mandate of the PCC… That, like any good politician, is earned not only at the election; it’s earned by working with the public, being there to listen to the public and to represent the public.”

On antisocial behaviour orders, we are strengthening the ability of the police and others to work against antisocial behaviour. Crucially, we are giving local communities and individuals greater powers, such as the community trigger, which will enable people, if action is not being taken on antisocial behaviour, to require that action is taken. That did not happen under the Labour party.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

Let me tell the Home Secretary:

“What we ended up with was a toxic mix of low voter awareness about the role, the absence of an active public information campaign, near silence from politicians and polling day moved to a time of year when it gets dark at 4 pm.”

Those are the words of the Conservative Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns). In truth, Members across the House have raised concerns about the elections. Does she accept that any mistakes were made?

[Mrs May]

As I have said elsewhere, of course I am disappointed about the turnout. I believe that the turnout at the next elections will be higher because people will have seen police and crime commissioners in their role and the commissioners will have a record to defend, as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) has just said, but it was up to politicians across the board and others to go out and campaign, and the Government did run an awareness campaign. I return to the point I made at the beginning of Question Time: police and crime commissioners replace police authorities, which were invisible, unaccountable and unelected. Police and crime commissioners are elected, visible, accessible and, crucially, accountable to the people.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

14. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the effectiveness of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority in tackling trafficked labour.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

The Gangmasters Licensing Authority plays a key role in protecting workers who may be exploited in the agriculture, shellfish, and food processing and packaging industries. A recent Government review streamlined its remit to focus on suspected serious and organised crime, working more closely with the Serious Organised Crime Agency and other specialist law enforcement agencies.

[Michael Connarty]

I thank the Minister for that endorsement of the work of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, particularly given the recent evidence of the Noble/Freedom Food eggs scandal, which was described as the worst case of human trafficking the Gangmasters Licensing Authority had ever seen. However, would it not be better if the Government took on the principles contained in my Transparency in UK Company Supply Chains (Eradication of Slavery) Bill so that companies ordering those goods have a responsibility to trace right back to the source what is happening in the supply chain and we stop that kind of abuse of workers who come here to pick and work in our farms?

[James Brokenshire]

I certainly recognise the serious nature of the crimes the hon. Gentleman highlights and am sure that he will welcome a number of the joint operations with the Serious Organised Crime Agency—in a recent case, 30 Lithuanians were freed as a consequence. I hope that he will also welcome the work of colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills who have recently put out for public consultation legislation on the human rights reporting requirements of quoted companies, which we believe will go a long way towards addressing the concerns highlighted in his Bill.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

In human trafficking, far more people are exploited for labour than for sex, and the Minister is right to concentrate on organised gangs. Will he expand a little on how the Government will target organised gangs?

[James Brokenshire]

I know that my hon. Friend has a long-standing commitment to and interest in this important issue. I highlight the creation of the new National Crime Agency with an attached border command, which will harness greater intelligence. The national human trafficking centre will form part of that and will, we believe, really strengthen the approach in combating that appalling crime.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The Government have a comprehensive programme of police reform. To make policing more professional and evidence-based, we are establishing a college of policing. To get tough on organised crime, we are establishing the National Crime Agency. To ensure we reward specialist skills, we are reforming police pay. To give the public a stronger voice, we have introduced crime maps and mandatory beat meetings, and the election of police and crime commissioners will give the public a say for the first time in how their local police forces are run. Police reform is working; the front-line service is being maintained and crime is falling. I commend police officers for their achievements.

[Christopher Pincher]

Since the passage of the Human Rights Act a decade ago, the time taken to deport potentially dangerous individuals, such as Abu Hamza and now Abu Qatada, has reached unacceptable lengths. Will my right hon. Friend pursue any and all measures to ensure that those people who may represent a threat to our country can be quickly deported from our country?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises a point that I know is of concern not only to Members of this House, but to many members of the public. I assure him that the Government are looking at pursuing a number of avenues to ensure that we can reduce the length of time it takes both to deport people from this country and, indeed, to extradite people. In the case of Abu Hamza, the judiciary has itself made comments about the need to look at the processes that we follow, to ensure that we can use not only the reforms of the European Court, but those in our own judicial processes to reduce the length of time it takes to deport those people who are a potential threat to this country.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

T2. Following my comments in the House about Cyril Smith’s abuse of boys, I understand that the Crown Prosecution Service has now located investigation files relating to Smith from the 1960s. Could the Home Secretary now look at whether it is true that the then Director of Public Prosecutions received a second opinion recommending that Smith be prosecuted; why he concluded that it was not in the public interest; what role, if any, the security services played; and how the Government intend to get to the bottom of what several former police officers are now referring to as a cover-up?

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that if members of the public have concerns that they wish to report, they should report them to the police, and if they have concerns about the police, they should report them to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Obviously, we would expect those authorities to act on the information provided to them.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

T3. Some of my constituents have had their applications for indefinite leave to remain returned after months of waiting, only to find that there was an error in their payment details. Why is there a separate verification process for payment details? Why not have one process? That would solve the problem of people going back to the beginning of the queue simply because of an error that is not always of their making?

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The process for scrutinising applications is such that any payment issues are supposed to be looked at right at the beginning of the process, so that they can be dealt with swiftly. If my hon. Friend knows of specific cases in which that has not happened, I would, of course, be pleased to either hear from him or meet him to discuss them in more detail.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

T5. At 32 square miles, Scarisbrick in my constituency is the largest parish in Lancashire. The village now shares its one police constable and two police community support officers with neighbouring Burscough, following the £42 million-worth of cuts to Lancashire’s police budget. At night, three police officers cover 50 square miles from Ormskirk to Skelmersdale, which are vast areas for the police to cover. How can the Home Secretary justify to my constituents that the £100 million spent on the police and crime commissioner elections, with a turnout of just 15% in Lancashire, is an effective use of scarce resources when we are losing front-line officers?

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

Obviously, it is not for me to comment on the individual operational judgments of the chief constable of Lancashire, but I am happy to be able to tell the hon. Lady and the House that, despite the constraints that she has mentioned, recorded crime in Lancashire between June 2011 and June 2012 went down by 2%. I hope that not just her constituents, but others in Lancashire are reassured that the police there are doing an extremely good job of cutting crime and keeping the streets safer.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

T4. Metal theft has been a huge problem for some community groups and churches in the Pudsey constituency. It costs a great deal of money and is a problem throughout the country. Does my hon. Friend the Minister welcome the passage through the House of the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill and share my belief that we must reform the industry in order to support legitimate dealers and make it much harder for those who provide a market for stolen metal?

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Crimes such as taking lead from church roofs or stripping plaques from war memorials cause offence to Members of all parties. The Government are already taking action. On 3 December, new measures will come into force to better regulate the scrap metal industry. My hon. Friend has rightly drawn the House’s attention to the private Member’s Bill that received its Third Reading last week. We are also taking additional actions in concert with the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), to further regulate this important industry and make sure that it does not contain criminal behaviour.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

T6. I was interested in the answers on student visas because a week ago on Saturday, I had a meeting at Coventry university with a Minister from Oman who takes an interest in science and technology and who wants to do business with the university. The issues raised were the delay in getting student visas, which seems to be putting people off, and the cost for students. What will the Government do about that? It is no good making excuses.

[Mr Harper]

It sounds as though it would be helpful if I looked at the details of the case, so I would be happy to hear from the hon. Gentleman. In most cases, visa applications are processed very quickly. We say yes in most cases and deliver a timely service. Without knowing the specifics, such as which country the students are from, it is difficult to give a specific answer. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says Oman. We deliver an excellent visa processing service for a number of the Gulf countries. If he gives me more details, I will look into the matter for him.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

T7. To many, it seems that the rights of dangerous hate preachers are now more important than the rights of the British people to a peaceful and secure life. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure the safety of the British people and that there is no place in this country for those who would harm us?

[Mrs May]

As my hon. Friend points out, he is raising a concern that is felt by many members of the public. Obviously, we have recently had the judgment in relation to Abu Qatada, which I think may have triggered my hon. Friend’s thinking on this issue. We are seeking leave to appeal that judgment, but we will also continue to work with the Jordanian Government to see what can be done. We will pursue all avenues to ensure that we can deport Abu Qatada. This Government have taken a stronger line on whether we allow those who can be described as hate preachers into this country and have ensured that fewer of them cross our shores.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary will be aware that there are concerns about the provisions in the Justice and Security Bill, which is being debated in the other place today, that introduce closed material proceedings. The provisions will enable judges to see all the evidence in cases that affect national security, while protecting vital intelligence. Will she work with the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) to reassure Members of the Lords and of this House that those proceedings, while essential, will be used only when absolutely necessary?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to give the right hon. Lady an assurance to that effect. This is an important Bill, because in a very small but growing number of cases, it is not possible for the Government to defend themselves because the information cannot be made available in open court. As a result, settlements have to be made and there is no justice, because there is no trial or judgment on the rights and wrongs of the case. Hence, there is a desire to introduce closed material proceedings in a very limited number of cases, where it is necessary and proportionate. I am obviously working with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio to that end.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

T8. The net receipts under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 were £165 million last year. I appreciate that a fair chunk of that money is reinvested in local crime-fighting initiatives, but will the ministerial team look at the percentage that is allocated to local community projects, so that more groups like the Thornton Lodge action group can be successful in their bids?

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

Yes, I can give that undertaking. A small amount of the money is made available to community groups. My hon. Friend makes a valid point about whether that percentage could be higher and we will look at how that might be achieved.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

It is no good Ministers lecturing police and crime commissioners on the merits of forces sharing costs in procurement when they could have saved the public purse £25 million by combining the PCC elections with other local elections. Why did Ministers ignore the calls from Opposition Members to combine the elections with next year’s county council elections?

[Damian Green]

Opposition Members must get their story straight. Half of them say that we should not have spent as much money on these elections as we did; the other half say that we should have spent more money. If they come up with a coherent argument, we will give an answer.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

T9. Mindful of the Home Secretary’s well known views on the Human Rights Act 1998, but also of the difficulties of coalition government, will she persuade the Leader of the House to make time available for my forthcoming ten-minute rule Bill, which would repeal that Act?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is tempting me to make comments on that particular issue. I am sure that the Leader of the House, who is present, has heard what he said and will give due consideration to the issue that he raised.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

Police and community support officers are incredibly popular in West Mercia, and their numbers should be sustained at current levels. Does the Home Secretary believe that, by the time of next election, the number of PCSOs in the West Mercia area and in Telford will be at current levels, or will there be fewer or more?

[Mrs May]

The change that we have made as a Government is that we say to local police forces, “With the police and crime commissioners in place, it will be up to you to decide how you wish to have the staffing, and the numbers that you want.” That decision will be taken at police force area level, not dictated by the Home Office. I believe that that is right.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, not only on reducing crime figures in the London area, but on his ambition to have 2,000 extra police constables each year for the next three years so that, by March 2015, there will be a record number of 26,000 police constables in Greater London? Will she congratulate him—effusively, if she wants?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to commend the work that the Mayor of London as police commissioner and the deputy Mayor have done for several years, although the Mayor formally became a police and crime commissioner only in January this year. He has always emphasised recruiting and the number of constables who are out there and available. Obviously, the Met and the deputy Mayor, who has responsibility for crime and policing, are looking carefully at the Met’s budget to ensure that they can take out waste and that the money is spent cost effectively, as they said today, on recruiting more constables.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Given the large number of voluntary organisations around the country, including SAIVE in Staffordshire, that look to provide counselling for the children who were abused in sex scandals, will the Home Secretary consider assessing the extra resources that are needed to provide counselling as a result of the inquiries that she has set up?

[Mrs May]

I think I recall that the hon. Lady raised the point when I made the statement on north Wales. I have taken away that issue. Obviously, the Home Office does not provide the particular service that she mentioned, which comes under other Departments. I will raise the matter with those Departments.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary agree with the conclusion of the Home Affairs Committee that, compared with police authorities, the police and crime commissioners will

“have a greater incentive to make savings since the level of police precept will be one of the most visible indicators of their performance to their electorate”?

[Mrs May]

I am very pleased to agree with my hon. Friend and the Home Affairs Committee on that matter.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Some women asylum seekers end up on the detained fast-track procedure because they have been reluctant to disclose sexual violence and abuse. How can Ministers ensure that the system will be sensitive to such women’s experiences?

[Mr Harper]

One of the things that the UK Border Agency is attempting to do is make sure that the system is more sensitive to those who have suffered sexual violence and have been trafficked. It has recently published some information about how it goes about doing that through training its front-line officers and its caseworkers. I take that matter very seriously, and will ensure that the UK Border Agency pays great attention to it. If the hon. Lady has any particular concerns about specific cases, I am of course happy to discuss them with her at any time.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Andrea Leadsom.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have been complaining to a national housing association for the past two years on behalf of a small group of constituents who are suffering at the hands of a small group of social tenants things such as homophobic attacks, domestic violence on the street and drug dealing in the streets. The housing association has done nothing about it. What more can we do to force housing associations to take their responsibilities more seriously and allow other people to live their lives quietly?

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

The housing association and, indeed, the local authority and the local police force should take my hon. Friend’s complaints and those of the residents in her area more seriously. I urge her to ensure that they work effectively on behalf of her constituents. If she feels that that is not being done, she may wish to raise the matter with the new police and crime commissioner.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but, as they know, in Home Office questions, demand invariably exceeds supply. We must now move on.

Arpley Landfill Site

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I rise to present a petition on behalf of the people of Warrington in respect of our objection to the proposal to potentially continue the licence at Arpley tip beyond 2013. Working with community leaders and councillors from all political parties in Warrington, we have collected 6,206 signatures from residents, many of whose homes and lives have been blighted by their proximity to Arpley tip, whose side effects have been felt for more than 20 years.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Warrington,

Declares that the people of Warrington have put up with the Arpley landfill site and the traffic, smells and other undesirable side effects which it causes for long enough.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the site's licence is not extended.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001128]

Treatment for Gastroparesis

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I have a petition signed by more than 4,000 residents of North East Somerset to the honourable House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

The petition states:

The Humble Petition of residents of North East Somerset,

Sheweth,

That the Petitioners are concerned about the wellbeing of Alison Jukes, who was diagnosed with Gastroparesis in January 2012; further that the Petitioners believe that a possible treatment exists for this condition—gastric electrical stimulation—and a number of Gastroparesis sufferers in Britain have successfully received it; further that Alison has been denied the operation and her appeal has also been turned down; further that the Petitioners believe without this operation, Alison will be fed via a tube every day for the rest of her life and the Petitioners believe that eligibility for this treatment should not vary by location.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Department of Health to look into the consistency of the availability of gastric electrical stimulation across different Primary Care Trusts.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.

[P001132]

UK Aid (Uganda and Rwanda)

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

14:30

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on UK aid to Uganda and Rwanda in light of renewed conflict by M23 rebels in Goma, eastern DRC, and the Secretary of State’s announcement that she has suspended aid to Uganda as a result of serious allegations of corruption.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)]

The Foreign Secretary and I are deeply concerned by the rapidly deteriorating security and humanitarian situation in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo—DRC—caused by the military activities of the March 23 Movement, known as the M23. On 17 November, the M23 launched an attack on Congolese army positions at Kibumba, a key defensive position 30 km north of Goma, and fierce fighting then ensued. The UN forces—MONUSCO—have also engaged to seek to prevent the M23 advance. We understand that the M23 has not taken Goma, but the situation is deeply unstable and the local population extremely worried. We do not yet have clear figures on casualties. I understand that up to 80,000 people are moving around Goma to refugee camps on the other side of the town, but we have not seen any major movements of refugees across the border.

As the Foreign Secretary said in his statement at the weekend, the Government

“strongly condemn the M23’s advance towards Goma and call on it immediately to desist from further violence. I am particularly concerned by the risk to civilians, the population of Goma and refugees in surrounding areas. I urge those with influence over the M23 to call on them to stop fighting and not to provide them any external support.”

The UK Government call for a cessation of hostilities and for all parties to engage to resolve this crisis without further bloodshed.

On aid programmes in Rwanda and Uganda, as I said to the International Development Committee at its evidence session on Rwanda last week, I will be reviewing all the evidence—including, of course, the latest evidence on renewed fighting in eastern DRC—and look at how the situation develops before making any further decisions on the next disbursement of general budget support.

As I announced last week, following the suspension of aid to the office of the Prime Minister in Uganda in August, I have now suspended all aid that goes through the Government of Uganda’s financial systems. That is as a result of initial evidence emerging from our ongoing forensic audit of the office of the Prime Minister, which indicates that aid money may have been misused, and an additional report by the Ugandan Auditor General into the misuse of aid by other donors. I have suspended £11 million of our aid programme, including general budget support, although other aid that is not channelled through the Government is continuing. The driver for that decision is obviously distinct from the situation about which the hon. Gentleman asked regarding the M23 and activities in DRC.

I am sure the House will share my concern, and that of the Foreign Secretary, about the situation in eastern DRC. We remain committed to working with the region to find durable solutions that bring stability and remove causes of conflict that currently leave space for armed groups to prosper. Solutions could involve security sector reform, work to return refugees to their places of origin over time, or work to extend the state reach of the Government in Kinshasa to all parts of DRC. Solutions must be led by the Government of DRC and will need the support of the region to be implemented. Our role is to try to assist in creating conditions that can bring durable peace, both through our development programmes in the region and our diplomatic efforts. However, there is no magic bullet to solve the crisis.

[Mr Lewis]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that answer, but she is developing an unhealthy habit of making important announcements via the press, rather than directly to Parliament. That was the case in relation to aid to India a couple of weeks ago, and now with Uganda. Will she reassure hon. Members that in future all important statements will be made first to the House of Commons?

As the right hon. Lady has said, we heard disturbing news overnight that the M23 militia is advancing on Goma. Its activities have terrorised the civilian population, led to the displacement of thousands of people, and caused yet another tragic humanitarian crisis in eastern DRC. Successive UN reports have been damning in their criticism of direct support for those activities by the Government of Rwanda, and have also expressed serious concern about the involvement of the Ugandan Government.

The Government’s policy on this crisis has been nothing short of shambolic and has seriously undermined the international effort to send a unified and unequivocal message to the Rwandan Government that their actions are entirely unacceptable. The answer today was incredibly complacent.

First, will the Secretary of State now acknowledge that her predecessor’s decision to reinstate budget support to Rwanda was a profound error of judgment? Secondly, will she explain why—according to her predecessor’s recent evidence to the International Development Committee—the decision was taken despite Rwanda’s failure to meet two of the conditions laid down specifically by the Prime Minister? Those two conditions were a public condemnation of M23 and a cessation of all support for its activities by the Rwandan Government. Thirdly, will the Secretary of State today stop dithering and make it clear that the next tranche of budgetary support will not be released to Rwanda unless it fully complies with the Prime Minister’s own conditions? Finally, what steps has the Foreign Secretary taken to indicate our serious concerns to the Government of Rwanda? Is it not now essential that he or one of his Ministers calls in the Rwandan ambassador to the UK for urgent talks?

On Uganda, when the Government came to power, they made a strong commitment to be tough on corruption. That is absolutely right; British taxpayers have a right to expect that their hard-earned money goes to the poorest, and not to the bank accounts of the rich and powerful. However, in November last year, the Independent Commission on Aid Impact, which was set up by the previous Secretary of State, identified a major gap between the Government’s rhetoric on corruption and the realities of the measures being taken by the Department for International Development.

Will the Secretary of State therefore tell us in some detail when the allegations of corruption first came to light? How were they brought to the attention of her Department? What estimate has been made of the amount of UK aid that has been siphoned off for inappropriate purposes? What steps are being taken to recover any losses of British taxpayers’ money? What criteria will she apply when deciding whether to reinstate direct financial aid to the Ugandan Government? Finally, does she not feel in the slightest bit embarrassed that, when the rest of the international community is suspending budget support to the Government of Rwanda because they are actively supporting a militia that is undermining the civilian population in eastern DRC, she is a member of a Government who have departed from that international coalition and who have sent entirely the wrong message to the President of Rwanda?

[Justine Greening]

I am disappointed by the tone that the hon. Gentleman has taken on this important matter, and by his attempt to politicise something that is of deep concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that, as you know, I make written ministerial statements whenever we believe them to be of a substance that is warranted in the House—[Interruption.] We did indeed make statements to the House, and I will endeavour to continue to do so. I am always happy to answer urgent questions on any issues, as you see fit, Mr Speaker.

On Rwanda, I should point out that, under my predecessor, the Government reduced the amount of general budget support from the levels we inherited. That support will continue to fall over the coming months. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned the President of Rwanda, but a Labour predecessor of mine called him a “sweetie”. Labour therefore has no ability to criticise the Government in relation to tracking the results of our aid or in relation to being clear on whether it is being spent appropriately. Whenever we have needed to take action to curb aid, we have done so.

The shadow Secretary of State may disagree with the reasons for partially putting through some further budget support earlier this year, but I have been clear with the International Development Committee, including last week, that I will take a look at all the evidence on the ground from all sources when I come to make my decision in December. I will not pre-empt that. When I met the Committee last week, the situation on the ground in eastern DRC was different from how it is today. He might want to pre-empt where we might be in December, which is when I will take my next decision, but it would not be correct for me to follow suit, as he wants me to do.

In relation to what conditions we will seek to see adhered to, we have been clear cut about both the partnership principles that we struck up with the Government of Rwanda and the PM’s conditions. I think they are absolutely right, and I will again look at them when I come to take my decision in December.

The hon. Gentleman asked what steps the Government had taken in relation to the Rwandan Government regarding the M23. The Foreign Secretary spoke with the Rwandan Foreign Minister at the weekend.

On Uganda, I have to say that we have taken action in a timely fashion in relation to suspending aid to Uganda. I presume the hon. Gentleman does not disagree with the decision I took. No, he clearly does not. I am delighted he supports the decision we have taken. If I can set out the chronology of what happened, in August we had initial reports of fraud and corruption in relation to the office of the Prime Minister—not in relation to our money, but other donor money. At that stage, we duly suspended our further funding to the office of the Prime Minister. After that, we initiated a forensic audit, and the initial results of that forensic audit have led me to suspend all aid, more broadly, to the Government of Uganda.

This has been a logical process that has taken account of all information, but has sought always to consider the fact that we still want to make sure that our development work in countries such as Uganda and Rwanda helps to alleviate the extreme poverty faced by the people on the ground on a day-to-day basis. These are often difficult decisions to have to take, but we take them based on the facts that we have at the time, and in discussion across Government. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s questions, and I look forward to other questions from my colleagues.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House agree that what matters in this conflict is the needs of the people of Rwanda, Uganda and eastern Congo, and the need for them to receive the support and assistance that aid provides and also have some kind of trust in their own Governments. What steps will the Secretary of State take to consult all other donor agencies to try to ensure that we co-ordinate our response?

May I remind the House that this is not the first time that aid has been suspended to Uganda because of corruption? The previous Government had to do this, too. This is a disappointing development that suggests that the Ugandan Government have not learnt very much. I remind the House that the Select Committee on International Development is currently conducting an inquiry into the situation in Rwanda. We hope to have a report ready in time to help the Secretary of State with her decision.

[Justine Greening]

I appreciate the work the right hon. Gentleman’s Committee has done to help inform these important decisions. He is right that we discuss with other donors, both at official and ministerial level as appropriate, all views that are held about what is happening on the ground, and, critically, the implications for aid. As he rightly pointed out, we must always bear in mind that the point of development programmes is to help people on the ground. Surely, we have to bear that in mind before we simply turn off the tap. That is precisely what I intend to do.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

Over the past 10 years, I have worked in Uganda and have seen the impact of DFID’s direct budget support, particularly on health care. Will the Secretary of State tell us what impact assessment DFID has carried out in Uganda on the possible reduction of vital services to the Ugandan people as a result of the suspension of direct budget support?

[Justine Greening]

To provide the hon. Lady with some reassurance, let me say that the vast majority of our aid goes not through the Government of Uganda, but through other non-governmental organisations on the ground. We are looking at what we can do to ensure that we continue to achieve the same results in relation to the programmes that we had planned to have undergoing at the moment in Uganda. Again, I have to steer a balance in ensuring that taxpayers’ money is spent appropriately and is not withdrawn from the system by corruption and fraud, while, as she pointed out, making sure that we bear in mind that the programme was there to make a difference and that we still want that difference to be made.

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that no effort should be spared in bringing to justice the wicked and evil Bosco Ntaganda, a convicted war criminal? What extra efforts are being made to apprehend him?

Will my right hon. Friend also reinforce the point that her predecessor, our right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), behaved honourably and correctly, as he made clear to the International Development Select Committee the other day?

[Justine Greening]

Yes, and I will start by reiterating the points I made to the Select Committee. I believe that my predecessor went through an extremely robust process and took a robust decision on Rwanda, and I fully support his actions. Of course, I will have to go through a similar process and reach my own conclusions about the next tranche.

On those who have led the horrific violence on the ground, which has included sexual violence against women and getting children to sign up to armies against their will, we should absolutely leave no stone unturned in bringing them to justice

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State referred to a conversation with the Rwandan Foreign Minister. Did that conversation include discussion of the implications for services on the ground—my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) mentioned this—particularly in relation to health care? Rwanda has made considerable progress, but does the right hon. Lady agree that that is being undermined by the current situation?

[Justine Greening]

The Foreign Secretary’s discussions were clearly aimed at discussing what could be done to alleviate and resolve the situation on the ground. The hon. Lady is right that by working with the Rwandan Government many donors have made combined efforts that have substantially reduced poverty in Rwanda. It is worth bearing in mind, however, that 5 million people are still living in extreme poverty, which is precisely why we would like that progress to continue. However, the Government have a memorandum of understanding with the Rwandan Government that includes partnership principles, which we will focus on greatly when we make our next decision on whether to disburse further budget support in December.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

I echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham).

As the Secretary of State may be aware, I have been travelling to Rwanda for seven years, working on primary education projects. International development is about reducing poverty, not playing politics with the poor. Does she agree that with the support of the Department for International Development—under the last Government and our Government—we have made huge strides in reducing poverty in that tragic country?

[Justine Greening]

I believe that the Government have worked extremely closely and successfully with the Rwandan Government, as did the last Government, and obviously it is of concern when there are issues that put that progress under threat. We would like it to continue. I am clear, however, that the partnership principles set out in the memorandum of understanding with Rwanda are important, and it is those that we will consider when we decide whether to disburse further budget support in December.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

When the Secretary of State looks at the issue of aid to Rwanda and Uganda, will she also reflect for a moment that the fundamental cause of instability, misery and poverty in the eastern DRC is the greed of mineral companies and many others for the natural resources of the region? Will she look carefully, therefore, at the role that any British-based mining companies have played in promoting militias, supporting inappropriate development or extracting large untaxed profits from the region?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman touches on an important issue. The Government have been clear that progress on the extractive industries transparency initiative is very important to ensuring that, critically, when countries with clear mineral or natural resources want them exploited for the benefit of that country, that happens, and that they are supported in getting the most out of the revenue stream that those minerals can help unlock. There are several causes of the particular situation in eastern DRC, but I can assure him more broadly that the Government take seriously the issue about extractive industries and are seeking to make more progress on it, along with our international partners.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Nothing enrages my constituents more than the prospect of Britain’s international aid falling into the hands of corrupt officials, because my constituents want the money that we provide to go to the poorest people who need the help the most. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that her Department has a sufficiently robust early-warning system, so that she is advised of any potential corruption in any of Britain’s aid programmes?

[Justine Greening]

I am going through that process right now, so that I can assure myself of that, but it is worth pointing out that in the case of Uganda we suspended donations and aid to the office of the Prime Minister when fraud and corruption issues were seen by other donors, not in relation to our budget, so we have always taken a precautionary approach wherever we can.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I raised the issue of reinstating aid to Rwanda with the Prime Minister on 17 October at Prime Minister’s questions, because of the Rwandan Government’s support for the M23 rebels, who are murdering, maiming and raping in eastern Congo. The Prime Minister said he had spoken personally to President Kagame about it, but it obviously did not make much difference. Why is the Secretary of State not acting now to ensure that we are in no way supporting the Rwandan Government, who are supporting the M23 rebels?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman is making some statements of fact; the reality is that we have a leaked report from the UN group of experts which makes some assertions about what may be happening on the ground. That is going through the UN sanctions committee. Bearing in mind the implications that the report may have on the aid programme in Rwanda, the right thing for us to do is to wait for the UN sanctions committee and, indeed, the UN Security Council to go through that full process and not jump the gun.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), I also went on Project Umubano—twice—and learnt a lot about the genocide. Given that the world allowed the genocide to take place in Rwanda, does my right hon. Friend agree that the world, and especially the United Kingdom, has a responsibility to help Rwanda recover from it? The question is not about cutting aid to Rwanda, but about targeting it carefully.

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right, but at the end of the day we need to be clear that many of the structures through which we can get change on the ground in Rwanda and alleviate poverty for the many millions who still suffer from it will ultimately also be part the Government systems there, which is why many donors have worked so closely with the Rwandan Government to pursue their development programmes. However, clearly he is right, given the history of Rwanda, and the work of the last Government, along with the work that this Government have undertaken with the Rwandan Government, has clearly been successful. It has been one of the most successful aid programmes we have had. Nevertheless, we will look carefully at the outcome of the UN process on the deeply concerning issues involving the M23 and eastern DRC.

[Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s predecessor, in giving evidence to the Select Committee on International Development, was asked whether he believed that the Rwandan Government had ever given practical support to the M23. He said he could not say, putting him at odds with the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who have called for an end to practical support. Where does this Secretary of State stand—with her Prime Minister and Foreign and Commonwealth Office or with her predecessor?

[Justine Greening]

I have to say that I will make my own decisions about what I think is happening on the ground when I take my decision about the future aid programme to Rwanda in December. I can assure the hon. Lady that I will look at what is happening then, not at what has been happening in the past.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the context of when this country ceased giving aid to the Ugandan Prime Minister’s office in relation to some of the other donor nations that were providing aid?

[Justine Greening]

We took steps to stop our money going to the office of the Prime Minister before we had any evidence of a problem per se, particularly in relation to our own money. Other donors took steps once it became clear that there had been fraud and corruption with their money, so I like to think that we acted pre-emptively. The forensic audit that is currently under way will give us the information we need to understand what has happened with UK taxpayers’ money and what steps we may be able to take should any money prove not to have been disbursed in the way we wanted.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

When I was in Kinshasa in September, I made it clear to the high commission that more than 30 Members of Parliament whom I had met there had independently raised this issue as a serious concern that was disrupting their programme of government. Because of the amount of money we have invested in the Congo basin forest fund and other work that the Secretary of State’s Department is doing to great effect in the region, giving aid in Rwanda that undermines the capacity of the aid in those programmes to deliver is a serious problem.

[Justine Greening]

I have a huge amount of respect for the hon. Gentleman’s work in the area of international development, but we cannot escape the fact that much of the work that has been done alongside the Rwandan Government has been extremely successful in lifting people out of poverty. That is why I need to ensure that all the proper processes are gone through, and that I look at all the separate facts and evidence bases when I reach my decision in December. I can assure him that I will approach that exercise incredibly thoughtfully, and I will make an announcement to the House once I have reached a conclusion.

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

Will the Secretary of State not forget, in the midst of all the politicking, that the militia in the eastern Congo have an horrific record of sexual violence? Can she assure me that, while trying to square the circle that the Opposition are creating about all the money being spent in Rwanda and Uganda, the steps being taken will be monitored for gender-based violence in the Kivus? What measures are in place to trigger early intervention to protect the local communities wherever possible?

[Justine Greening]

DFID Uganda is very aware of the humanitarian issues that are arising as a result of the violence that has restarted in the Kivus in recent days. Alongside other partners, we will play our role in ensuring that we provide all the support that we can to the victims of sexual violence. We have focused on playing our role in that way in countries such as Syria as well, and we will certainly want to do that in the DRC as appropriate.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Further to the question posed by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), will the Secretary of State tell us more about the action that is being taken to put the leadership of M23 where they deserve to be: facing charges at the International Criminal Court in relation to the conscription of child soldiers and other war crimes?

[Justine Greening]

That is something that our Government have raised at the United Nations. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the group of experts’ report contains a number of aspects relating to M23, and those are being considered by the UN Sanctions Committee right now. Once the committee has completed that process, I am sure that it will give its assessment of whose involvement has led to these crises, and of the implications for the action that needs to be taken. We have raised this matter at the UN and we are determined that people should be brought to book, when appropriate, and have international law brought against them.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

There has been an international arrest warrant against the leader of the M23 since 2006. What steps have been taken over the past six years to bring that horrific person to justice?

[Justine Greening]

I have no doubt that there have been significant efforts, and I can write to my hon. Friend with further details. The areas in which those people are being tracked down are often hundreds of thousands of square miles across. The lack of success in tracking them down has clearly had profound consequences in relation to the M23 being able to cause this kind of havoc, chaos and violence.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

The M23 rebels, who the United Nations experts say are being directly supported by named individuals in the Rwandan Government, are attacking Goma as we speak. Far from our Government “jumping the gun”, as the Secretary of State unfortunately said a moment ago, is it not the case that people are dying as a result of their providing finance to the Rwandan Government? What will it take for her to make the decision to stop that aid, given that it might be used to support those M23 rebels?

[Justine Greening]

I have set out very clearly, both today and to the International Development Committee, the measured and thoughtful approach we will take in respect of any future disbursements of budget support to the Rwandan Government. The hon. Gentleman is commenting on a leaked report, which may or may not be the final report that the UN sanctions committee publishes. I think we should wait for that, and in the meantime I can assure him that our Government are playing their role in working diplomatically to encourage all those involved in the violence to bring it to an end.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State was at pains to say that the M23 had not taken the city of Goma, but local reports overnight suggest that a large refugee camp to the east of the city, which is a home for 30,000 people, was being evacuated urgently with people streaming to the west. This is a very serious and large-scale humanitarian crisis. Will the right hon. Lady urgently review what can be done to minimise the suffering of innocent people in and around the city of Goma?

[Justine Greening]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we in DFID are looking at what we can do to play our role in any humanitarian support that needs to be provided for those people.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State and to colleagues.

Points of Order

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

16:06

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week’s elections for police and crime commissioners had two remarkable characteristics that should concern the House. On the one hand, they had the lowest participation in any national election ever, and on the other hand, they had the highest number of rejected, spoilt ballot papers ever, when 120,000 people who thought themselves disfranchised wrote powerful, vigorous and emphatic messages on their ballot papers. Should not those messages be sampled and reported to this House?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that neither turnout nor the number of spoiled ballot papers is in any way a matter for the Chair. It does not constitute a matter of order, and I would not want the hon. Gentleman, who is an extremely dextrous and experienced parliamentarian, to get those who are about to become new Members into bad habits at an excessively early stage. He has made his own point in his own way and will find ways to persevere with this matter if he so wishes.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members should calm down. It is impossible for me not to see the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), but because he is so enthusiastic, he will have to curb his enthusiasm. I call Mr David Winnick.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you will know, there is considerable concern about the violence inflicted on Gaza by Israeli forces and about the civilian casualties. In the last few days, we have seen pictures of young children who have burned to death. It is therefore important for this House to debate the issue as quickly as possible. Will you confirm, Mr Speaker, that the Foreign Secretary will make a statement on Tuesday on this very urgent humanitarian issue?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am happy to confirm that I have been advised that the Foreign Secretary will indeed make a statement on these matters tomorrow. Ordinarily, hon. and right hon. Members might have hoped for a statement today, but it would be fair to say that, as some will know and others might not, the Foreign Secretary is in Brussels today, discussing these very matters. At the first opportunity tomorrow, the House will expect to hear from the right hon. Gentleman, and I feel sure that the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) will be in his customary place.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was trying to curb my enthusiasm to make sure that Ministers of the Crown come to this House to make statements that they should make to us rather than either leaking them to the press or launching them without the House’s participation. Only last week, when the House was not sitting, the Secretary of State for Education launched his Department’s review—a major review of the Department for Education, including proposals for a savage cut of up to 1,000 jobs and the closure of regional offices. This is a major restructuring of the Department for Education, so this report should have been launched by the Secretary of State to this House. It is disrespectful to us and to the education community to do it in any other way.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. My understanding was that the Government had announced a review rather than a specific policy. However, my expectation that Ministers make key policy announcements first to the House is both well known and unchanged. If the hon. Gentleman, who on the strength of his 33 years’ uninterrupted service knows these conventions, is dissatisfied with the Secretary of State, I have a keen sense that he will display his keenness to pursue this matter for days and days and days.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the Secretary of State for International Development said a few moments ago that she had made a statement—or the Department had issued a statement—on the decision to stop aid to India. I believe that that is not the case, and it is possible that it needs to be corrected.

[Mr Speaker]

I think I am right in saying that there was a written ministerial statement on the matter. I do not think that any erroneous statement has been made, but the hon. Gentleman, who is a former Minister himself, will know that Ministers are always responsible for the statements that they make to the House.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s point of order is on an entirely unrelated matter, and I believe it to be so.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Indeed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a Member of Parliament in this place, I sometimes get tired of the endless sniping and backbiting, and being surrounded by rats and snakes and even cockroaches, so I have given up viewing “I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here!”. However, I have now received a letter from a constituent of another hon. Member, which begins:

“May I apologise for writing to you rather than my own constituency MP, but living in Mid Bedfordshire I do not seem to have an MP at the moment.”

What advice can you offer, Mr. Speaker? Or perhaps the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) has left a forwarding address in the jungle with you.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. My advice to him is that he should begin by contacting Members representing constituencies neighbouring Mid Bedfordshire to ascertain whether any of them feels able to provide assistance.

If there are no further points of order, will Members wishing to take their seats please come to the Table?

New Members

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

The following Member made and subscribed the Affirmation required by law:

Andrew Sawford, for Corby.

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath required by law:

Stephen John Doughty, for Cardiff South and Penarth.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

16:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am delighted to bring the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill from the other place to this House. Its purpose is to establish a groceries code adjudicator. The adjudicator will oversee the large supermarkets’ compliance with the groceries supply code of practice and will have the power to impose sanctions against retailers that do not treat their suppliers lawfully and fairly as required by the code.

I have been encouraged by the Bill’s passage through the other place. All parties showed a real common purpose and commitment to improve market conditions. We are pleased to have accepted amendments that have made the Bill stronger, in particular on allowing a fairer allocation of the levy so supermarkets that behave badly will pay more. We have also accepted changes to ensure that financial penalties can be brought in more swiftly.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Swinson]

I will, as I am aware that I am now addressing one of the main topics of debate.

[Mr Sheerman]

The Minister will be aware that many constituents have written to their Members of Parliament about the size of the fines imposed on supermarkets that do not co-operate, and how quickly they can be levied. Did she get the general impression from the debate in the other place that this is a weak instrument with which to take on some of the most well-organised, monopolistic organisations in the country?

[Jo Swinson]

I do not agree with that characterisation. I think the adjudicator will be able to make a real difference. We have put a range of tools at its disposal, which, particularly given the importance that supermarkets attach to their brand reputation, I believe will have a real effect. I will discuss this issue in more detail later, but it is worth bearing in mind that the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee looked at this and recognised that the arguments are finely balanced. I acknowledge that Members will, perhaps, come at the issue from different sides of the argument, but I am confident that the Government’s position is the right one. I intend to give a brief overview of the Bill and the role of the adjudicator, and I will then set out in detail why we believe financial penalties should initially be a reserve power.

The Bill is important on two counts. It promotes growth and a competitive food and groceries sector, and it helps to ensure a fair deal for suppliers. In the current economic climate, it is more essential than ever that our groceries sector is allowed to grow and thrive. Therefore, Government, suppliers and retailers need to work together to ensure that the marketplace between supermarkets and suppliers is fair, open and competitive.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

I greatly welcome this Bill and I hope it makes good progress through the House. The Minister emphasises that it will help suppliers, but it is important to get across the fact that it will also help consumers by ensuring that a range of suppliers stays in the market and that there is variety and good security of supply.

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are introducing the adjudicator because of the benefits it will bring in dealing with potential issues of consumer detriment, as identified in the Competition Commission report.

I believe that our large supermarkets can be a very good thing for consumers, for employment and for our economy. In the vast majority of cases, they treat their suppliers lawfully and fairly. Unfortunately, as the House will be aware, the Competition Commission’s 2008 report on the supply of groceries showed that in some cases large supermarkets were transferring excessive risks and costs to their suppliers. That included practices such as the retrospective varying of supply agreements to force suppliers to take on unexpected extra costs, which is why the Groceries (Supply Chain Practices) Market Investigation Order 2009 came into force in 2010. The order contains the groceries supply code of practice and requires the 10 largest retailers with an annual turnover of over £1 billion to incorporate the code in all their supply agreements. The code sets out a general principle that retailers must treat their suppliers lawfully and fairly and also contains more specific requirements on how retailers should deal with their suppliers.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Sometimes these commercial operators try to crowd out competitors using pretty dodgy means. When they are caught, they try to cover it up, which is why it is very important that schedule 2 is strengthened. The adjudicator may well ask for information from commercial operators, but I fear that the powers in the measure are nowhere near strong enough to be able to force operators to provide that information. They are not as strong, for instance, as the civil provisions under Norwich Pharmacal arrangements.

[Jo Swinson]

If information is not provided to the groceries code adjudicator, that will constitute an offence, which is a strong power for the adjudicator. We can discuss the details in Committee, but we do have the power that is required in the Bill and its schedules.

[Chris Bryant]

But one problem is that big corporations quite deliberately hide things from adjudicators. Unless an adjudicator knows precisely what to ask for, corporations may end up not handing it over, which is why it is vital that a full disclosure requirement, if necessary, is available to the adjudicator. Will the Minister consider that?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman is making a distinct bid to be on the Bill Committee, and the usual channels will have taken note. I am sure he would like nothing more than to consider this measure and the schedules in intricate detail. I believe that the power available to the adjudicator is sufficient, and we will make sure that the right individual is in that position with a good understanding of the markets with which they are dealing. That person is therefore unlikely to have the wool pulled over their eyes, and will know the right questions to ask.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Jo Swinson]

I should like to make a little progress, but I will then give way to hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), in particular, has a strong track record on this issue.

To make it clear to the House, the code can be privately enforced by suppliers as a matter of contract, but the Competition Commission considered that that the code would also require public enforcement by an ombudsman or adjudicator. The Government agree that businesses on both sides need to be confident that breaches of the code will be fairly investigated and that, if necessary, appropriate enforcement action can be taken against a retailer who breaches the code.

Suppliers must be able to come forward without fear of retribution from supermarkets, and retailers need to be confident that they will be treated fairly in any resulting investigation by the adjudicator as a public authority. The Bill will establish an independent groceries code adjudicator as a statutory office holder to help to ensure that retailers comply with the code, and accordingly treat their suppliers lawfully and fairly.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Jo Swinson]

I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, who has worked on this issue for many years.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I very much welcome the measure, and I am content that it has the investigatory powers to address the issue raised a moment ago. Nevertheless, the code has been in place since 4 February 2010, so the question inevitably arises of whether the adjudicator has the power to take evidence on the period between 4 February 2010 and the establishment of that post.

[Jo Swinson]

The adjudicator will be in place and, as has been outlined, the code is already legally binding. The adjudicator can look at the evidence submitted, and will undertake more investigations. It is up to them to gather evidence on the basis of suggestions that things are not working as they should, and require supermarkets to comply with their legal responsibility.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Jo Swinson]

I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman).

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Those of us who are concerned about fair trade for farmers greatly welcome the Bill. It attempts to correct an imbalance in the marketplace, but it is surely not the only way in which we need to do that, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree. In particular, is it not just as important to strengthen farmers’ hands through a greater export market and through more research and development so that they can punch at an equal weight with supermarkets?

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend makes a couple of important points and I know that he is an assiduous campaigner on behalf of farmers in his constituency. He will be delighted that our hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who is responsible for farming, will sum up the debate tonight. He will be able to outline some of the actions the Government are taking to ensure that farmers are empowered.

The other point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, which is important, is that we must be clear about expectations. The groceries code adjudicator will, I think, be widely welcomed by the various parties in this House, but is not in itself a panacea. It is being introduced for a specific purpose on which there is much agreement, but there are obviously many issues that it does not cover and that will need to be addressed through other means. The Government are committed to taking those actions.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I strongly welcome the measure and commend my hon. Friend and those on the Government Front Bench. I encourage them to get the Bill through this House as quickly as possible, because it will be a huge relief to many farmers in my constituency, particularly in the dairy sector. As someone who used to work for the National Farmers Union, I know how long many of us have campaigned for this measure. However, as the measure is in fact a schedule relating to an order under the Enterprise Act 2002 rather than a statute, will she assure us that the code is mandatory and will be entirely legally enforceable by the adjudicator?

[Jo Swinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his support for the Bill. The code is already legally enforceable by suppliers should they take legal action, but yes, it will also be legally enforceable by the adjudicator, who will make recommendations to supermarkets, which will recognise that they have a legal duty to comply with the code as it is. If the adjudicator thinks that they are not complying with the code, I suspect that that will be taken as a clear sign that they need to change their behaviour.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Jo Swinson]

I will certainly give way to the Chair of the Business, Skills and Innovation Committee.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the hon. Lady; I recognise that she has given way several times already. I delayed my intervention to see whether she would give the answer I was looking for in response to somebody else.

One of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills was that evidence be allowable from trade associations and other third parties. In the other place, the Minister gave that specific assurance and we welcomed that as a Committee. However, I cannot find anything in the Bill that spells it out. All I can find is clause 15(10), which gives the Secretary of State the right to insert after clause 4 proposed new section 4A, which under subsection (2) will enable the adjudicator to consider any appropriate information. Is that the legal base that underlines the right of the adjudicator to take evidence from a third party? If so, can the adjudicator do that before the two-yearly review specified as the basis for the Secretary of State’s introduction of it?

[Jo Swinson]

I will happily confirm the reference in that clause:

“When carrying out an investigation the Adjudicator may consider any information that it seems appropriate to consider and is not limited to considering the information mentioned in subsection (1)”—

subsection (1), of course, lists a range of places from which information could be provided. The point of that phrasing is to ensure that the adjudicator has flexibility in considering information from whatever source. That includes, but is not limited to, information from trade associations, as the Chair of the Select Committee mentions, from a whistleblower, or others who might have concerns or evidence of malpractice about compliance with the code. We do have—

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Jo Swinson]

I am still responding to the earlier question, but if the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience I will come to his intervention shortly.

On the other point raised by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), there will obviously be a regular review of the adjudicator. That is appropriate in ensuring that it functions as it should and that any necessary changes can be made, but we will not prevent the adjudicator from properly considering information before the initial review is produced. I want to make a little progress and then I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer).

The adjudicator will be funded by a levy from the 10 largest retailers and will have the power to investigate breaches and to impose sanctions against supermarkets found to have breached the code. Some Members have previously criticised the Bill as being anti-business. What is anti-business about ensuring that the grocery market works as well as it can, without being distorted by anti-competitive and unfair practices?

[Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

On that point—

[Jo Swinson]

I will make a little progress, and then I will give way.

The direct or indirect suppliers who are among the potential beneficiaries of the Bill include fresh food intermediaries and food and drink manufacturers. That is why the Bill is supported by major business groups, including the Food and Drink Federation, the British Brands Group, the Association of Convenience Stores and the National Farmers Union. A fair market is one in which suppliers and supermarkets are free to innovate, expand and offer the widest possible choice to the consumer without fear of being disadvantaged by unfair dealings elsewhere.

[Mr Spencer]

The Minister refers to blacklisting, when suppliers will be disadvantaged by coming forward. Can she reassure the House about how she will achieve that when, for example, the number of suppliers in the east midlands for a specific vegetable will be limited, and it will be quite easy to identify which one is supplying that product to a particular supermarket?

[Jo Swinson]

Clause 18 provides that there is a duty on the adjudicator to protect confidentiality. That goes beyond not allowing publication of the name of the individual or supplier making the complaint. As my hon. Friend rightly says, there are circumstances where an investigation could, in effect, give away who had made the complaint. In that circumstance it would be possible for the adjudicator to undertake a slightly wider investigation in terms of geographic scope or the types of vegetable being investigated, so that it would not be possible to identify which individual or supplier had come forward and made a complaint.

[Peter Luff]

This welcome legislation, like that which introduced the Gangmasters Licensing Authority some years ago, proves that effective and targeted regulation can help consumers and all those who work in supplying the food industry, but I am sure the Cabinet Office will have thought about deregulatory measures as well, as a quid pro quo for this regulatory measure. In that spirit, will the Minister tell us what progress is being made on the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, which would also help consumers and those who supply the industry?

[Jo Swinson]

Consultation is taking place on that measure. My hon. Friend the Minister of State who is summing up the debate as the Minister with responsibility for farming will, I am sure, be able to enlighten the House further on that point.

What will the adjudicator do? The adjudicator’s role is to investigate large retailers and hold them to account if they have broken the groceries code. He or she will also be able to act as an arbitrator to resolve private disputes between suppliers and large supermarkets, as the groceries supply order envisages. Aside from these main roles, the adjudicator will have a number of other functions. These are to publish guidance on when and how investigations will proceed and how enforcement powers will be used, to advise large retailers and suppliers on the groceries code, to recommend changes to the groceries code to the Office of Fair Trading, to arbitrate individual disputes between large retailers and the direct suppliers, as mentioned, or to appoint another person to do so, and to report annually on his or her work, which will be laid before Parliament.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Minister knows that the adjudicator cannot do any of those things until they have published the guidance under clause 12. The adjudicator can take up to six months before publishing the guidance. Have the Government any intention of bringing that date forward so that the adjudicator can get down to this important business as soon as possible?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman expresses an understandable desire to make sure that the role of adjudicator can be up and running as soon as possible. We all share that desire. I am sure, however, that he would not want the publication of the guidance to be rushed. Although I would be happy if the adjudicator, once in place, decides that the full six months is not needed and the guidance can be published earlier, it would not be wise to force a faster timetable if that was not felt to be possible.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

My hon. Friend mentioned recommendations on possible changes that the adjudicator could make to the code’s remit. Will she say a little more about the extent of those changes because, as she will be aware, many primary producers across the country are really anxious?

[Jo Swinson]

It is not envisaged that such changes would necessarily be wide-ranging, because the role of adjudicator is based on the original Competition Commission reports and the findings of detriment to consumers resulting from excessive risks and costs being passed on to suppliers. If there are related issues that the groceries code adjudicator feels warrant a slight change to the code, he or she can make that recommendation, but that is the remit for what such changes would be. I hope that is helpful to my hon. Friend.

To add to a point raised earlier, there will be no restrictions on who can complain to the adjudicator, and the complainant’s identity will be kept in strict confidence. That means the adjudicator can receive information from any source, including direct and indirect suppliers, famers, whistleblowers within large retailers, and trade associations representing their members. That change was very much welcomed in the other place because it is important, and there is a genuine concern about a climate of fear among some suppliers. The change that has been made deals with that concern.

If the adjudicator, as a result of the evidence they have been provided with, has reasonable grounds to suspect that the code has been breached, they will be able to start an investigation and gather more information from relevant retailers and others. If the investigation finds that a retailer has broken the code, the adjudicator will have tough sanctions, for example the so-called “name and shame” powers to require retailers to publish information about a breach in the trade or national press. We think that those sanctions are powerful enough to uphold the code. However, if that proves not to be the case, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to grant the adjudicator a power to impose financial penalties as well.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as chair of the trustees of the Traidcraft Foundation, which represents producers from developing countries, who welcome and are very much in favour of this measure. I do not understand why fines will not be available from the start. There is quite a wide sense that, if the measure is to be effective, fines should be available from the start, not at some undetermined future date.

[Jo Swinson]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, which organisations such as Traidcraft have put forward forcefully. Of course, in my duties as Minister I have met Traidcraft and other organisations to discuss the matter, but I am not persuaded that it is necessary to have the fining powers from the start, and I will outline why. I think that the sanctions that are in place and that will be available immediately are robust and will be sufficient to achieve the change we require. The adjudicator will be able to take one or more of three possible measures, two of them from the beginning: first, to make recommendations; secondly, to require large retailers to publish information, the “name and shame” power; and thirdly, if we do not think that the other remedies are working sufficiently well, to impose financial penalties.

That range of measures will mean that the adjudicator can tailor his or her action to the nature of the breach in order to enforce the groceries code most effectively. For example, in the case of a minor or unintentional breach, the adjudicator might decide that a recommendation to change behaviour might be sufficient to bring the retailer back into compliance. In the event of a severe breach that had caused serious harm to suppliers, the retailer could also be required to publish details of its breach prominently in the trade or national press. If it is deemed necessary, they could then incur financial penalties, if the Secretary of State has granted that power to the adjudicator. It is also important to remember that the Bill allows the adjudicator to take more than one measure if that is appropriate in a particular case.

[Andrew George]

Although I appreciate that the adjudicator will have the power to recover their investigatory costs, fining is very much the issue for debate, as the Minister has already identified. If either the adjudicator or the Secretary of State recommends that a fine should be applied, how many months would it take to implement such powers?

[Jo Swinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. If the Secretary of State decides that an order needs to be made to allow financial penalties, it is important to know that that would grant the power generally, not on a case-by-case basis, and, as a result of the amendment accepted in the other place, we believe that that could be done within six months. It would be fairly rapid if it was determined that things were not working.

I know as a result of interventions and, indeed, correspondence with the Department that some stakeholders and Members feel that financial penalties should be available immediately. What I would say is that the supermarkets operate in a fiercely competitive marketplace, so major supermarkets are, rightly, very careful about their reputations. As an illustration, in 2010 the four biggest supermarkets—Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons—spent £385 million on advertising, which is an indication of the importance that they attach to their brands and what they have to invest to promote them. They are fiercely protective of them and I think that they are likely to take very seriously the impact on their reputation of having to publish their breaches or take out an advert in the trade or national press.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that the Competition Commission inquiry back in 2008 found that more than a decade of adverse media reports on supermarket supply chains had done little to prevent them from engaging in unethical practices? The media are already reporting the abuses, so I do not see how naming and shaming would make much difference.

[Jo Swinson]

It is important to bear in mind that this will be an independent adjudicator who will conduct an investigation that will consider all the evidence before coming to a conclusion about specific supermarkets and what they have or have not done. General concerns about the supermarket supply chain have not left consumers in quite the same position of being able to take action, unless, for example, they decide to stop shopping at supermarkets altogether. The Bill is likely to drive change. Consumers have been involved in a variety of movements whereby their concerns about certain issues have driven change in the behaviour of suppliers. Indeed, that was the case with milk prices this summer. Drawing on my personal experience, before I was a Minister I took complaints about misleading advertisements to the Advertising Standards Authority, so I know very well the power of a negative finding, the publicity that goes with it and how companies take it seriously and are very keen to avoid such an occurrence.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Does the Minister not realise that the code makes absolutely no reference to the need to address the supply chains of the major supermarkets in order to prevent modern-day slavery, such as that in the Noble/Freedom Food eggs case? I have written to her about the need to incorporate into this Bill the principle in my private Member’s Bill, the Transparency in UK Company Supply Chains (Eradication of Slavery) Bill. Nothing in this code addresses supply chains, but surely one of the ways to get a level playing field is to prevent major supermarkets from exploiting labour brought into the country as a result of human trafficking to undercut the competition.

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman raises serious issues, not least that of legality and human trafficking. If there is evidence of law-breaking, it should be taken to the appropriate authorities so that it can be followed up. I appreciate his concern, but the adjudicator’s role and the groceries code have been developed in response to the Competition Commission report of 2008. Notwithstanding the serious issues that he raises, the way to proceed is to focus tightly on the report, which provides the clear basis for addressing the problem and consumer detriment that we are trying to solve. Although I have explained to the House that the code is not a panacea that will solve every possible problem, it does mean that we can continue with a strong degree of consensus and cross-party support.

[Peter Luff]

I reassure the hon. Lady that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority is doing a first-rate job at addressing the concerns of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). If he has evidence of such abuse, he should take it to the authority urgently and it will be addressed effectively and well. That is a tribute to the previous Government’s action on this important question.

[Jo Swinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. He makes his point forcefully.

I believe that the threat to supermarkets of recommendations and requirements to publish details will be enough to drive cultural change. Hon. Members should note that imposing a financial penalty would confer a full merits right of appeal, which would potentially be costly and time-intensive for all parties. It is important that the adjudicator is able to focus on investigations, rather than being distracted by appeals. I am sure that all constituency Members recognise that where there are appeals procedures, such as in planning, they tend to be used. We do not want the groceries code adjudicator to be tied up in appeal after appeal, but want them to be able to get on with their investigations. That is why we think that it is helpful to proceed with the range of sanctions in the Bill.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

I welcome the Bill’s focus on the role of the adjudicator in enforcing the groceries code. If the adjudicator, in carrying out that work, came across evidence of serious criminal offences, for example in the field of competition or human trafficking, it would surely be up to them to refer that evidence to the appropriate authorities.

[Jo Swinson]

Absolutely. Morally, it is incumbent on anyone who comes across evidence of appalling crimes, such as human trafficking, to ensure that it is presented to the appropriate authorities so that they can take action.

Even without fines, there are financial consequences for retailers who breach the code. There may be internal costs of complying with an investigation, such as the cost of sending senior executives to give evidence to the adjudicator. The adjudicator will have the ability to make a retailer who has breached the code pay the costs of the investigation. It is also our intention that the retailers who cause the adjudicator the most trouble should pay a greater share of the levy. Taken together, those factors will reward good behaviour and discourage non-compliance.

[Mr Spencer]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Swinson]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will make a little progress, because he has already intervened.

It benefits no one to reach straight for fines before we have exhausted the other options. We seek to impose a proportionate and effective solution. A move straight to fines would risk creating an unnecessarily adversarial environment, which would ultimately detract from our key objective of achieving long-lasting change in the culture of retailers.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Swinson]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, although I am aware that other Members wish to speak.

[Nia Griffith]

Under what circumstances would the Secretary of State consider bringing in the power to raise fines?

[Jo Swinson]

I hope that the hon. Lady will understand that I am not going to give an exhaustive list. If the groceries code adjudicator felt that the remedies were not sufficient and were not being adhered to and if there were repeated breaches or if the recommendations made by the adjudicator were not being followed up on, those things would weigh heavily in the balance.

There has been a lot of lobbying on this issue, not least from hon. Members. As I am discovering, ministerial life brings with it a variety of interesting experiences, one of which happened last month, when I accepted a petition from a giant dog.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Was it an actual dog?

[Jo Swinson]

It was a man in a dog suit, rather than an actual dog. The event was organised by Traidcraft, ActionAid and War on Want to highlight their message that they want the groceries code adjudicator to be a watchdog with teeth. To further press the point, they left me with my own watchdog, which has brightened up by ministerial office. I assure the House that I have declared the gift appropriately. I appreciate that the decision not to have immediate fines will be disappointing to some supplier and campaign groups, but the dog remains on my office shelf as a reminder that, should we find that stronger sanctions are needed, the Secretary of State will be able to bring in fines quickly. I assure the House that we will have no hesitation in doing so if they are needed.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Swinson]

I am coming to a conclusion, so I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand it if I do not give way.

I greatly value the role that campaigners up and down the country have played to ensure that pressure was kept up to deliver a groceries code adjudicator. I particularly acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives and the Grocery Market Action Group and that of many Members of all parties in championing the issue.

We ultimately want the same thing: for the adjudicator to be as effective as possible. The Bill helps deliver a grocery sector in which suppliers and retailers can deal fairly and openly with one another to provide real benefits for consumers, business and the UK economy. I commend it to the House.

16:50

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I did not realise that we could bring toys to the Dispatch Box. If I had known, I might have brought my bear, Frosty, which I have had since I was a child, for everyone to see. Perhaps we can do that next time, or maybe a Scalextric for the Table would be exciting.

I pay tribute to those in the other place who have diligently gone through the Bill and sent it here. It is a significant measure, but it has been a long time coming. Labour Members can rightly claim some ownership of it. As Lord Grantchester said, the Bill

“has Labour’s fingerprints all over it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 May 2012; Vol. 737, c. 728.]

In government, we gained cross-party support for a supermarket ombudsman to ensure a fair deal for farmers and food producers from the major retailers, and to monitor and enforce the code of practice in the form of the groceries code. We were therefore pleased that the Bill was included in the coalition agreement in the heady days of May 2010.

However, the Government have dragged their feet on creating the adjudicator, and on the powers to help food suppliers. As the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said,

“we look as though we don’t understand the urgency of this matter. Every week the Government fails to act, farmers are finding themselves in more difficulty.”

[Andrew George]

Of course, I also used those words when Labour was in power because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Competition Commission reported in April 2008, and for two years there were excuses and consultations, and a variety of reasons were given for the Government’s inability to go ahead at the time, despite the excellent private Member’s Bill that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who is in his place, introduced.

[Ian Murray]

I am delighted with that intervention because we introduced the code, on which the adjudicator will now adjudicate. We are two and half years into the coalition Government, and the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said when he was a shadow environment Minister at an Oxford farming conference just before the 2010 election that,

“Conservatives are clear: we will introduce an ombudsman to curb abuses of power which undermine our farmers and act against the long-term interests of consumers”.

However, we are on the cusp of 2013, and the Bill has just been introduced.

[Andrew George]

I do not want the debate to degenerate into a party political spat, but to put the record straight, the Competition Commission had the power to introduce the code, and it, not the Labour Government, introduced it.

[Ian Murray]

The code is there for everyone to see, and was introduced before the general election. The next paragraph in my speech pays tribute to the hon. Member for St Ives for all his work. If I had my pen handy, I might cross that out, but I would not be so churlish. I therefore pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Grocery Market Action Group. He has harnessed the support of organisations such as the Rural Shops Alliance, the Association of Convenience Stores, the National Farmers Union, the Farmers Union of Wales, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the British Independent Fruit Growers Association, the British Brands Group, Traidcraft, ActionAid UK, Banana Link and many others in pushing the agenda from the early days of the Competition Commission inquiry, which he mentioned, in 2006 through to the establishment of the new groceries supply code of practice. He deserves great credit for continuing the fight, and I hope that he will support the Opposition in wanting to create a robust adjudicator.

I also take the opportunity to put on record thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who is in his place and has long championed the establishment of an adjudicator. It is now more than two years since his private Member’s Bill—the Grocery Market Ombudsman Bill. In the debate on Second Reading of that measure, he made it clear that the concept of a grocery ombudsman or adjudicator was not about being pro or anti any particular interest group, but about fairness, and the Opposition echo that sentiment. Nevertheless we are here now and, in a sense of cross-party support, we wish the Bill a swift passage on to the statute book. It is important, however, to get the legislation right, and although the Opposition are generally pleased with the current Bill, we will seek to strengthen it so that the adjudicator has the powers it needs to be effective from day one.

As the House will be aware, competition authorities have held two major inquiries into the grocery market. The first, by the Office of Fair Trading in 2000, led to the creation of the code of practice to regulate the relationship between the largest supermarkets and their suppliers. In 2006, the Office of Fair Trading referred the market to the Competition Commission, which completed a second inquiry in 2008. At the time, the commission said that,

“the transfer of excessive risk and unexpected costs by grocery retailers to their suppliers through various supply chain practices if unchecked will have an adverse effect on investment and innovation in the supply chain, and ultimately on consumers.”

It recommended a strengthened and revised code of practice to be enforced by an independent ombudsman—an unambiguous case for an adjudicator. As a result, in February 2010 the Labour Government brought in the groceries supply code of practice—GSCOP—to replace the supermarket code of practice, with the intention of putting the adjudicator on a firm statutory basis.

I am sure Members across the House will appreciate the work of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, which is brilliantly chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) who I see is in his place. He did a diligent job on the Bill during pre-legislative scrutiny—I should perhaps declare an interest as I was on that Committee at the time and have probably just patted myself on the back a little.

In its report, the Committee raised two concerns about the way the adjudicator’s office would operate. First, it was anticipated that the office would be able to launch investigations based only on evidence supplied by retailer or suppliers. The Committee argued that third parties such as trade associations or whistleblowers should be able to submit complaints about retailers. I am pleased that the Government made changes in that respect prior to Second Reading in the other place. They are to be commended on that alteration which the Opposition consider key to ensuring that individuals have the confidence to come forward with complaints under the cover of an industry group to protect anonymity and secrecy.

Secondly, the draft Bill allowed the adjudicator to impose fines on retailers that had breached the code, but only if the Secretary of State made provision for that by order. The Committee rightly argued that the adjudicator should be allowed to impose fines from day one—I shall return shortly to that crucial point.

There is little doubt that this legislation is necessary, and it is important to emphasise that supermarkets and retailers support the adjudicator in principle. One such retailer wrote to me privately earlier this week and stated:

“The groceries code adjudicator will encourage fair and robust regulation of supplier-retailer relationships.”

That speaks volumes.

We will scrutinise the Bill to ensure that it delivers on three key tests—that it promotes innovation and investment in the supply chain; ensures a fair deal for farmers and producers; and delivers better outcomes for consumers in terms of prices, quality and service.

[Michael Connarty]

As my hon. Friend will have heard in my earlier intervention, having read through the code it seems there is absolutely nothing in it to protect the labour factor in the supply chain. Will my hon. Friend take on board the need to raise that issue in Committee and table amendments so that people who use gangmasters cannot hide behind them if those gangmasters then use crooks, as recently happened in the Noble/Freedom Food eggs case, which I believe is now going to court?

[Ian Murray]

I know that my hon. Friend has worked on the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, and we will take that debate forward to Committee. The Gangmasters Licensing Authority has been downgraded under this Government—indeed, the Beecroft review recommended that it be scrapped. We must be vigilant and ensure that the great work done by that authority in saving lives and stopping exploitation continues, and we can debate that in Committee. If I look towards the Whips, perhaps my hon. Friend will join us on that Committee to make those points—his name is being jotted down as we speak.

I was talking about the huge impact and value that supermarkets bring to our economy. The groceries market was worth nearly £157 billion in 2011, and it provides significant choice and good value for customers, which is vital. A number of supermarkets in my constituency do a tremendous job through investment in our high streets, job creation, and supporting community projects, and I am grateful to them for that positive role. I also place on record my thanks to Sainsbury’s at Cameron Toll in my constituency for its continued support for my schools Christmas card competition. Likewise, farmers and small suppliers play a critical part in achieving economic growth. It is an incredibly difficult time to be a farmer or small supplier in the UK—there have been increases in feed prices, not to mention the difficulties that many small and medium-sized enterprises have experienced in accessing finance. We should set retailer abuses against that backdrop.

We should acknowledge that retailers have done much to clean up their supply chains, but we know that abuses by retailers against suppliers still occur, and that evidence supports the need for a groceries code adjudicator more than ever. FoodDrinkEurope, the European federation, surveyed businesses from around Europe anonymously. It asked whether businesses had been confronted by various situations, and the survey gives us a picture of the situation in the UK. Seventy-seven per cent. of businesses said they had experienced non-respective contractual terms; 75% said they had experienced de-listing threats to obtain unjustified advantages; and 60% said they had experienced unilateral deductions to invoices. Only a very small number of the businesses interviewed—3%—said that they had done something other than discuss the situation with their customers. When asked why, more than half said they did not believe in the effectiveness of the remedies by public or legal authorities, and 44% said they were afraid of commercial sanctions. In one case of which I am aware, the supplier—a salad grower based in Yorkshire—said:

“The retailer has reneged on a commitment to cover the costs of packaging should they terminate dealings with me at short notice—despite this being confirmed”

on numerous occasions in e-mails.

[Ian Paisley]

Given those statistics, does the hon. Gentleman believe that food producers will feel emboldened to come forward and make their complaints if no financial penalty is front and centre in the Bill?

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need proper sanctions—we need to take the carrot-and-stick approach. Without proper fines in the Bill, the adjudicator could, as the Minister said, be a toothless dog or tiger. I will come to that shortly.

There are times when a market needs intervention to make competition work well, particularly if players in that market become too powerful. Roughly 3.6 million people are employed in food production in this country, and making competition in that market function more fairly through the introduction of the adjudicator is ultimately good for growth and for those jobs. It will undoubtedly also be good for consumers in the long term. Because the choice of products is supported, small suppliers and products will not be driven from the market by anti-competitive practices, which hon. Members have mentioned. The choice of retailers will also be supported, because small retailers will not be driven from the market by the disparity in buying terms, which can be exacerbated by anti-competitive practices. Suppliers will be better able to plan their businesses, yielding efficiencies. Critically, they will be able to invest in innovation, new products and product quality. Finally, more competition will hopefully bring down prices.

The benefits of a strong adjudicator are clear, but fundamentally the Opposition’s major concern is that the adjudicator will be toothless. The adjudicator must have teeth to tackle the breaches of which all hon. Members are aware.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

The only contention between the Government and Opposition is whether fines should be available at the beginning or whether they should be introduced at the behest of the Secretary of State. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to supermarkets, which are massive businesses, reputation and name are the most important things of all? Naming and shaming and reputational damage will therefore probably have more force in pressurising them. If that fails, even in the medium term, new primary legislation would not be necessary, because we could introduce fines.

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman brings a great deal of experience of the sector to the House. I am not convinced that the public will be surprised if a major retailer engages in a particular practice and is named and shamed in a national newspaper or trade magazine. If the adjudicator does their job properly, we would hope there would be no one to name and shame. It will help the system to operate properly if we can use the stick and say that retailers could be hit with financial penalties. If they can be hit with such penalties, naming and shaming become almost irrelevant.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Certainly, when I have spoken with supermarket chief executives I have challenged them. They sometimes take out full-page newspaper adverts to highlight fair trade for third-world growers. Does he agree that we want to get to the stage where supermarkets are highlighting the fair trade they are doing with British suppliers?

[Ian Murray]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes a critical point, but the point is the full plethora of sanctions in the Bill. All we are talking about is what is in the Bill; we are not saying that fines could not exist in the short to medium term at the behest of the Secretary of State, but if he thinks that fines might be required in the future, why not just put them in the Bill?

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

Just so we know the terms of debate, will the hon. Gentleman outline how big a fine he thinks would be appropriate to deter inappropriate behaviour on the part of, say, Mr Tesco?

[Ian Murray]

That should be in the hands of the adjudicator. We are asking the adjudicator to do a job to assess whether someone has breached the code. The adjudicator should therefore be given the power to determine the sanction. If the sanction is to seek recommendations, then that is the sanction. If the sanction is to name and shame, then that is the sanction. If the sanction is a fine, we should leave that in the hands of the adjudicator to determine. That could be a debating point in Committee. The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position, but the argument is whether financial penalties should be in the Bill. If they are, the Secretary of State could then propose that fines be within certain parameters, or up to the adjudicator, or a proportion or a multiple of the loss achieved by a particular supplier. There are a plethora of ways for an adjudicator to determine a financial penalty. [Interruption.] The Minister says, “I don’t know,” but the Government have not told us what they would propose. Yes, we do not know how much the fine should be. That would be up to the adjudicator, within parameters applied in respect of the Secretary of State, to determine how much a fine should be, and that should be in the Bill.

[Mr Spencer]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those charged with the responsibility for spreading the message of the naming and shaming will be the same publications taking the advertising revenue? I wonder how much enthusiasm to naming and shaming there will be from those publications, when that might put their own advertising revenue in jeopardy.

[Ian Murray]

That is a wonderful point, and I think we now have our second candidate for the Committee—or given that helpful comment, perhaps not. The hon. Gentleman is right: there is a conflict of interest. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) mentioned the large full-page adverts that supermarkets produce relating to fair trade. Indeed, if it is about advertising revenues, there will be a conflict of interest, and I hope that the adjudicator would take that into account. If fines were included in the Bill, an adjudicator could balance up what would be the best punishment for a particular crime and deal with it in that way. By hamstringing the adjudicator from day one on fines, we are merely pushing down some of those routes by which questions would have to be answered.

Let me run through some of the issues relating to the adjudicator potentially being toothless, which is why we are calling for fines to be available to the adjudicator from day one. We are not the only people who are calling for that. In January 2009, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath)—the current Minister with responsibility for agriculture and food, who has been chuntering on about fines for the past few minutes—said, when he was an Opposition spokesperson all those many months ago, that there must be “an ombudsman with teeth” to ensure that farmers get a fair deal. I wonder whether he and his colleagues will support our amendments in Committee to give the adjudicator such powers, because they did not support them in the other place. He is not the only one. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said last year:

“I agree with my hon. Friend and other Members that the adjudicator must have real teeth so that they can take action to stop abuses.”—[Official Report, 5 April 2011; Vol. 526, c. 240WH.]

Just this weekend, a host of stakeholders wrote an open letter to The Sunday Telegraph. It is worth my quoting from it, because it touches on the crucial part of the Bill:

“Sir, Having got the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill this far, the government will be scoring an own goal if it denies the supermarket watchdog the one tool that will make it effective: the power to levy fines from the outset. The evidence of supermarkets’ unfair treatment of suppliers—which includes farmers both here and in developing countries—is all too clear. Watering down the bill so that penalties only go as far as ‘naming and shaming’ will not be a sufficient deterrent and the Adjudicator risks failing in its job to hold supermarkets to account.”

That letter was signed by ActionAid UK, the National Farmers Union, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the National Federation of Women’s Institutes, Traidcraft, the Tenant Farmers Association, the Country Land and Business Association, the Independent Fruit Growers Association, the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, Friends of the Earth, War on Want, RedOrange and Great Glemham Farms. Clearly, then, there is a great movement to provide for fines in the Bill, and I cannot understand why the Government have not listened to the letter.

We are in danger of creating this toothless tiger—I have “tiger”, but it could be a dog, I suppose. Let us imagine an old-fashioned circus act. Where is the fear in a circus clown putting his head into a tiger’s mouth, only to have his neck viced by the tiger’s gums? There is no way we can put fear into the hearts of the supermarkets with an adjudicator that does not have the power to fine. Providing for fines in the Bill does not mean that fines should be imposed on retailers randomly—I hope there would never have been sufficiently serious breaches to require the invoking of the power—but allowing the adjudicator to have the power easily to hand might influence the retailers’ actions and go some way in preventing serious breeches of the code.

Clause 9 gives the adjudicator the power to fine retailers, subject to permission from the Secretary of State. Even if the adjudicator decided that the power to fine was necessary, several considerable hurdles would have to be jumped. First, the adjudicator, who would be best placed to decide whether fines were appropriate, would have to publish guidance in deciding the amount of financial penalty—a point that goes back to the Minister’s intervention. Secondly, once that had been given to the Secretary of State, he would have to consult stakeholders on the guidance. Finally, a statutory instrument would have to be presented to Parliament and passed by affirmative resolution. This hugely drawn-out process will do nothing to instil much-needed confidence in farmers and small businesses that might have been severely affected by a breach of the code by a retailer that the adjudicator thinks merits a fine.

We must trust the adjudicator to issue remedies fairly. By not providing in the Bill for the power to fine, the Government are in danger of scoring an own gaol, as said in The Sunday Telegraph letter from ActionAid. Indeed—if I may continue with the footballing analogy—a red card could be issued. It would be available to the adjudicator in the case of a penalty, but it would not be in its breast pocket, where it could be issued fast and effectively against the offender if necessary. Essentially, we are saying in the Bill that if the referee wants to issue a red card, he will have to ask the Football Association, after which the FA will consult on its use and then pass a new law to allow it to be used. I much suspect that the match would have finished many months before the decision is made.

The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have also said that the power to fine should be provided for in the Bill. Furthermore, in a recent joint statement, the Grocery Market Action Group, ably chaired by the hon. Member for St Ives and made up of 23 organisations from across the farming, international development, environmental and small business lobbies, called on the Government to give the adjudicator the power to levy fines. I ask the Minister, again, why she is not listening to the entire industry when it comes to fines.

I turn to the intermediaries. At the bottom of all this lies the nagging doubt that many of the alleged abuses will not be resolved even by the presence of a perfectly functioning adjudicator, because the problem is in the code itself, not its implementation. Central to this idea is the code’s limited scope—this point has been raised by voices across the sector—as much of the bad practice occurs at the level of intermediaries not covered by the code and therefore the adjudicator. For example, let us imagine that a supermarket has a ready meal supplier, but decides it wants fewer carrots in the ready meal and goes through the proper GSCOP processes to remove carrots. The supermarket can do that legitimately under the code, and that is only right. However, the ready meal supplier will buy those carrots from a carrot supplier, and could therefore dismiss one of its suppliers of carrots or change the terms of the contract without any recall to the groceries code. In that example, nothing would have gone wrong according to the groceries code, so we could see suppliers further down the chain being harmed quite considerably by the decision of an intermediary.

Equally, that binary view of the market seems inappropriate when the supplier is a huge manufacturer of branded goods, such as Unilever, Kraft, Nestlé or Coca-Cola, whose turnover may exceed that of even the retailer. We are protecting the relationship rather than the carrot producer further down the chain. The adjudicator will be required to recommend changes to the code to the Office of Fair Trading, yet the British Retail Consortium claims that the OFT has taken no action to offer feedback on the annual reports that its members have already submitted under GSCOP on their implementation of the code or even to publish them.

Many farmers and growers are currently not covered by the code, as they do not directly supply the 10 largest retailers. Nevertheless, they are often the ultimate victims of unfair behaviour and the transfer of risks and costs. We hope that ensuring that retailers comply with the code will resolve those issues. If, despite the adjudicator’s best efforts, those problems persist, primary producers will continue to struggle to make a fair return for their enterprises and consumers will continue to suffer from the subsequent lack of investment. That is why it is critical that the adjudicator should have the power in the Bill to keep the code live, to enable such issues to be dealt with if the adjudicator deems that to be necessary. May I ask the Minister what consideration she has given to those concerns and whether she will come back to us in Committee with an assessment of the issues affecting intermediaries?

Finally—

[Daniel Kawczynski]

The hon. Gentleman, who appears to be moving towards the end of his speech, mentioned carrots. The British carrot industry is actually doing quite well, but I very much hope that he has spent some time thinking about how the adjudicator will help our British dairy industry, which is on its knees, with many farmers going out of business every month. In the last Parliament I set up the all-party group on dairy farmers in order to fight for them. Our main report suggested that we should have a grocery adjudicator Bill. Will he spend a few moments talking about our dairy farmers?

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman raises a critical point, because naming and shaming did not work for the dairy farmers. What worked were blockades and sanctions in getting their points across to the Government. I will perhaps highlight the dairy industry and how the groceries code adjudicator should be able to help, but he makes a critical point about how the Bill could be seen as toothless, because the dairy industry had to blockade and withhold its services to get any action on how the supply chain worked. It neatly follows that the debate needs to be on where the code sits in the legislative framework.

[Glyn Davies]

It concerns me that the hon. Gentleman has just said that the improvement in the dairy farmers’ returns was based on just direct action. There was a serious debate in this House and a serious debate in central London, and the normal processes of politics had a great influence. It is not just direct action and blockading properties that are needed to have an influence on businesses.

[Ian Murray]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. The point I am making—I think his hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham was making it too—is merely that we can draw a parallel between the code in the Bill and how it could work in the example I gave involving carrots in a ready meal, and what happened with the dairy industry. We are merely drawing parallels. I am not denying the actualities of what the hon. Gentleman has said; I am saying that having an adjudicator without teeth—one without the power to deal with the issue—could lead to exactly the same examples with many other industries.

To finish, my noble Friend Lord Knight—I pay tribute to the work he did on the Bill in the other place—speaking on behalf of the Opposition on Second Reading in the Lords, said:

“It is fundamentally odd that while Parliament is entitled to debate and scrutinise the function and powers of the referee, we are denied the opportunity to give the same scrutiny to the rulebook itself.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 June 2012; Vol. 738, c. GC80.]

I appreciate that the Minister said that the code has a footing, in that the adjudicator can use it to compel supermarkets and retailers to comply, but there is a question whether it should be put on a statutory footing in this House to allow that to occur, rather than be dealt with through executive order.

The code must be a living document that is open to continual improvement in order to ensure that the framework is responsive, and that it ultimately works in the best interests of all businesses as well as consumers. The National Farmers Union has raised concerns about the status and enforceability of the code, because it is contained in a schedule to an order under the Enterprise Act 2002, rather than in a statute of its own. We would consider going further, and we will explore the ways in which the code could be a matter for Parliament to consider on the basis of recommendations from the adjudicator, who is best placed to evaluate the code. The code needs to be capable of responding to changing market forces, and to be as durable as the adjudicator who will referee it.

I mentioned extending the scope of the code to intermediaries, and hon. Members have already raised the recent issues surrounding the dairy industry. Cuts to farm gate prices mean that dairy farmers are being paid less for milk than it costs them to produce it. That is not a sustainable model. We welcome the news that there is agreement on the terms of an industry code of practice that will lay the foundations of a new deal between farmers and retailers. For too long, dairy farmers have put up with wholly unbalanced terms and have been struggling to cope in an increasingly unworkable financial situation. It cannot be right that supermarkets use milk as a loss leader while farmers are being paid less for the milk than it costs them to produce it.

Ministers need either to ensure that the voluntary code on dairy contracts works for farmers, or to bring in regulation to fix the dysfunctional supply chain in that marketplace. I believe that the adjudicator could fit that role if necessary, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on whether their role could be extended into areas such as the dairy industry when problems arise. That would be part of keeping the code as a living document.

[Stephen Timms]

Traidcraft and others have raised a point relating to the confidentiality of those who report their concerns. The Minister referred to that matter in her speech. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Bill will provide enough protection for those reporting breaches of the code?

[Ian Murray]

We will have to explore that matter in detail in Committee, because there is confusion in the industry and among trade bodies. They are uncomfortable with the current requirements, and I hope that the adjudicator will offer recommendations on the level of evidence that will be required to set up an investigation. A balance will have to be struck involving anonymity and confidentiality. That could be difficult in the circumstances in which a product could be uniquely indentified as coming from a particular supplier, and care would have to be taken to ensure that that supplier’s identity was not disclosed in the course of the proceedings.

This is a good Bill, but it could be a great Bill. The situation was best summed up by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), who said in the House in April 2011:

“None of us wants a weak, ineffectual, pointless adjudicator which will cost everyone something but achieve nothing.”—[Official Report, 5 April 2011; Vol. 526, c. 236WH.]

The adjudicator could and should be strengthened through the various proposals that we have heard this afternoon, and we will seek to achieve that in Committee. I give the Minister a commitment today that the Opposition will work constructively with her. Similarly, I hope that she will be open to giving due consideration to the amendments that we will table in the weeks ahead. I also hope that Hon. Members on the Government Benches who recognise that the Bill does not quite fulfil its potential will look at our proposals in detail in Committee. We look forward to playing our part with the Government in establishing an effective adjudicator as soon as possible.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We will start with a time limit of 15 minutes on Back-Bench speeches, with the usual injury time for up to two interventions. Clearly, hon. Members do not have to take the full 15 minutes, however. There will be no penalties if they do not speak for that long. Stranger things have happened.

17:23

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

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). I should like to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), on starting this Second Reading debate so eloquently. I want to make some comments as the representative of growers and farmers in Thirsk, Malton and Filey, and I want to share with the House the evidence that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee has heard on these matters.

I welcome the Bill’s Second Reading. I have some common ground with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South on these issues, but probably more with my hon. Friend the Minister. I also have common ground and differences with the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), who chairs the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee.

We should perhaps pause for a moment to consider the marketplace in which some of the growers we hope will benefit from the Bill are operating. They tend to be very small producers of each vegetable or form of produce, and they are often small in number. There is absolutely no comparison with the size, volume and financial weight of supermarkets.

I welcome the fact that we have reached Second Reading and I welcome the useful amendments made in the other place, but there has been a long gestation period from the Competition Commission report of 2008. I would like to record the thanks of the DEFRA Committee to those who gave written evidence and, more specifically, oral evidence in the context of our brief inquiry. We shared our conclusions with the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. Some of the points we made have been adopted, but it is worth repeating them today.

We welcome the fact that an adjudicator is going to be established, and we believe that the adjudicator should have the power to accept complaints from indirect as well as direct suppliers. Will the Minister confirm that suppliers will have the ability to make anonymous complaints, which we believe will be fundamental to the success of the groceries code adjudicator?

In a limited market—in Lincolnshire, for example, and other parts of the country—where there are very few leek growers, if one of them wished to make a complaint against a particular supermarket, it would be too easy for the supermarket to identify that particular grower. It is therefore vital that the grower has the safety of knowing that an anonymous complaint can be made to the adjudicator—either directly or, as forcefully expressed by our Committee, through an indirect route via the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association or the Tenant Farmers Association. They are membership organisations that will represent the individual grower, who will then be able to make a case, safe from persecution and safe from the possibility of having the contract terminated at an early stage.

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Lady makes a vital point. If a potato processor or person producing potatoes in Northern Ireland were to make that sort of complaint, it would in effect be one of three people, so a middle way of getting the complaint through must be found.

[Miss McIntosh]

The hon. Gentleman reaffirms my point very eloquently. He would probably share my view—and I hope that Ministers and shadow Ministers will grasp it—that the security of tenure of some of these growers is absolutely shocking. That is in stark contrast to—albeit another woeful situation—what happens in the dairy industry. A cheese producer in my area contacted me to say that some of the milk supplies for cheese production—a liquid production that we are so good at in this country—are being threatened. The growers that I believe will benefit more directly and more specifically than dairy farmers and others sometimes have only three months’ security of tenure or certainty of contract—not even a year. I do not know—perhaps the Minister can help me—whether the Bill will address this disparity between producers of, for example, milk and potatoes, and others. With the groceries code adjudicator, will these producers and growers gain greater security of contract than the three months or less than a year that they have at present?

Let me explain what I believe to be the sticking point. I hope I heard the hon. Member for Edinburgh South correctly as I think he said he would favour the power to have proactive investigations. I believe that that is vital. I should declare my interest—I know that what I say here will not go further than this Chamber, but I also know that if someone wants to tell a secret, this is the best place in which to share it. I served for six months—in 1978, I am afraid to say—in what is now called DG Competition but was then the Directorate General for Competition, dealing with investigations of complaints brought directly to the European Commission. I understand that the Competition Commission is based on the same philosophy, as it were, as DG Competition.

I should like to know what good reason the Government could have for not introducing a power for the groceries code adjudicator to launch a proactive investigation. It could be based on evidence received by word of mouth, or on material in trade journals. Journalists working in the specialist press often hear things at conferences to which others are not privy.

[Jo Swinson]

Clause 4 makes it clear that the adjudicator can conduct an investigation

“if the Adjudicator has reasonable grounds to suspect that…the retailer has broken the Code”.

Obviously that could result from a specific complaint made by a supplier, but the adjudicator might become aware of the existence of reasonable grounds through, for instance, press articles or investigatory television programmes. Proactive investigations will indeed be possible as long as such grounds exist.

[Miss McIntosh]

That is most welcome, although obviously, under the new powers that Select Committees have, we shall analyse the Bill very carefully to establish whether it can be improved. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough also to confirm that anonymous complaints can be made, that indirect as well as direct complaints can be made and that third parties such as trade organisations will be able to make complaints, and will tell us whether the Bill contains provisions relating to the recovery of investigation costs.

We are anxious for the adjudicator to have the power to levy financial penalties without the need for an order by the Secretary of State. That has been mentioned a number of times already in interventions. Having waited since 2008, when the Competition Commission first reported, we would find it unacceptable for the adjudicator not to be fleet of foot and able to levy such penalties without the need for an order. I believe that the Bill allows that in some circumstances, but perhaps the Minister could give us a nod.

Clause 16 refers to the transfer of adjudicator functions to a public body, and states:

“The Secretary of State may by order abolish the Adjudicator”.

Even a cursory reading sets alarm bells ringing. Does that mean that within two or three years of the establishment of the adjudicator, his functions could be abandoned? Would they simply pass to another public body, or would the whole process grind to a halt? Some clarification would be helpful.

Obviously we were briefed by outside bodies before the debate. I should like the Minister who responds to the debate to comment on the views of the National Farmers Union, which is keen for the adjudicator to be able to impose fines as swiftly as possible without waiting for an order from the Secretary of State. Also, can the Minister say whether there will be an ongoing review of the effectiveness of the groceries code itself? There would be some merit in having an independent body look at the effectiveness of the code after some cases have been addressed by the adjudicator, and I am sure my Committee—or, indeed, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee—would stand ready to do so. Do the Government plan to follow that course of action?

The National Farmers Union has said it would welcome an assurance from the Government that compliance with the code will be mandatory for the retailers it covers. I ask the Minister to set out precisely which retailers it will cover. Will the Minister also state whether the code will be legally enforceable by the adjudicator?

We on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee are keen to ensure that the new adjudicator will adequately protect farmers and food producers from large retailers. We see this as a good opportunity to restore the balance between the mighty supermarkets and the considerably less powerful growers, who provide the food we eat. I hope we can continue to move towards self-sufficiency in their products.

There has been a climate of fear in the grocery supply chain for many years. We therefore welcome the provisions to allow the adjudicator to receive anonymous complaints —that has, I think, been confirmed. We wish the Bill safe passage today, but, in the light of opinions and evidence heard by us and the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, we reserve the right to continue to examine it closely as it progresses, with a view to improving it if we believe that is necessary.

17:36

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who, as ever, speaks with great authority and expertise in this area.

I welcome the Bill. The creation of the groceries code adjudicator is an important step, and it is vital that we get the best adjudicator possible. This issue is not about urban and rural communities; it is fundamentally about supporting producers who produce food in our rural areas. If we do not have that, there will be no locally grown food for markets in our country.

This Bill is about the creation of a level playing field for farmers, small retailers, supermarkets, and the hard-pressed consumer. I heard what the Minister—in consultation with the dog on her shelf—had to say about naming and shaming, and I understand some of the points she makes. However, she also suggested that under the groceries code adjudicator major retailers will probably end up paying different amounts of money proportionately and that she does not think that could incur the threat of legal action, so I find it difficult to understand why she has not considered the importance of fining. Let us have that power to fine now—not through order of the Secretary of State and following publication of guidance. We should listen to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, which recommends that the power to fine should be stated in the Bill and the adjudicator should be given the power to escalate penalties if code breaches continue. Surely that is sensible. It is not saying that every breach will result in a fine, but that the adjudicator should be able to use that power if he or she considers it necessary.

A lady from Llangollen in my constituency made the point very well. She said that she shopped at supermarkets but also bought fresh produce and meat locally at shops and markets, and that she was increasingly concerned about issues relating to the developing world. This is not about purism or being against supermarkets and the like; it is about being aware that if we do not support food production in this country, more and more food producers will go out of business, which will ultimately lead to a rise in the cost of food for the consumer. That will mean the end of much of our home-grown food industry, which is why the strongest possible action is essential.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), a pioneer who has championed this issue, because he knows how much it matters to the rural community in areas such as north Wales. Without family farms in north Wales we will see the end of rural communities. There would be a massive impact, too, on Welsh language and culture, which my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), many other Members and I care about, and which are vital in this debate.

We have to think about the needs of our producers and consumers and, more widely, of local economies. I urge the Government to reconsider the issue of fining. It does not mean that if we have the carrot we cannot have the stick, or the other way round. We urge the Government to consider what groups such as farming unions, the Labour party, Select Committees and many others have said. The role of the adjudicator matters far beyond one type of constituency, one party and one part of the country. If we are to have serious, long-term, sustainable food production, we have to get this matter right. I urge the Government to listen to those diverse processes and include the right to fine in the Bill.

17:41

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I welcome this Bill’s Second Reading. As Conservatives, we believe in free and fair markets, but we rigorously oppose the abuse of dominant market power, which is why the Bill is essential.

Before entering politics, I worked in the farming industry for 10 years. We were a major supplier of strawberries to a number of supermarkets, and I experienced first-hand some of the sharp practices that the Bill is designed to deal with. They ranged from forcing suppliers to use third party contractors, for things such as packaging and haulage, who would then charge suppliers more than the market rate. I experienced the retrospective clawing back of costs resulting from wastage on the shelf. Supermarkets would claw back not just what they paid, but the margin that they expected from a product. Growers were frequently forced to participate, often unwillingly, in supermarket promotions, and were expected to sell their produce for below the market rate.

I saw many instances of supermarkets rejecting stock when they had simply made an error in orders. That was a particular problem with the strawberry industry, because a supermarket buyer would place an order for a batch of strawberries, unaware that it would begin to pour with rain the following day. When it pours with rain, strawberry sales collapse and supermarkets are reluctant to take the orders that they have placed, so they do all that they can to find an excuse to reject batches of fruit that have been supplied to them.

I have been out of the industry for 10 years, and I thought that perhaps things had changed, but other practices have crept in. Only last year, I was talking to a supplier who explained that he was required to show his annual financial accounts to the supermarket as a condition of supply. Ostensibly, that is to check that the business is financially secure, but we all know that in reality it is to see what its profit margin is, and how much further supermarkets can drive it down into the ground without killing it altogether.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

The problem, as my hon. Friend sets out, is very serious—it is almost commercial bullying. Does he agree that that is why it is so important that the adjudicator can now receive referrals from third parties, such as trade associations and so on, to protect anonymity and stop future bullying?

[George Eustice]

I absolutely agree. One of the big improvements made to the Bill in the Lords was the extension of its scope so that that could happen—so that anonymous complaints could be made and so that whistleblowers and third party trade organisations could be involved in the process. The evidence we heard in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee made it very clear that many suppliers are incredibly fearful of the supermarkets they supply. They are conscious that it is easy for suppliers to be identified as there will sometimes be only a handful of them for a particular product line to a given supermarket. It is therefore very important that the Bill has that extra scope.

I also recently spoke to another supplier who told me about a problem that he had encountered with supermarkets putting him under huge pressure to fulfil the terms written into a contract and supply the volumes that he was no longer able to source due to bad weather or a crop failure. In negotiations, he was put under huge pressure by a supermarket to buy the product from abroad and sell it at a massive loss so that he could fulfil his contract. That is unacceptable behaviour. When prices change, supermarkets should also change their prices.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it also happens the other way? I have come across cases in which supermarkets have turned around and said that they do not want an order any more at very short notice. The supermarkets have the power to say to smaller suppliers, “Take it or leave it, because we can go elsewhere and you cannot.”

[George Eustice]

I absolutely agree, and that is why the Bill is so important. Over the past 20 years, there has been huge growth in the power of a handful of very powerful retailers who have huge market clout and have, frankly, abused their power. If we want proper market conditions back, in which people are paid a fair market price for their goods, the Bill and the groceries code adjudicator will be vital.

Let me move on to the issue of the financial penalties, which have featured heavily in the debate so far. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, has said, our Committee concluded that there was a case for making those fines available to the groceries code adjudicator from the start rather than waiting for it to become necessary for another order to be introduced by the Secretary of State.

The question of fines is important and I agree with the Minister that naming and shaming might be adequate for some minor breaches, but I take issue with the claim that naming and shaming might be a more powerful deterrent than a fine. The British Retail Consortium might say that we should name and shame, because that is more powerful than a fine, but that is a bit of a clue. When the retailers say that what really scares them is naming and shaming, even though they do not want fines, the Minister ought to be a little more suspicious than she has been.

It is important to have an escalating scale of penalties. Why remove an important tool from the box? It would be possible for the Government to craft guidance on when a fine would be appropriate and what size that fine should be. It could stress that fines should be used sparingly and that other sanctions, such as naming and shaming, should be the preferred route. I think it is wrong, however, to rule fines out at this stage because of the question of what should happen if there is one persistent offender out of the 10 supermarkets caught by the groceries code adjudicator. What if that one offender, however many times they are named and shamed, sticks up two fingers to the adjudicator and says, “We really don’t care.”? That is unfair on the remaining nine, who might be abiding by the code, and it risks making the whole initiative unstable.

The groceries code adjudicator is more likely to succeed if the power to fine is there from the beginning and more likely to fail if it is not. For the adjudicator to work, we need to ensure that its introduction will change the behaviour of the supermarkets. It is not just about having investigations all over the place—we need people to be fearful of a fine, so that they moderate their behaviour.

There is a real problem in the serious mismatch between what a Minister might be told by the public affairs officers who work for the supermarkets and what she would experience if she was a carrot grower supplying supermarkets and dealing with buyers daily. The truth is that public affairs officers for the supermarkets will often strike a paternalistic pose and say, “It is not in our interest to upset our suppliers. We want happy suppliers,” and they will have pictures in their supermarkets of happy farmers’ children working out in the fields. It all sounds great, but the buyers have very different incentives that focus on margins, profit and exercising control over their suppliers. The Minister said that the market for supermarkets was fiercely competitive, and she is right. That is why my fear is that when Parliament’s back is turned, the incentives that motivate the buyers will prevail because it is ultimately their profit margins that they will seek to protect.

The possibility of third party complaints has been raised and is an important power. The industry has a part to play in this. Although it says that we need anonymity and that it is important for complaints to be made without the complainant being identified, the industry has to play its part in helping the supermarket adjudicator identify bad practices. One of the proposals that I have made to the NFU, which keeps telling me that it is under consideration, though I have not heard that it has been taken up fully yet, is the idea of what I have termed a farm-fair index. That would be based on a panel of 500 farmers and suppliers across a range of sectors. Each quarter they would be given a questionnaire asking a series of questions that measured the adherence of each of the 10 supermarkets to the groceries code. There would be a league table of the 10 supermarkets and they would be scored according to which of them abided by the code the most and which departed from it the most. If a particular supermarket was at the bottom of that league table for two consecutive quarters, an automatic investigation by the groceries code adjudicator would be triggered. That would be a good way of ensuring that vexatious complaints were filtered out. A broad panel—the same 500 farmers and suppliers each quarter—who could score the adherence of the supermarkets to their own code would provide an important tool to help the adjudicator identify bad practice.

In conclusion, I welcome the Bill. It is a positive step forward and will improve relations between farmers and their supermarket customers, but I wish the Government would take another look at the issue of financial penalties.

17:52

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The production of food is our most important industry. Let us pause and think about that for one moment. The production of food is our most important industry, not just for what it earns for our economy and what it achieves, but because of what it says about us as a nation and what we are prepared to promote to our people to eat.

Consumers are becoming more and more aware of food traceability and of the importance of our nation’s ability to produce good quality, tasty, traceable food with as little intervention as possible of chemicals, and a clear process chain for the production of that food so that we understand food stability, food security, and what real agricultural sustainability is all about. The Bill before the House is so important because it is about understanding the mechanisms and the balances that make up our most important industry.

I do not fear to predict that the production of food over the next few years will become the most important topic in our nation during this century. I say that because of the threat posed by huge cartels and their interests to the production of good quality, tasty food. Handling and protecting our most important industry and doing all we can to ensure that we continue to produce the best quality, tasty, traceable food that our people have come to enjoy and expect should be a key priority not just for the Government, but for everyone in the House.

When I made my maiden speech, the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) spoke to me afterwards because I had focused on agriculture and the subject of creating a food ombudsman. I was delighted to learn from the hon. Gentleman about the pioneering work that he had tried to do under the previous Government, and it is a huge tribute to him that we have got so far that the House is on the verge of legislating on something so critical to our food security and our food interests. I congratulate him.

I say all this in the knowledge that if we introduce a food ombudsman or a supermarkets adjudicator, there will be certain consequences. One is that we as a nation must educate our people that food can no longer be regarded as a cheap commodity. If we want good quality, traceable, digestible, beneficial food produced in a sustainable way that continues to employ people on a living wage, that will not be done cheaply. We must therefore ensure that the food chain is transparent and that people understand why a certain price must be paid.

Those who would undermine that by marketeering cheap food to our people and bringing cheap food in vast quantities from overseas undermine our ability to produce quality food, ruin the industry and hasten the day when we will have limited choice as a nation and be forced to pay the highest of high prices for food. That is why we must protect the primary and key producers of food in our nation.

The Bill is a good Bill but, as the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) said, some improvements could be made to make it a brilliant Bill, and we should strive to do that. The Bill is not intended, for example, to deal with commercial issues such as the producer price differential which exists between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. That is particularly important for me in Northern Ireland because of two things. The first is water —17 miles of it between my island and your island, which adds to the price of food and food production, and the demands put on a primary producer in my country when he wishes to supply one of the 10 great supermarkets here on the mainland. The second is climate and the fact that it is considerably colder where I come from, which has a detrimental effect. I see that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) seems to think that it is colder where he comes from. Well, he can keep that cold, as far as I am concerned.

We could improve the Bill if we address those issues through the powers of the adjudicator. We should also deal with some of the practices of processors and other intermediaries in the processing of food. That is another critical area left out of the Bill, but it is an area that we should at least try to address. The inability to impose fines at the outset is another flaw that needs to be addressed. I was brought up in a political school which said, “If you want to deter someone, let that person know that if they get into a fight with you, you’re going to kick them where it hurts. That usually deters a person from having a fight with you, but if that person is so unfortunate that they still want to have a fight with you, then kick them where it hurts and they probably won’t fight with you again.” That just happens to be the school of political brawl I was brought up in. It usually works, and with some effect.

The president of the Ulster Farmers Union, Mr Harry Sinclair, wrote to all Northern Ireland MPs at the weekend, stating that

“we firmly believe that the ‘teeth’ necessary to secure compliance needs to be much stronger”

and that fining should therefore be set out in the Bill. I believe that the Government should listen to those words and deter the supermarkets.

I agree with a huge amount of what the Minister said, especially when she said that the supermarkets like to spend a lot of money on advertising. I was once told that 50% of all money spent on advertising works and 50% is completely wasted. The problem for the supermarkets is that they do not know which 50% is which, so they would spend less if they knew what advertising actually works. I believe that some of the supermarkets would not necessarily wear the publicity they got as a badge of shame, but they might feel honoured to wear it. We really need to move away from the nonsensical idea that bad publicity in itself will be sufficient deterrent for the supermarkets, because it will not be enough. We must let the supermarkets know that if they price-fix, because they are a cartel, they will be kicked where it hurts, and that will have an effect.

We must also ensure that we bring about a new relationship that rebalances the primary producers’ impact on the market with that of the supermarkets. The only way to do that is by ensuring that we reward the farmer for the sweat and toil that he or she puts into the land to make the best quality, most traceable and tastiest food we can get. I believe that the only way we can do that is by establishing a new relationship, not one in which the farmer is king, but one in which he is at least treated equally and feels that his sweat will be rewarded with a fair price. He should be able to encourage his children to aspire to be farmers, rather than having to tell them, “Go somewhere else, because there is no reward in this and you won’t be able to make a living, raise a family or spend money on the things you want.”

Therefore, we must establish a new relationship that at least treats farmers as equals and allows them to be regarded as such. Otherwise, over the next 20 years our agricultural sector will continue to be dashed and to fall and we will find ourselves held in the grip of outside interests beyond the shores of this nation that will sell us what they want, which will not necessarily be good, clean, traceable or tasty, and they will sell it at their price. Therefore, we have to get this right and get it right now, because, as I said at the beginning of my comments, it is our most important industry. It is about what we tell our people they should eat and what is good for them.

Although the adjudicator is an important part of the process of getting to that stage, I believe that it is only one part of a cocktail of necessary measures. We must have price transparency—having the adjudicator is, of course, one way of providing price transparency—so that the consumer knows why they have paid a certain amount for steak, poultry, pork or other products, what it has cost the farmer to produce, what it has cost the processor to process and make good for them and what it has cost the supermarket to retail. They must know each cost along the supply chain, because otherwise they are being robbed of a vital thing: knowledge about what they are being shown they should eat.

We should also have clear food labelling and ensure that we know whether a product has been made in the United Kingdom or was brought in from elsewhere. In many instances there is nothing wrong with food brought in from elsewhere, but we should at least have clear labelling so that we know where it is from. We should also ensure not only that we encourage our products to be sold here in the United Kingdom, through good procurement policies in our schools and hospitals, but that it is marketed abroad. All these issues can ensure that those involved in the most important industry in our land are encouraged to continue to produce the best, cleanest, tastiest and most traceable food possible.

18:05

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

This is an eagerly awaited moment, and it is a very welcome one for Members from all parties. I suppose I should declare an interest, as some of my relations will benefit from this proposal. Certainly, many of friends will benefit, and most importantly, so will many of my constituents. The shadow Minister was perhaps a little unkind when he criticised the Government for a lack of progress, because progress has been pretty swift and there is a momentum behind the process, as has been recognised and is respected by all those who will, in due course, be on the receiving end of its impact, be that negative or positive.

I want to take a few moments to make two points. First, on the plus side, there has been some discussion of the confidentiality element, whose importance I do not think should be understated. It has concerned many people across different parts of the supply chain, but particularly in farming, where there is some nervousness, not necessarily about the content of the contract, but about its length, as was touched on in the most important contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice).

Confidentiality is very important, particularly in agriculture, where there is a large debate about long-term investment. There is real concern, particularly in the dairy industry, about entering into investment arrangements that will take, in some cases, 20, 30 or 40 years to reap the necessary rewards. Any degree of confidentiality that can be guaranteed for those producers will in turn secure a better contractual relationship with the retailers and enable them to invest properly in agriculture, which we constantly refer to in this House.

Secondly, I want to touch on the argument that has been made, albeit fairly weakly so far, about whether the proposal constitutes yet more regulation that our agricultural industry will have to put up with. Regulation is frequently misquoted in this House, particularly regulation relating to farming. No farmer I know is opposed to regulation; what farmers are opposed to is unnecessary regulation, poor regulation or regulation that fails to achieve its original objectives. I suggest that the proposal is a form of regulation that does exactly what it says on the tin. It is desired by the agricultural community and so provided that it migrates into law broadly in the manner currently proposed, it should give great reassurance. Therefore, I do not think that we should dwell too long alongside those who dismiss it simply as some kind of intrusive regulation, because it is not. It will make the business of farming and making a living in the countryside all the more secure.

Reference has also been made to the contrast between naming and shaming as a means of deterrent and fining. I must say that I think I am in step with everyone other than the Government when it comes to the view that naming and shaming alone will not be sufficient. If it was, why have I received only one piece of correspondence from any of the 10 supermarkets that might be affected? Waitrose is the only company that has bothered to write to me at all about today’s debate. I do not detect that those in the higher echelons of the so-called big 10 are quaking in their boots. The idea that naming and shaming a supermarket on some website or trade magazine will deter purchasers from going into their stores is, frankly, an exaggeration. If the proposal could provide the adjudicator, rather than just the Secretary of State, with a power to fine more urgently, that would undoubtedly chime with the evidence and submissions that have been provided to us all from countless individuals and organisations.

I hope that the Government will not fall into the trap —I am sure they will not, because this is a good proposal —of believing that they have a monopoly of wisdom on this particular point. I cannot believe that all the trade organisations, individuals, farming businesses and other observers of the process who have written to us are wrong and the Government right. Perhaps I am missing the point. If there is a clever reason why we should not go down this route, will the Minister who responds to the debate explain it in their winding-up speech? It seems to have bypassed not only me, but everybody else with an interest in the issue.

I also hope that we will be careful in managing expectations, particularly those of the agricultural industry. The original idea was for a supermarket ombudsman and it looked like they would have all sorts of powers that the adjudicator will not have. Some thought that that would be a means by which price could be manipulated or guaranteed, so I hope that we can continue to make it clear that this is not a mechanism, nor should it be, that will guarantee a particular price for a product. The measure has been announced in various manifestos and, over time, that red herring has been allowed to stick.

I hope that the Minister will refer to smaller suppliers who might suffer at the hands of retailers that do not fall under the top 10, or big 10, category. Plenty of the producers who are watching our progress with great interest do not supply the big 10, but they might supply the next big 10, so they hope that the measures may rub off in that regard.

Finally—I said that my contribution would be brief—I hope that further attention will be given to the funding model. Rather than continuing with the current model, which is a one-size-fits-all, across-the-board flat fee, a model that more accurately reflects the scale of offences that might be committed by the retailers might be a fairer way of securing the confidence of not only the producer, but the customer. As we all know, the brand is probably the most vital part of the big 10 retailers’ business, but the bottom line is also important, so the question is: what comes first—the brand or the bottom line? This debate has been helpful, particularly, as I have said, the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth, which I hope the big 10 retailers will take a long, hard and close look at when Hansard is published tomorrow.

In summation, this is a great moment. It proves that some of the things that we write in our manifestos resonate with the wider public. The issue addressed by the Bill certainly does. It was mentioned in the run-up to the last election and I am delighted that we have got on with it as quickly as we have. Its basis seems to attract widespread support throughout the House and, more importantly, among retailers throughout the UK, particularly in Wales, where this activity is being scrutinised. I hope that we will be able to deliver a result that will please the constituents of that country.

18:13

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I first declare an interest. I am a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament for West Bromwich West, and the Co-operative party is financed by and linked to the co-operative retail movement, which is both a major retailer and a major farmer, so it is involved in both sides of the argument.

I pay tribute to the many Members who have worked on the issue over the years and brought it to this point. As Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, which played a significant role in making the recommendation that is being adopted today, I cannot but reflect on the irony that I, a Member who represents one of the most industrialised manufacturing constituencies in the country, have suggested proposals that are so significant to the farming and rural community. Perhaps that is a reflection of one of the strengths of our democracy.

I welcome the Bill. In paying tribute to those who have worked on the issue, I mention my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who promoted a private Member’s Bill, the Grocery Market Ombudsman Bill. It is also appropriate to mention the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), notwithstanding anything he might say in response to my comments. The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee was also kind enough to do some work and feed it into our deliberations. I have also read the debate held in the other place, and its Members explored the issues thoroughly.

A lot has been said about the delay. I do not want to get involved in a party political argument, but the previous Labour Government were castigated by members of the current Government for deeming it reasonable to see how the grocery code would work in practice before legislating. Last year, the BIS Committee was invited, as a matter of urgency, to undertake its pre-legislative scrutiny, which we completed by the recess, and the delay in implementation since then has caused some bodies to raise concerns about the Government’s commitment to the measure. I am satisfied that they are committed to it, but they still need to examine some flaws closely; otherwise, those concerns may continue to prevail in some sectors of the industry.

On the Bill’s proposals, I am pleased to say that the Government have accepted about 80% of the amendments suggested by the Committee as a result of its pre-legislative scrutiny. It would be churlish not to recognise the Government’s willingness to listen to arguments and to take our proposals on board. I think that both industries will be strengthened as a result of the Bill. It is important to recognise that we are talking about two of our most successful industries. Our retailing industry is phenomenally successful and a model to be copied the world over. Similarly, our farming is among the most highly productive anywhere in the world.

It is undoubtedly true, however, that there has been an imbalance of power, and examples of the abuse of that power have been to the detriment of the producers, particularly the farming industry. Unless addressed, that in itself will have implications for the ability of that industry to introduce new products and innovate. By addressing the issue and redressing the balance, we will strengthen the supply to our retailing industry in the long term, and that will be to the benefit of both industries.

Many hon. Members have already highlighted the main area of disagreement between the Committee and the Government, namely whether the Bill should include the power to fine. The Minister said that the Committee had acknowledged that the arguments for and against that power were fairly even, but what she did not say was that we came down on the side of advocating fines. Some of the arguments in favour of fines have already been made. I think the Government’s approach has been to assume that the publication of evidence that could damage a supermarket’s brand in a highly competitive market could mean that supermarkets risked losing trade and profitability.

It is difficult to work out what the precise implications of the publication of evidence of a breach of the groceries code would be. It might be published in a press release, in the retailer’s annual report or on the retailer’s website. However, I have the gut feeling that relatively few consumers, particularly in these hard-pressed times, will change their shopping habits as a result of a retailer breaching the groceries code. That just does not ring true.

[Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

In many constituencies, such as mine, which is predominantly rural, people only have a choice between two of the major supermarkets.

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I was going to come on to. An individual’s shopping habits are determined by all sorts of factors. I do not know what evidence there is, but I would guess that the perception of value for money at different retailers is an important criterion. Other factors are accessibility and personal habits and traditions. I do not see that the publication of an adverse report by the groceries code adjudicator about a particular retailer would affect many people’s shopping habits and, therefore, the bottom line of that retailer.

[Mr Spencer]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the opposite might be true, in that a supermarket whose brand is built around price point might gain kudos from squeezing its supply base so tight that it can deliver the lowest prices to the consumer?

[Mr Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I am sure that one could develop an argument along those lines. I hesitate to do so because I have an innate faith in good will and do not believe that a supermarket would be so unscrupulous as to do that. Perhaps he does not share my innate faith in the good will of supermarkets.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The best example of that is that when the Competition Commission found that a supermarket was reducing the price of bread to 7p, which was below cost price, that supermarket gained a boost in sales.

[Mr Bailey]

That is a form of advertising that could, in certain situations, benefit a retailer.

It is simplistic to believe that the possibility that the Secretary of State will implement fines will be a sufficient deterrent. Even if the Secretary of State feels that it is appropriate to levy fines, the process for arriving at that point is slow and cumbersome. Under schedule 3, before the Secretary of State can make such an order, he must consult six bodies, plus any other body that he feels it appropriate to consult. That is a time-consuming and possibly self-defeating process. It is a slow and ineffective way to implement the deterrent on the retailer, which could be exploited considerably.

I also find the Government’s approach rather strange in respect of the escalation of penalties. The adjudicator can take notice of the failure of a supermarket to respond to highlighted breaches of the code, but seems to have no enforcement powers to do anything about it. There is no express sanction for non-compliance with a recommendation, but it may be taken into account when further arbitration is carried out. That is hugely time-consuming and amounts to an invitation to ignore the adjudicator. I cannot help but reflect on the danger identified by Murray Worthy of War on Want:

“A watchdog that is all bark and no bite won’t be able to stop supermarkets bullying their suppliers.”

I will move on briefly to a couple of other issues. The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee reflected on intermediaries at some length. We said that third parties, such as trade associations, should be able to give evidence to initiate an inquiry. The Ministers seem to have accepted that point and my intervention earlier elicited the sort of response that I wanted. I emphasise that this issue is extremely important and that there should be no delay in the adjudicator being able to implement such provisions.

Lastly, I have a request. Given the importance of the adjudicator, I hope that the Government will allow the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee to hold a pre-appointment hearing with the proposed adjudicator. Given that the Select Committee was entrusted with the pre-legislative scrutiny and given the concerns that have been echoed in all parts of the House, I feel that it is important for the Select Committee to have the chance to question the adjudicator to ascertain whether we feel that they will apply the rigour and forensic examination that are needed to deliver what everybody in the House wants.

There is a huge groundswell of support from all parties for the Government to consider fines. Although I recognise that the Bill is very significant as it stands, I hope that the Government will listen to the voices from all parts of the House and table an amendment at a subsequent stage to ensure that there is a power to levy fines. That would make a good Bill into a very good Bill indeed.

18:27

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey). It was interesting that in his introduction he declared an interest as a Labour and Co-operative party Member. It has been my privilege over many years to chair the Grocery Market Action Group, which has been mentioned in this debate. Reflecting on the discussion about naming and shaming, I should perhaps name and fame the stores that indicated that they would support the measures proposed in the Competition Commission’s report of April 2008 when we wrote to the stores that would be affected. Marks and Spencer, Waitrose and Aldi were the three stores that indicated that they would support the measures, with some reasonable conditions. In spite of my efforts to talk to the Co-op, I was surprised that it was not prepared to sign up at that stage. However, the regulation has been in place since February 2010, and there are opportunities now for all those stores to reflect on that.

Like others, I want to commend many people who have been the architects of this extremely welcome measure. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) has already been mentioned—indeed, I mentioned him in an intervention. His private Member’s Bill did a great deal to pave the way for the measure. Former Members, too, made significant contributions. In 1998, Colin Breed, the former Member for South East Cornwall, made a valiant effort to put the matter on the agenda. He undertook an inquiry, which stimulated a further inquiry by the Competition Commission, entitled, “Checking out the Supermarkets”. He stimulated much activity, which is reaping the appropriate reward today on the Floor of the House. The former Member for Stroud, David Drew, was also a significant contributor to the debate, as was the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who is not in his place, but was present earlier. I have had many conversations with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who has been a strong supporter of the proposal for a long time. I also commend the Minister for an excellent exposition of the purpose of the measure, and the Government’s strong support for what is now Government primary legislation, even though its origins were a private Member’s Bill under a previous Government.

I do not need to repeat much of the background to what we hope will be legislation in perhaps weeks—certainly not many months. It is worth reflecting on the fact that, when I was originally involved, and certainly when the former Member for South East Cornwall engaged in the work, there was no party political support for regulation, even among Liberal Democrats, who subsequently adopted the proposal in their 2005 manifesto. In those days, the proposal that there should be any regulation was advanced only against all the odds. Even the National Farmers Union proposed a buyer’s charter and set its face against regulation, even though I and others had proposed it. It has therefore taken many years and a glacial pace to achieve progress. To be in the position whereby the proposal had all-party support at the last general election was remarkable. The larger parties clambered on board at the last minute, only months before the election. However, we had almost created a “who blinks first” scenario as we went into the general election, and all parties came on board and supported the proposal.

Significant commendation should be given to Peter Freeman, chairman of the Competition Commission, and the whole commission, for an excellent inquiry, which commenced in 2006 and concluded in 2008. It considered all the evidence that many of us had been encouraging the competition authorities to scrutinise for many years. It reached the telling conclusion that, in some cases, as the Minister said, the supermarkets were guilty of transferring excessive risk and unexpected costs to suppliers, with the consequent detrimental knock-on effect on not only suppliers and their capacity to continue trading, but consumers and, indeed, innovation in the retail sector.

I do not approach the matter from the position that supermarkets are wicked. Their activities are entirely rational. Had all of us been in the same position, and we had not maximised all our market muscle to advance the interests of our company, and we had therefore lost market share in a cut-and-thrust market, we would have failed in our duties. However, the question is, “When does effective, clever and successful use of power become abuse?” The Competition Commission rightly identified that we have long passed the point at which that use of power has become abuse, as the many examples that have been given today show.

The previous Government rightly supported changes to the common agricultural policy, which forced farming to become much more market facing. Price support policies were done away with, the protections that farming was so used to in this country were no longer in place, and the industry needed to live or die by the marketplace. However, how could farmers and growers succeed or survive in that climate? I appreciate that many growers, pig farmers and others struggled to survive long before those changes. Nevertheless, leaving that aside, how could farmers survive when, as Prime Minister Tony Blair said, the supermarkets had got them in an arm lock? One could argue that they had got them in an even more painful position at times. The supermarkets were able to control market conditions, which was a conclusion of the previous Competition Commission report.

What are we trying to achieve? It has always been my view that if supermarkets have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear from embracing the Bill. I have said to the supermarkets that, if they are clever, they should embrace the proposal and see it as something good. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) suggested that there should be a panel to review the supermarkets’ success in applying the code. My view is that, if the supermarkets are prepared to embrace and invest in the proposal, there would be a fair trade regulator, which could give a mark to each supermarket to show whether it was a fair trader and grade it accordingly. Supermarkets could then perceive the code as a promotional tool rather than a stick with which to beat them.

Fining has predominated today’s discussions and will doubtless do so in Committee. After all these years, I do not want to risk any further delay in implementing the proposal. I would not like any amendment to the Bill to cause such delay. Will the fear of reputational damage be sufficient to persuade supermarkets to apply the code effectively and not to engage in the sort of practices that got us into the current position? Of course, I am on the side of those who want fining on the face of the Bill, but I believe that reputational damage has an impact. I remember the days when genetically modified technology was introduced and available to the supermarkets. Non-governmental organisations undertook a lot of campaigning, which dissuaded the supermarkets from putting GM products on their shelves. If there were adverse reports, the campaigning bodies—if they were doing their job—would draw the attention of customers and the public to the failure of those supermarkets.

[Mr Spencer]

On that point, there cannot be a more passionately felt issue than animal welfare. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the British pork industry had much higher standards of animal welfare than its counterparts in Europe, but that that made no difference to whether consumers bought British or foreign pork?

[Andrew George]

There is evidence and evidence to counter it on all sides, and that takes us to a point that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made earlier. Providing that customers who are buying British are reassured that it genuinely is British and not some kind of subterfuge, the point about animal welfare is relevant. Customers understand that significantly higher animal welfare standards have been in place in the UK for many years, particularly in the pig industry, and that is one of those reassuring messages. I agree, however, that it does not always work, particularly when the message becomes confused.

When I intervened on the Minister, I said that there was likely to be a lot of evidence of contraventions of the code from the time it was first put in place on 4 February 2010. My concern is that the position of adjudicator will be such that they will operate for only one day a week from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and when they are fully operational, they will work three days a week with three or four members of staff. I also understand that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority already wants to present 1,000 pieces of evidence to the adjudicator, and I am concerned about whether sufficient resources will be in place to deal with all the work, cases and evidence that may be brought forward.

[Jo Swinson]

Let me clarify to the House that the adjudicator will look at breaches of the code from when it comes into force. It may investigate evidence of problems that have been ongoing, but if a breach stopped before the adjudicator was established, it would not be able to impose sanctions. Because the code is already legally binding, other legal routes are open to suppliers that fall into that category. The Government want to ensure that this measure is successful, and we have outlined what we think will be its initial budget. We will, of course, keep that under review and work closely with the groceries code adjudicator when it is established.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, although I am also disappointed. A lot of people—certainly suppliers—want to ensure that we have an adjudicator that can look at breaches of the code that have taken place from the introduction of that code, not from the point at which the adjudicator is established. I hope that we can explore that a little further in Committee. We want to ensure that the adjudicator has the time and resources to investigate matters properly.

Clause 10 of the Bill concerns the power of the adjudicator to apportion investigation costs. I hope that will reassure supermarkets that the adjudicator can also apportion costs against those who make vexatious complaints or claims that are without merit. To a certain extent, that answers the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth—such powers already exist. I would be concerned about my hon. Friend the Minister’s proposal because the Bill is quite clear that such matters should be at the discretion of the adjudicator, and not at that of a self-appointed panel that might produce a survey report by which the adjudicator would then be bound.

Overall, the Bill is extremely welcome and not before time. I would not wish to get involved in a discussion with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), whom I thank for his kind words earlier. There is no point in looking to the past for an explanation of why it has taken so long for the Bill to proceed. We must now ensure that it is implemented effectively and properly as quickly as possible, so that suppliers get the protection that they richly deserve.

18:45

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on this issue. As many Members have rightly said, he has been a long and steadfast campaigner for a supermarket ombudsman—I will call it an ombudsman in my remarks, because I think that would have been the correct title.

I also pay tribute to Members of the previous Parliament who sponsored and helped me with my private Member’s Bill. The legislation that I put through Second Reading and Committee was supported by Members not only from the larger parties, but from some of the smaller parties and across the United Kingdom. Support came from the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland, and from the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Members from the larger parties. The Bill had cross-UK as well as cross-party support, which was important when taking it forward. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you took an interest in that Bill—I will refer to that shortly when you are not being disturbed. You may recall, however, that you actually sat on the Bill’s one Committee sitting. I do not know whether it was a record, but I managed to get that private Member’s Bill through in one Committee sitting with almost total agreement.

As right hon. and hon. Members will know, private Member’s Bills are an important vehicle and people become extremely popular when they are drawn in the top 10 in the ballot. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will testify, one receives hundreds if not thousands of letters and e-mails—he has done it twice so he will speak from experience. People probably become more popular than if they go out to the jungles of Australia, so Members should persevere and get into the ballot for a private Member’s Bill if at all possible.

I welcome the Bill—it would be churlish not to, having promoted a private Member’s Bill the main tenets of which are still contained in the Bill under discussion. However, as the hon. Member for St Ives said, there was not a lot of enthusiasm for this measure when I successfully won that ballot. In fact, I was popular not just with outside organisations that wanted me to take legislation forward, but with those in the Whips Office who had a number of Bills they wanted me to promote. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have never done anything the conventional way in this House—or, indeed, in my life—so I resisted the charm of the Whips Office at the time, and pursued this legislation because I thought it was the right thing to do. It brought together a broad coalition of farmers, suppliers, non-governmental organisations and many farming unions, and I pay tribute to the Farmers Union of Wales and the National Farmers Union in Scotland and England for their work. It has been difficult for any party to ignore this issue, and each of the larger parties put this legislation in their manifestos.

This Bill has been a long time coming. I remember gathering support from other parties when I was pursuing this legislation through Parliament, and there was a division in each party between spokespeople from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who were keen for the Bill to proceed, and those from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills who were less keen to get it through—that is a nice way of putting it. When we were able to get all parties to concentrate their efforts on the Bill, they started to bid for who would take the legislation through Parliament the quickest once there was an election. I remember Conservative agriculture spokespersons of the time going to fairs, which all hon. Members go to in their constituencies, and saying that a supermarket ombudsman would be a priority for the next Conservative Government. I know they are in coalition, but I see no reason why the Bill was not introduced much sooner—all parties agree and there is a broad coalition of support.

The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, was a very good supporter of my private Member’s Bill and he is now a supporter of the Bill. If he were less conventional than he is, and if he, like me, was not a Minister, he would probably say, “I agree the Bill needs more teeth. I agree we need fines in the Bill.” He will not say that now—possibly for good reasons—but I see no good reason for not including fines in the Bill.

That is the argument I want to develop. Many groups have lobbied for fines to be included. Had the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), taken an intervention, I would have had the opportunity not only to congratulate her on her promotion and new post, but to ask her to come clean and name the individuals and groups who have lobbied against including fines. It would be difficult for her to name any apart from those inside the British Retail Consortium. It is wrong that the Government have capitulated—they have not struck the balance—and not included fines in the Bill.

I do not believe that naming and shaming will be an adequate deterrent, for the reasons that hon. Members have given. A fine would appear on a company’s financial accounts, to which shareholders’ and ordinary members’ attention is drawn at annual general meetings. The large supermarkets might still make large profits, but shareholders’ attention would be drawn to a fine on those accounts, even if it is insignificant compared with the profits. That would be enough for many of the shareholders to say, “We need to do things better, and to work with the adjudicator.” In that way, the supermarket would not just sit back and wonder whether the news that day would mean that they would be named and shamed in a newspaper headline, or a retail magazine, which not everybody reads. I should like to concentrate the Government’s mind on that—the suggestion comes not just from Opposition Front Benchers

Although my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) made a good, detailed speech on the measures in the Bill that the Opposition support, he also spoke about the differences between the Government and the Opposition. He did not do so for the sake of having differences, but so that we get the measures right at the first opportunity and legislate properly. We want a fair Bill, and we want an adjudicator, referee or ombudsman who has the tools from day one to do their job. They should not have to come cap in hand to Parliament for another measure.

The reserving of fines is nonsense. As the Minister said, they could take up to six months to set up, in which time there might be other priorities, as there have obviously been in the two and a half years when the Bill was not introduced, or there could be a lack of will on the Government’s part. The House has the opportunity to table an amendment in Committee. After the pressure of this debate, the Government may introduce a measure to give the adjudicator the ability to fine.

[Roger Williams]

The hon. Gentleman has a proud record. He condemns the Government for being slow to introduce the Bill, but does he agree that Governments are very often criticised for not having pre-legislative scrutiny? In this case, that has taken place, probably to the benefit of the Bill.

[Albert Owen]

The hon. Gentleman is a supporter of pre-legislative scrutiny, but he does not believe it delays Bills for two and a half years. The Government have not had a heavy work load on Bills. If we compare the number of legislative days in the House with the number in other Parliaments, we see that the Government have had a lot of time to introduce the Bill. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I want to move on to whether we should have a fine or naming and shaming.

The only difference between the Government and the Opposition is on whether we have adequate sanctions for the big 10 supermarkets. Has the Minister or the Government considered not only the big 10, but the major suppliers in the chain, which are as big as the supermarkets? Will the adjudicator have the ability to name and shame them? That is important. Some of the major suppliers are multinational organisations, and put a lot of pressure on our growers and farmers. Will the Minister respond on that? I would have pushed for such a measure in my private Member’s Bill, because I want fairness right through the supply chain, and not just among the top 10 supermarkets, which have the ability to self-finance the measure so that all are treated equally. The supermarkets should also have the ability to complain to the adjudicator or ombudsman. That is important if we are to have a fully open system of recourse through naming and shaming. The supermarkets should be able to put their side of the argument if the boot is on the other foot, although that would not happen often. I should like the Government to take that on board.

The measure has popular support, not just in the House, but in the country. As I have said, it has brought together non-governmental organisations, lobby groups, and farmers and growers throughout the UK, because there has been an injustice in how the grocery market has operated. The Government and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, who is the third to take up the role in less than three years, have an opportunity. Her predecessor but one, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), who is now Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, said only last week at the Dispatch Box that it was essential to use sanctions to fine energy companies, which are alleged to be ripping off their customers. We must have consistency. The same should apply to large supermarkets that are alleged to be ripping off suppliers and consumers—at the end of the day, consumers pay the higher prices that filter through.

Rather than naming and shaming, we need fines in the Bill, and a real commitment to fairness in the system. The Bill will help, and I support it, but I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will vote for including fines in the Bill rather than just make speeches about it. The eyes of the consensus that the Bill has gathered will be on us, and we should show that we speak with one voice. Although the Under- Secretary would not take an intervention from me, I will take one from her if she wants to say who has lobbied her and why we should not include fines in the Bill. She has tried to make the case, but she does not want to take the opportunity I am offering her. Many of the supermarkets I have spoken to would not be that bothered if fines were included in the Bill, which has also achieved consensus among all the bodies I have named. As the hon. Member for St Ives has said, two or three supermarkets have come out in favour of the Bill. It will not be long before there is consensus among the top 10 supermarkets.

[Jo Swinson]

One key point the supermarkets have put to me was that there were no appeal powers for them in the Bill. Not going ahead with fines from day one means that we avoid the problem of miring the groceries code adjudicator in appeal processes. That is one reason why seeing whether naming and shaming is effective is a good way to proceed. The hon. Gentleman said that himself—he said he does not believe the supermarkets will be particularly bothered about fines, but they certainly were bothered about appeals.

[Albert Owen]

The Minister tells the House that we need to build in a proper appeals procedure, but hon. Members will work together to ensure that that happens.

[Jo Swinson]

The retailers argued for a proper appeals process. The challenge I outlined was that the adjudicator could end up running around in circles dealing with appeal after appeal rather than getting on with the important job of carrying out more investigations, which is what we want. Without the power to fine, we are convinced that a full merits appeals process is not required. That is one advantage of the Government’s approach.

[Albert Owen]

If, further down the line, serious breaches are identified by the adjudicator and the reserve power is used, we will be in that position anyway.

[Jo Swinson]

If.

[Albert Owen]

If. I am hopeful that if that situation arises the Government will bring forward their reserve powers, so we are only delaying the inevitable.

[John McDonnell]

If there is an adjudication that affects the trade of an individual company, it will resort to law anyway.

[Albert Owen]

Absolutely. The House could come together, as it has on this measure, to find a way of short-circuiting some of the appeals procedures, if we felt that companies were dragging their feet. That is one of the powers we need to give to the adjudicator. Yes, the law currently allows them the opportunity to appeal, but there is a consensus here and I feel that we can do it. If the Government seriously want the Bill to have the proper teeth—the farming Minister and I have often argued for it—then we can work together and do it. Where there is political will, there is a way of resolving this matter.

This is a good Bill. It has many merits and it can be improved quickly and easily. Those on the Government Front Bench have got the message tonight, not just from Opposition Members but from all parts of the House and from the wider country, that the Bill needs to have the teeth to do the job. The adjudicator or ombudsman—or ombudswoman—who takes over the role will have the support of Parliament to ensure that the grocery market is a success. The Minister has the opportunity to go down in grocery folklore as the Minister who took a robust stand against the supermarkets. She will get my backing, and, I am sure, the backing of hon. Members across the Floor.

18:59

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

Much comment has been made about the farming perspective. I appreciate and understand fully that farmers welcome the Bill, but other groups are supportive of the Bill too. For the record, I chair the all-party group on food and drink manufacturing. Our group and the food and drink sector are interested in the progress of the Bill. The sector is the largest manufacturing sector in the country, with a turnover of approximately £75 billion. It employs 400,000 people and is a key part of our economy. Critically, the sector contains a lot of small and medium-sized enterprises dispersed across the country, whose commercial power is therefore greatly weakened.

The Bill should be seen in the right way—as a positive, and not a stick to beat the retailers with. It can be used to help relationships between suppliers and retailers, and help to rebalance the commercial power between the two groups. Our large retailers come in for a considerable amount of stick and criticism at times, but we should recognise that they have achieved a lot for the country and for the consumer. They are highly efficient organisations, with strong leadership, strong management and powerful brands. They pay their taxes in this country and make a valuable contribution to our economy. Up and down the country, they employ thousands of people, providing a livelihood for many families. They provide career opportunities for many and, in many cases, quality training. The consumer has seen a massive increase in choice. I look back to when I was a child and the choice that my parents had when they went to the shops compared with what we have today. There has also been a huge improvement in quality. I often wonder whether it should cause us some concern that kids wonder why we get carrots that are bent, rather than always straight. Finally, there is competitive pricing—food is remarkably cheap compared with many years ago, and we should recognise that the supermarkets have helped to contribute to that.

To a certain extent, however, we have become victims of our own success and so have the supermarkets. There are increasing, and legitimate, concerns about the market dominance of the supermarkets, the commercial power of the retailers, and the effect that that has on suppliers. The impact on the supply chain, on innovation and, potentially, on investment should concern us all. I do not believe that the appointment of an adjudicator will solve all these issues—far from it—but it will undoubtedly go some way to help. It should complement the groceries code and give it more bite. Therefore, I welcome the creation of the adjudicator.

I want to touch on a few points relating specifically to the Bill. Clause 2 deals with arbitration. Arbitration is a cost-effective, practical way of resolving issues. I therefore welcome the fact that the adjudicator will be involved in any matters of arbitration between suppliers and retailers.

Clause 4 is the most central to the Bill, which deals with the power to investigate and request information. I welcome that, and particularly welcome allowing trade organisations to be involved. As I mentioned, the food and drink manufacturing sector is made up of a lot of SMEs. They will be concerned about their position when they are in negotiations with retailers. That is why having a trade organisation to represent them can be beneficial.

Clause 4 is linked with clause 18 and the duty of confidentiality. That must also be welcomed as it is clearly needed, particularly to protect smaller suppliers and organisations that would be concerned about the difference between their commercial strength and that of the retailer. Retailers should not be over-concerned; I do not believe there will be frivolous and unwelcome applications. Quite simply, the power of the adjudicator to award costs will be an incentive for those bringing forward issues and complaints to do so in a justified and proper manner.

Many hon. Members have talked about enforcement. The power to make recommendations is very sensible and clearly everybody would support that. On the power to require information to be published—effectively naming and shaming—many hon. Members have already commented that supermarkets would be nervous about that. They have powerful brands. They are, within themselves, in a competitive market and they will be concerned. However, I accept fully and acknowledge that ultimately some might ride roughshod over that or be quite happy to take the criticism that comes their way. Therefore, the ability to impose financial penalties is critical and must be supported. I think I am with most people in the House in believing that the power to do that should be given to the adjudicator, and that it should be included the Bill rather than given to the Secretary of State to introduce at a later date. I will be interested to see whether the Ministers go away and reflect on the views of the House when they consider amendments in Committee.

Finally, I welcome the review by the adjudicator of the groceries code set out in clause 13. Indeed, the adjudicator should take a proactive role. Arguably, the clause should be strengthened so that the adjudicator has a duty to report and comment on the success of the groceries code. Overall, however, I give a strong welcome to the Bill. I think it will help in a small way to rebalance the relationship between large retailers and suppliers, and ensure that we have a competitive and, most importantly, fair market.

19:08

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As has been said, it has taken a long time for the Bill to come before the House. It has recently been through extensive scrutiny in the other place and, before that, by the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills and the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I am glad that we are now finally in the position to debate the Bill properly in this place. I have received many postcards on this issue going back as far as before the general election, during the time of the previous Labour Government. I remember the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), in his previous role in the Liberal Democrats, urging the then Government to make great haste with the Bill, and perhaps criticising us for being a little bit tardy. I accept that we are where we are now, and I am grateful that we have finally got here, even if it has been rather slow.

As has also been mentioned, the Bill received considerable support from organisations such as the Fairtrade Foundation, Traidcraft, ActionAid, Friends of the Earth and even the National Farmers Union, which perhaps does not always sit in partnership with those other organisations. So there is a lot of public support.

In 2008, when the food and farming Minister, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, was official spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, he called for an ombudsman with teeth. I share colleagues’ concern, however, that the Bill might not meet that test, particularly regarding the reserve powers provision giving the adjudicator the power to issue fines. Under the Bill, the adjudicator will not immediately have that power. It will be subject to future review. I agree with colleagues in the other place that in this respect the Bill is clunky, over-bureaucratic and drawn out. We do not want to wait several years for the adjudicator to have the power to issue fines. We have waited long enough. The evidence of compliance with the groceries code suggests that firm action—or at least the threat of firm action—against major retailers will be a useful weapon for the adjudicator to wield, so the Bill must enable the adjudicator to issue fines from the outset.

The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), talked about the power to name and shame, and seemed to place great faith in the power of negative findings to persuade supermarkets to change their behaviour. The competition inquiry in 2008, however, showed that more than a decade of adverse media reports on how supermarkets dealt with their supply chains and their relationship with farmers had done little to change their business practices or prevent them from engaging in what many would regard as unethical practices.

The Minister referred to consumer pressure, arguing that if a retailer was named and shamed, consumers might take their business elsewhere. I think that consumer pressure is incredibly powerful, as we have seen in the recent debate about whether companies such as Starbucks pay tax in the UK—it puts pressure on companies, makes them rethink their policies and sends their public relations machines into overdrive—but I am not convinced that a supermarket having a certain contractual relationship with its suppliers would be enough to send shoppers elsewhere, and certainly not in significant enough numbers to affect supermarkets’ business practices. I am unconvinced, therefore, that consumer pressure will play a major role.

The power to fine ought to be reserved now, rather than invoked later. I might be wrong, but I think that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has accepted that compliance with the groceries supply code of practice would be less in the absence of fines, which are a standard measure in most regulated industries, and would be used only as a last resort and only with strong evidence. The argument, then, that fines would pass significant costs on to consumers or lead to a raft of long and burdensome appeals is greatly overstated.

I want to focus on the vital contribution the Bill can make to reducing food waste across the supply chain. As some Members will know, I introduced a Food Waste Bill earlier this year dealing with the other end of the supply chain—with consumers not wasting food and supermarkets making food available for donation and to organisations such as FoodCycle, FairShare and the many food banks that sadly have grown up around the country, rather than letting it go to landfill. Obviously, the Bill deals with the other end of the supply chain. None the less, this is a useful opportunity to flag up some of these issues again.

Retailers and manufacturers waste a staggering 3.6 million tonnes of food per annum. Some of that can be directly attributed to how supermarkets do business with their suppliers. The Competition Commission’s 2008 report concluded that supermarkets were guilty of transferring unnecessary risks and excessive costs on to their suppliers. One practice is when supermarkets agree a price for a product with their supplier but, when sales are less than predicted and prices need to be reduced, require the supplier to share the burden of reduced revenue.

Then there are the notorious take-back agreements, under which supermarkets return to the manufacturer or farmer produce they fail to sell, including when the former have made forecasting errors. When I was looking into the issue of food waste, I found that forecasting errors by supermarkets were a major factor. If supermarkets have supplies ordered from farmers sitting in their distribution centres, but the same produce is not selling in their stores, the produce ordered goes to landfill or, at best, is used in anaerobic digestion. A supermarket might tell a manufacturer a week in advance that it needs 100,000 sandwiches or however many pounds or kilos of potatoes, but if, on the day, it decides it does not need them because it does not expect to sell as much as it predicted, that leaves the supplier with a pallet-load of sandwiches or sacks of potatoes that it cannot sell.

Worse still, many of these products will already have been produced with the supermarket’s own brand. Supermarkets often forbid the manufacturers from selling on the food, insisting that it be sold to them exclusively. Neither do they allow them to give such food to charity, because of erroneous concerns that they might end up on market stalls, for example, which they think could damage the prestige of the brand. That is particularly an issue with premium products. All that pushes up suppliers’ costs

I want to touch on a matter that, as far as I am aware, the Bill does not deal with. The hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) talked about “ugly food”. Supermarkets demand perfect vegetables and produce from farmers these days. This is an issue. It is entirely up to Tesco or Sainsbury’s whether they want to sell perfect apples, but the fact that farmers are not allowed to sell the remaining produce to other people—it is still a practice, I think—needs to be addressed. It is true that the groceries code prohibits some of these practices—for example, large retailers are not now allowed to vary supply agreements retrospectively, except in specific circumstances, or to make suppliers pay compensation for wastage or forecasting errors—but there is no specific duty on large retailers to comply. That is why we need a groceries code adjudicator to enforce the code. Otherwise, the only mechanism for redress is for an individual to bring a complaint under the dispute resolution procedure or to bring a case before the courts under contract law. As the British Brands Group concludes in its briefing on the Bill, which has been sent to most MPs:

“This simply will not happen in most cases, due to the prevailing ‘culture of fear’ and the high level of dependency of supplier on each of the large retailers”.

That is why the Bill is necessary and why it is important that third parties are able to report breaches under the anonymity provisions, which I am glad are now included in the Bill.

I want to touch briefly on low pay in supermarkets. A report this year from the Fair Pay Network has shown that the big four supermarkets—Sainsbury’s, Asda, Morrisons and Tesco—which collectively are the second-largest employer in the UK after the NHS, are paying their staff poverty wages, while making huge profits and raising executive salaries. Only one in seven supermarket workers earn the living wage, yet supermarkets award their chief executive officers between £3.2 million and £6.9 million a year. Given that differences are made up through in-work benefits, such as tax credits, supermarkets again find themselves in the morally hazardous situation of not having to take responsibility for their actions, which would otherwise have resulted in reduced spend in their supermarkets and would have hit their profits.

I appreciate that that issue needs to be taken up in another arena, but I wanted to raise it anyway. Nearly two thirds of children in poverty live in working families where the parents earn less than the living wage, and, as we have heard, many families who are in work still have to resort to food banks because of rising food prices. These issues are all interconnected. So, although I welcome the Bill, I consider it only a small part of tackling the issues around food production in this country. I shall not venture into the territory of the common agricultural policy—I am sure that the Minister and everyone else will be glad to hear that—but it is obviously another factor.

It is great that we have had the opportunity to discuss the matter and to put these issues on the agenda, but we have a long way to go and many more problems to address before we really tackle the issue of food production in the UK.

19:18

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. As a Member representing a series of villages linking the city of York to the distinct rural north and east Yorkshire countryside, I am always keen to speak in debates touching on the agriculture industry. Before my election to Parliament, I, too, was a farmer, and as such I have first-hand knowledge of some of the pressures facing many of the UK’s independent producers. I must therefore draw Members’ attention to my declaration of interests.

Like many Members from both sides of the House, I congratulate the Government on introducing this Bill. Like many Members, I have long called for some form of adjudicator or ombudsman to ensure that our major supermarkets and retailers operate fairly throughout the industry’s supply chain. This is about treating farmers and suppliers fairly and lawfully. My representations have followed on from first-hand experience of dealing with constituents’ cases in many parts of York Outer, where small independent farmers or producers feel unfairly treated by the tactics of some national supermarket chains. However, it would be wrong to view this Bill simply as a reflection of a fundamental battle between big supermarkets and small producers. On the whole, our national supermarkets should be a source of great pride. They are massive job and wealth creators in our country, which is something the Minister touched on in her opening remarks. Many supermarkets undertake superb community work whenever they open a store. I am sure that, like me, Members from across the House will have first-hand experience of the community work that supermarkets do in their patch.

Nevertheless, as in all areas of industry, it is right that accountability, transparency and an independent watchdog should encourage and ensure fair practice for all involved. That is what a groceries code adjudicator will do. As such, I am pleased that the general principles behind the Bill seem to be attracting cross-party support, allowing today’s debate to focus on the powers and responsibilities that the adjudicator will have. Introducing a groceries code adjudicator represents a common-sense step in the right direction, but that will be undermined if the body lacks the teeth it needs to operate effectively.

It is worth mentioning that we have had a groceries supply code of practice in force for a few years now. As the president of the National Farmers Union, Peter Kendall, has said, it is

“essentially a rulebook without a referee.”

I would go one step further and suggest that without adequate teeth, the groceries code adjudicator would be like a referee without a whistle—or, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) said, one without a red card in his top pocket. As a Leeds United supporter, I would not mind a referee at our next match without a red card in his top pocket, but we need a groceries code adjudicator with the ability to take action. The fear with all new regulatory bodies is that they are set up too cautiously, becoming ineffective talking shops, unable to gain influence or authority in the sector. To me, the idea of setting up an adjudicator now, before adding powers at a later stage, is frankly flawed. If we are going to do this, we must do it properly and equip the adjudicator with the necessary powers from day one.

In my view, the necessary powers should at least include the ability to fine retailers for major—I stress the word “major”—breaches of the groceries supply code of practice. Without that power, I fear that the adjudicator will have limited impact. One example of where a properly empowered adjudicator would make a real difference in the supply chain is the current plight of the dairy industry. Over the past few years, many dairy farmers have been unfairly penalised by what can only be described as unfair, inflexible contracts that have sought to take advantage of the product’s perishable nature. There is hope on the horizon, following the agreement of a voluntary code of practice for milk supplier contracts between UK dairy farmers and processing firms. However, getting the voluntary code agreed required substantial political pressure and lengthy negotiations, with dairy farmers sadly going to the wall in the meantime. This is a perfect example of where a strong groceries code adjudicator could make a difference, intervening in such disputes with authority at an early stage.

In conclusion, this Bill is welcomed across the country by the independent suppliers who need the reassurance and support of an independent watchdog. Moreover, a strong groceries code adjudicator would encourage strong links between all parties in the supply chain, benefiting those at each level and ultimately the consumer too. It has to be in the interests of consumers that we have a thriving agricultural sector in this country supplying high quality products, while at the same time reducing our reliance on imports, at a time when food security will undoubtedly become one of the big issues of the future. However, the Government have grasped the nettle on a groceries code adjudicator, and they should be applauded for doing so. This is a good Bill, but the question throughout its legislative journey will be about its strength. I encourage Ministers to show strength by adding the powers required to make the groceries code adjudicator a real success.

19:25

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I will be supporting this long-awaited Bill, and I am in favour of the primary motivation behind it: to create a dedicated and impartial adjudicator. However, we must ensure that this does not become a missed opportunity to introduce lasting reform of the regulation of the relationship between producers, suppliers and consumers.

The broad coalition of signatories to the letter in The Sunday Telegraph yesterday, which included the NFU, ActionAid and the Federation of Small Businesses, is testament to the depth of feeling on this issue. I represent a rural constituency in Northern Ireland, where farming, fishing and tourism are the main economic drivers, and there is a growing need to sustain the current economic base at a time of low economic growth. Producers of food and consumers are facing daily economic and financial challenges. If handled properly, this Bill affords an opportunity to redress the balance in the supply chain.

I do not want to paint an entirely negative portrait of the relationship between suppliers and the large supermarkets. I know that often they work together extremely well—I know that is true of Sainsbury’s—and many examples of good practice can be found that are central to the development of a sustainable supply chain. However, it must be acknowledged that the regime for dealing with bad practice is not even close to what it could be. To provide that stability and protection to farmers and producers, we need to introduce a groceries code adjudicator that possesses the necessary statutory and legislative teeth to correct unfair practices that have been apparent for some time in the food market chain. There is broad support in the farming community for this Bill and the implementation of its provisions without delay following Royal Assent. Farmers and their respective representative bodies have argued for years for action to prevent retailers from treating their suppliers, particularly smaller producers, unfairly. The establishment of the ombudsman or adjudicator to monitor and enforce a code of practice has been the central part of the campaign in recent years, and to this end the Bill is welcome.

Having accepted that such an adjudicator is necessary, it is vital that it should be adequately empowered and not become a paper tiger. The adjudicator must have robust powers of investigation and enforcement to hold to account the organisations engaged in bad practice. A primary concern is that we should endow the adjudicator with the capacity to accept representations, appeals and complaints from a range of interested parties, including trade associations. Not doing so in this Bill is a missed opportunity, which we will be looking to address through amendments at later stages. Empowering the adjudicator to receive representations from trade associations would create a much needed buffer between suppliers and supermarkets. Too often, suppliers fear that making complaints will prejudice their future business with large, dominant retailers and are hesitant to initiate complaints under the existing dispute resolution mechanism. A buffer could enable a more harmonious relationship between suppliers and supermarkets. Furthermore, the involvement of trade associations or representative bodies would allow a wider scope of analysis that could take in a wider picture of market practices, in contrast to cases that just focus on one supplier and one retailer.

I also support the Competition Commission’s call for the adjudicator to have the capacity to implement fines in cases of serious breach or malpractice. A naming and shaming system will simply not be strong enough to hold retailers to account. Large retailers would be delighted if the adjudicator did not have the power to levy fines. I appreciate that the Government could introduce a fining system at a later stage through secondary legislation if the watered-down approach were to prove inadequate, but I strongly contend that the adjudicator must be able to fine retailers from the outset if the code is breached. No doubt the Minister will address that point when he winds up the debate. We must have learnt by now, whether in relation to energy market regulation or banking regulation, that a regulator must have real teeth and real power if it is to have any influence or impact. Let us not make the same mistake again with the groceries code adjudicator. I want to see an emboldened Government here tonight saying that they will ensure that the adjudicator has real teeth.

From a devolved perspective, it is regrettable that the adjudicator will not be tasked with addressing the producer price differential that exists between Northern Ireland and Britain, or with overseeing the practices of processors or intermediaries. Many of the food producers in Northern Ireland feel that there is a dysfunctional food supply chain, and that what the consumer pays for food produce bears no resemblance to what the farmers receive for the product from the processors or retailers.

The Minister will recall that I raised this issue with him when we met several weeks ago. It needs to be addressed, to ensure that the primary food producers in Northern Ireland are protected. I suppose that that might fall outside the scope of the Bill, but I will take the matter up with the devolved Minister and with DEFRA. It is important that this dysfunctional relationship should be investigated and that measures should be put in place to remedy the situation. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) has already raised the matter today. The Ulster Farmers Union has been lobbying us to a significant degree, although my approach to the question is slightly different from his, in that I believe that we need a partnership rather than a fight. Fighting will not resolve the situation.

It is clear that the Bill offers the potential for real, lasting reform of the groceries market. If we set up a weak adjudicator, however, we will have undermined the new regime before it has been in operation for even a day. If we do not grant the adjudicator the necessary powers, on a statutory basis, to fine and to investigate without prejudice, we will have missed a golden opportunity to rebalance the supermarket supply chain and provide support to our farmers and producers. It is in everyone’s interest—the supplier, the farmer and the consumer—that we create a sustainable food supply chain that is profitable for all, and not just for the dominant players.

As the Bill makes its passage through its Committee and Report stages, I hope that the Government will table amendments to ensure that it is made stronger through greater enforcement measures and a greater capacity to impose fines. I hope that it will be suitably amended to provide remedies that will further protect the primary producer and the consumer.

19:34

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie). Like her, I represent a rural constituency, and I can testify to the great passion that many people there, including those in the Farmers Union of Wales and the National Farmers Union, attach to this issue. I can think of no meeting that I have held in the past 12 years or so as I have fought elections in Ceredigion at which the issues of an ombudsman, an adjudicator and the overwhelming power of the supermarkets have not arisen.

There has been consensus in the House today. We have resisted some of the partisan points made in the earlier stage of the debate. Reference was made to a quote from the noble Lord Grantchester in the other place about the fingerprints of the previous Labour Government being all over the Bill. The fingerprints of this Government are all over it as well, in the form of those of the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) and, critically, my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who has done so much work on this subject. Also, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) put a huge amount of effort into his private Member’s Bill, to which I was privileged to be a co-signatory, towards the end of the previous Labour Government.

We are where we are, and we need to be clear about what the Bill will achieve—which I think will be commendable —as well as what I hope that it should achieve. I share the concerns that have been raised here today and by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Before I address those concerns, however, I want to add another test, which I shall call the Ceredigion test. The test asks how the Bill will impact on the large number of small family farms across my constituency in west Wales. The truth is that, as the Bill stands, it might not have as robust an impact as it should, but I am sure that we will have an opportunity to table amendments to it as it continues its passage.

We have heard today about toothless dogs sitting on ministerial ledges waiting to be dusted down if necessary. We have heard about tigers with a proliferation of gums but no teeth. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) talked about kicking supermarkets where it hurts. An important theme in today’s debate has been the power to impose fines. We have also heard about a lengthy list of signatories to a letter from the interest groups that have urged the Government to think again about fines. They include the Farmers Union of Wales, the National Farmers Union, ActionAid UK, the British Independent Fruit Growers Association, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Church of England, the Country Land and Business Association, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business, the Tenant Farmers Association, Unite the union, the World Society for the Protection of Animals, the Worldwide Fund for Nature and the National Federation of Women’s Institutes. We ignore the Women’s Institute at our peril, as others have found out in the past.

So long has been the gestation period of the legislation that expectations are running very high indeed. As the Bill stands, however, fines could be enforced only if an order by the Secretary of State under schedule 3 was in force. The Government have stated that such an order could be made, if it were deemed necessary, and that the power to fine could be enacted in six months. It must be said in the Government’s defence that that represents an advance, which was the result of deliberations in the House of Lords. That was a step in the right direction, and I hope that we can have further such discussions during the Bill’s passage through the House of Commons. On Second Reading in another place, we heard complaints that the proposed process was too cumbersome and laborious. I agreed with that at the time, and I would hazard a guess that six months will still prove lengthy and cumbersome, given the enormity of the complaints that are sometimes made against our supermarkets.

The Government have argued that naming and shaming is disincentive enough for retailers, and that having the ability to fine from the outset could create hostility in the industry. I agree that naming and shaming can influence consumers on where to buy. Had the Minister of State’s predecessor—my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice)—not brokered a deal in the dairy sector, an elaborate and effective campaign against certain supermarkets would have been launched. We must be realistic about how far this can go, however, and I question whether naming and shaming is disincentive enough in comparison with having the capacity to levy those fines from the outset.

I know the Minister is aware of these concerns—as will be his colleagues in BIS after this debate. At the very least, I would like to hear a response from the Minister to the question posed by the Chair of the DEFRA Committee about the circumstances in which an order in the Bill should or should not apply.

I wish to raise some points about the accessibility of the adjudicator to everyone in the industry. Two weeks ago, the Welsh Affairs Committee, of which the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and I are members, visited my constituency and took evidence on the status of the dairy farming industry in Wales. We took evidence from the Farmers Union of Wales and the National Farmers Union, as well as from the Welsh Assembly’s Rural Affairs Minister, Mr Alun Davies. There was a consensus from all groups that the adjudicator must be accessible to everyone throughout the chain. As the FUW argued, the adjudicator should not be just about the relationship between two parties—the 10 supermarkets and their suppliers—because in a Welsh context, the majority of farmers operate on a much smaller scale and are not in direct supply contracts with those 10 supermarkets.

The argument is that the adjudicator must be able to intervene throughout the entire chain. It needs to be easy to lodge a complaint, but this is not helped by the fact that the supply chain is not transparent, so it would be unreasonable for a producer to be able to lodge a claim that requires a lot of evidentiary support. The adjudicator needs to be accessible for all producers, including the small family farms in rural Wales. This is impeded, of course, by a code that is laudable but by nature defines the relationship between 10 large supermarkets and their suppliers.

Does the Minister accept that there is a case for the powers of the adjudicator to be extended to cover all powerful companies—big and small—within the supply chains or at least that the adjudicator can be charged with gathering evidence relating to any abuses? I concur with what the NFU said in its briefing, suggesting that the adjudicator should be able to recommend changes to the code, which is the foundation of what we are discussing today. Is the adjudicator able to recommend changes to the code? I also ask the Minister to clarify the extent of the changes that could be recommended. If the plight of primary producers continues to be problematic, the adjudicator may be the best person to make a request to extend the code and possibly extend its remit to others in the supply chain, should they receive complaints of this nature.

I have two final points. First, I welcome what the Government have said about the anonymity of complainants. This has been a prevailing theme through all these deliberations over the last few years—the constraint that the fear factor has placed on a number of potential complainants.

Secondly, to raise a point touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, what resources will be available to the adjudicator? Will he be able to look at issues arising since the origins of the code, which are immense, and will sufficient resources be available for him to do so?

The Food and Drink Federation has said that

“abuses of retail power by retailers damage suppliers’ confidence, and their ability to invest and innovate”.

This has led to a reduction in choice and availability, and it increases costs for consumers.

This Bill is designed to protect suppliers from unfair breaches of contract, but as we have heard, it does not address all the issues of fair pricing to farmers and producers. In the context of the dairy industry, we look to the voluntary code to help us in that respect. Sometimes, as I have found in going to agricultural meetings across my constituency, this has been characterised as the panacea or great solution to all the problems and challenges that the farming industry faces. Somebody—in government or, implicitly, there is a responsibility on all of us—has to talk earnestly and honestly to constituents and remind them that this is not the only way in which we are going to assist and support a vibrant agricultural sector. The Bill is one important part of the process, but it will not achieve everything. It is a critical step towards fair treatment for all producers and it has the potential to do much more. In Welsh there is the phrase “Chwarae Teg”, which means “fair play”. That is what I believe this Bill is out to achieve. With further consideration and further amendment, too, I hope it can achieve that.

19:45

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I am delighted that, at long last, we have reached the Second Reading of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill. Its gestation period seems to have been longer than that of an elephant. Before I proceed any further, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who brought forward a private Member’s Bill with a rather long title—the Grocery Market Ombudsman Bill—back in 2010. He has since worked hard to lobby for a grocery adjudicator—or, as he much prefers to call it, a supermarket ombudsman. I pay tribute, too, to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who chaired the Grocery Market Action Group and was active in pushing forward the agenda from the early days of the Competition Commission inquiry in 2006.

I have already put on record my support for a grocery supermarket adjudicator, so I shall confine my comments to the areas where I feel that the Bill could be improved. It is, above all, about fairness—about ensuring that the groceries supply code of practice is properly adhered to. That code came into force in February 2010, but without an adjudicator it is very difficult for any individual supplier to challenge a retailer who breaches the code. A complaint has to be brought under the dispute resolution procedure or go to court.

Having an adjudicator is about ensuring fair play, having a referee and ensuring that everyone plays by the rules. It is important to stress that the Bill is not an anti-supermarket measure. Any retailer who respects the groceries supply code of practice has nothing to fear from the establishment of the adjudicator’s office. It is about creating a level playing field and tackling any attempts to breach the code which, if left unchecked, can damage suppliers, rival retailers and ultimately customers.

We should not underestimate the intimidation and difficulties that suppliers face if they are being badly treated by retailers. It is frightening to hear from the Farmers Union of Wales and the NFU about some of the sharp practices to which suppliers are subjected—varying supply agreements and decreasing the price paid for milk retrospectively. There is no doubt that this type of treatment can have a devastating effect on farms, particularly small family farms, and the driving down of prices by these retailers is certainly threatening to put some farmers out of business. We have already lost many farms from the dairy industry, and this type of driving down of prices, particularly when there is little flexibility from the banks, is threatening to put even more farmers out of business.

I very much welcome the fact that the Bill will now allow the adjudicator to accept complaints and evidence from third parties such as trade associations and trade unions. It can be extremely intimidating for any one supplier to bring a complaint, and trade associations and trade unions can offer help and support, and they are often in a position to see patterns of behaviour emerging—if, for example, there is a systematic breaking of the code.

The very fact that such organisations can bring issues to the attention of the adjudicator will in itself act as an incentive for retailers to abide by the code, but it worries me that clause 15(10) gives power to the Secretary of State completely to rescind that power. If we are serious about giving the opportunity to third parties such as trade unions and trade associations to bring issues to the adjudicator’s attention, why on earth do we have such a provision that would allow the list of the adjudicator’s powers to be deleted completely? As I say, that worries me considerably.

The question of the safeguarding of anonymity is extremely tricky. Several Members have given instances in which it would be easy to identify suppliers when their number is very small. That is one reason why the adjudicator’s power to undertake proactive investigations is so important. It might be possible for an adjudicator with both the power to work with trade associations and unions and the power to undertake proactive investigations to keep an ear to the ground, look out for examples of sharp practice, and take up complaints in a broader context. That could help to protect anonymity.

Like other Members, I am disappointed that the adjudicator will not have the power from day one to impose fines on those who breach the code. The Government propose that the adjudicator must make the case for such a power to the Secretary of State. That process would be very convoluted, and would involve further delay—the Minister herself spoke of a delay of at least six months—but, more important, it would convey the message that the adjudicator was powerless. It would make far more sense to give the adjudicator the power to levy fines from the outset, enabling him to exercise discretion and impose fines if that seemed appropriate.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

If the adjudicator were given the power at the outset, would not companies be more likely to self-regulate, because they would know that action could be taken at a later stage?

[Nia Griffith]

As the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) pointed out, the stronger the adjudicator is from the outset, the more likely everyone will be to fall into line. If it is made clear that the adjudicator has powers that can be used immediately, there will be no need for us to faff around for six months trying to introduce some other piece of legislation that puts the power in the right place for the adjudicator.

It is crucial for the power to be there from the start. That would give everyone far more confidence in the role of the adjudicator, and would undoubtedly make the adjudicator much more effective. It would enhance the status of the adjudicator in the minds of the public, the supermarkets and the suppliers. We have already heard many Members and many organisations issue a plea for the adjudicator to have the power to fine from the outset, and I hope that the Government will listen to it.

Many Members have mentioned intimidation and suppliers’ fear of victimisation. The adjudicator should also have the power to fine retailers who discriminate against suppliers on the basis that, rightly or wrongly, they are suspected of providing evidence for the purpose of investigation. In other words, there should be some protection for the whistleblower. Otherwise, it will still be incredibly difficult for people to come forward and expose some of what is going on.

I warmly welcome the Bill and hope that it will make excellent progress in Committee, but I think that if we do not grab the opportunity to give the adjudicator the teeth that the office deserves, it will be a wasted opportunity.

19:53

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Let me first draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As a farmer, I am in the fortunate position of not supplying one of the major supermarkets, but I do, of course, know plenty of people in that position, including many of my constituents.

I broadly welcome the Bill. It is fantastic, it is timely, and the Government should be congratulated on the way in which they are addressing the current problem. It was with some frustration that I listened to the criticism from the Opposition Benches that it had taken two and a half years for legislation to be presented, given that, when in government, they presided over the rise of the supermarkets and the power that they gained.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

Rather than referring to “criticisms”, perhaps, in this new atmosphere, we could refer to suggestions for improvements—which, in all fairness, have come not just from Opposition Members but from Government Members.

[Mr Spencer]

I shall be talking about possible improvements. I think that there is a fair amount of cross-party agreement on the way in which the Bill can be improved. However, I also want to talk about some of the good practice that we see out there. We have heard a great deal of criticism of supermarkets and the way in which things work, but there are plenty of examples of supermarkets and farmers working closely together to improve the supply chain, add wealth to both businesses, and bring employment to rural areas. I think we should recognise that there is more to be celebrated than there is to be criticised, although we need to ensure that when things go wrong, there is a way of stepping in to sort them out.

When I embarked on my business career, my grandfather told me that the definition of a good deal was “a bit for me, a bit for you, and then another deal”. I think that we have reached a stage at which the supermarket sometimes wields too much power in the relationship, to the extent that I almost feel obliged to make it absolutely clear that some of the practices that I intend to highlight bear no resemblance to the activities of any of my constituents. There is a genuine fear out there of blacklisting and being removed from the stocking lists of supermarkets, such is their power.

I think it worth examining the practices that have gone on in the agriculture industry and its relationship with supermarkets. The first that springs to mind, which no one has mentioned so far today, is the operation of payment terms, which the supermarkets have stretched to a point at which big business is being financed by little business. That applies not only to agriculture, but to many other UK industries in which little suppliers are delivering products to big suppliers. The big suppliers do not pay for more than 90 days, and the smaller producers are forced to borrow from their banks in order —in effect—to lend the money to them.

One of the most shocking practices, to which other Members have referred, is the practice of rejecting loads of products when the price of the market goes through the roof, when there is over-supply, or when the weather changes, as in the case of the strawberry industry. There is real abuse of the system when supermarkets are able to reject a load that is perishable and cannot be returned without giving any recompense to the primary producer.

I am told that when a contract is being negotiated with a supermarket, the first line of the negotiation relates not to the retail price, the production price or even the wholesale price, but to the margin that returns to the supermarket. The primary producer must guarantee that margin. That cannot possibly apply to any other relationship between supply and retail. Whether the product is cauliflowers, carrots, plimsolls or widgets, if the supermarket decides to arrange a promotion and reduce its retail value, the primary producer will lose out while the margin of the supermarket will be protected and never squeezed.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those margins are seen not only in the direct relationship between producers and major retailers, perhaps on contract terms, but throughout the supply chain? Sometimes a retailer will say “Well, it’s nothing to do with us, guv”, but somewhere along the line an intermediary will be saying, “We want those margins.”

[Mr Spencer]

That is a valuable point. There have been a number of references to the dairy industry, and to small dairy farmers all over the United Kingdom. It should be borne in mind that very few small dairy farmers deal directly with the supermarkets. They nearly always negotiate through a dairy producer, someone who is making cheese or yoghurt, or even a bottling plant. The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, and we shall probably need to consider it once we have sorted out the Bill.

Another important topic is that of promotions. Many consumers will no doubt think that “buy one, get one free” offers and other promotions show supermarkets’ generosity, as they must be shrinking their margins. The truth, however, is that it is the primary producers who pick up the tab for the reduced price of the product, and they are often also asked to increase the supply of that product.

Earlier in the year a series of adverts ran on TV promoting asparagus at half price. The weather had been so shocking that I do not think there can have been a single blade of English asparagus on the market at that time. I almost shuddered for our asparagus producers. Many of them had obviously signed a contract to supply a supermarket, and an advertising spot had been booked six months in advance, without regard to the weather. When that time slot in the calendar came, the adverts rolled out and asparagus producers were probably having to buy asparagus from Mexico or Spain to meet their contracts to supply that promotion. There is no flexibility in the system, or common sense from some supermarket buyers.

The worst practice, however, is backdating. A primary producer can supply a supermarket for two years, let us say, and then the supermarket can suddenly say to that producer, “By the way, we’re backdating the price of all that product you’ve supplied to us for the last 12 months, and you owe us £50,000.” That primary producer is then faced with the prospect of either finding that money from somewhere—borrowing it or taking it out of their bank account—or reneging on the contract and never being dealt with again. That truly is an abuse of power. I hope the grocery ombudsman will be able to stop such practices.

Key issues are what tools will be available to the ombudsman and how he will make sure the code of practice is adhered to. That brings us to schedule 3 and the subject that has been dominating the debate: if the adjudicator cannot fine supermarkets, will he have sharp enough teeth to ensure that the code is adhered to? I do not ask the Minister to commit to anything in his winding-up speech, but I ask him to assure us that he will have an open mind and will consider the Committee’s deliberations, and be willing to make an amendment if he feels that that is the right thing to do.

I reiterate that there is much more good than bad in this Bill and it represents a great step forward. With the will of the House and a fair wind, I think we can get to the right place for the primary producers, and also for our consumers, who want good quality food in our supermarkets at the right price, and, crucially, at a price that is sustainable.

Small dairy farmers begin the process of producing milk by choosing an animal to breed. They then breed that cow, which takes nine months, bring that heifer to full production, which takes two years, and then, finally, they get milk from that animal. It takes four years of hard work and investment to get to the point of supplying any milk, therefore. In that time, supermarkets can change their contract on an hourly basis. The whole of the risk is with the primary producer, and at present there are occasions when the whole of the reward is with the retailer. I sincerely hope that we can start to redress the balance in that relationship, to the benefit of supermarkets, primary producers and consumers.

20:04

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I am very pleased to be able to contribute to this debate, and I commend the Government on introducing these measures and making such good progress with the Bill.

There is general agreement among Members that effective measures to protect producers in supermarket supply chains are long overdue, and that the groceries code adjudicator is a step in the right direction. The issues we have to grapple with now are whether the Government’s proposals will achieve what they set out to achieve and whether the adjudicator will have sufficiently sharp teeth to be an effective regulator.

If I have one overarching concern about the Bill it is that the establishment of a groceries code adjudicator will not serve to address the underlying problems of the concentration of power in groceries supply chains and the dominance of a handful of large supermarkets. Indeed, it is not designed to do that. The groceries code adjudicator will not tackle in any fundamental way the huge power imbalance in these supply chains between producers, processors and retailers, but it could, perhaps, tackle some of the symptoms of these underlying issues, and redress some of the worst imbalances, at least to some extent. The adjudicator will only be able to do so, however, if it has real sanctions at its disposal and the confidence of producers.

These are not new problems. Farmers and food producers have complained for years about the way in which supermarket supply chains operate. The specifics change, but the refrain has been the same for at least 20 years: smaller-scale producers, including some farmers in my constituency, secure a contract with a large supermarket and invest in creating jobs and new equipment, only to find that the goalposts shift very quickly. As the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) just recounted from his own experience, as time goes by an unsustainable squeeze is put on them, whether through the imposition of lower margins or changed specifications, or through late payments, demands for the producer to fund promotions or retrospective changes to the terms and conditions of their contract. In short, the risks and the costs are pushed down the supply chain. Those at the sharp end of primary production find they have little negotiating power in a supply chain in which a handful of large retailers and processors reap a disproportionate share of the profit.

I am glad that the proposals will tackle discretionary pricing and the shifting sands in supplier contracts, but the measures need to be enforceable. This evening’s debate has rightly focused on the efficacy and enforcement of the code of conduct and whether reputational risk will be a sufficient deterrent to curb the worst excesses of retailers’ behaviour towards suppliers. I appreciate that any new powers may have unintended consequences, and that we need to ensure that any new scheme does not backfire on consumers, but we must also acknowledge that this has been a long-standing problem. We must appreciate, too, that it is a structural problem. These imbalances have not arisen just in the last couple of years. They have existed for decades, and we must not miss this opportunity to tackle the problems in the supply chain.

We must recognise that these problems have already done considerable damage to our farming communities, and that they are continuing to do damage and are making our processing sector very vulnerable. If we are serious about food security and enabling our primary producers to continue to farm and produce the food we need, we must understand the pressures they face and take them a lot more seriously.

The disturbing and disappointing news breaking this evening that Vion is pulling out of the UK illustrates all too keenly the fragile nature of our food supply chains and the pressure our food producers and processors face in the current economic climate. Some 13,000 people across the UK work for Vion, including more than 130 in my constituency at Strath of Brydock. I know Members across the House will share my concern about the uncertainty facing the employees of Vion, and I ask the Minister to give us an assurance this evening that everything possible will be done to ensure continuity in those Vion plants across the UK, and that the Government will be working very hard to find buyers for the businesses.

The problems in the supply chain are one of the factors that give rise to the problems food processors face, and addressing them is one of the objectives of the Bill. This evening’s news about Vion is very unfortunate, but it should serve to concentrate our minds on why we so desperately need an effective groceries code adjudicator. This is not a debate about an abstract topic; real people’s jobs and lives are at stake.

We should not forget the negotiations on the common agricultural policy. Many farm businesses in my constituency would not be economically viable were it not for pillar one support. Many jobs in the processing sector would be completely unsustainable without that support. I gather from debates in recent weeks that the Government think that there is a case for reducing CAP support to our farmers. Unless we have effective measures to influence supply chains, that is not viable and it will put undue pressure on our rural communities and farmers who are going through difficult times, given the wider economic context in which they are trying to trade. An adjudicator needs proper powers if they are to be able to rise to the challenge of sustainable food production in the years ahead.

Many people say that the problem with voluntary codes is that they do not stand the test of time, and tend to be eroded or watered down once media attention disappears. As public attention wanes on issues such as the situation of dairy famers, reputational risks diminish for the retailers and it is back to business as usual. That is why reputational risk measures on their own will not be enough to enforce the role of the adjudicator, and we must look at more substantial financial sanctions. Dairy farmers’ success over the summer badly needs to be consolidated. Dairy farmers in my constituency cannot spend every Saturday afternoon on the high street at Drummer’s corner with petition boards. Young farmers do not want to have to dress up in cow outfits to get attention: they just want to be able to do their job. They cannot rely on being able to generate public sympathy all the time.

Without doubt, retailers value reputations and brands, but without sustained, concerted action by suppliers to keep public attention on their own product the story quickly dies. Retailers employ highly paid, very professional public relations executives, whereas working farmers do not necessarily have that public affairs expertise at their disposal, and do not have the money to pay for it. The loss of reputation for supermarkets does not necessarily translate into sufficiently meaningful change in consumer behaviour and consequently supermarket behaviour. Earlier in the summer, allegations of tax avoidance were levelled at a number of large corporations, including supermarkets such as Tesco and Asda, but that has not translated into a customer exodus, so I caution the Minister against relying too much on reputational damage to enforce the role of the groceries code adjudicator.

Supermarkets insist that price and quality are the key drivers of customer satisfaction, and my own view is that financial penalties are likely to be the most meaningful sanctions, and they should be available from the outset. Responsible retailers do not have anything to fear from that. Indeed, it might encourage them to develop better, more progressive and responsible supply chain models. To give credit where it is due, Morrisons supermarket has used a different supply chain model for its meat producers. It has a meat processing plant close to Turriff in my constituency, and farmers are much happier about that model than about previous models. There is a bit of learning still to do in the process, but there is a chance to incentivise good practice in the Bill, rather than simply hold a sword of Damocles over the supermarkets.

Another issue that has been debated this evening is accessibility and whether third parties, trade associations, non-governmental organisations and others should be able to provide evidence to spark an investigation. I am glad that the Government have recognised the valuable role that those third parties can play in the process. From my point of view, it is the veracity of the evidence that matters, regardless of its source. If there is credible evidence that the code has been breached, it should not matter where the evidence comes from. One of the main reasons why the effectiveness of voluntary codes has not been sustained is that suppliers, as has been said, are scared to put their head above the parapet and challenge manifestly unfair supply chain practices by the major retailers because they fear retaliation. They worry about losing their contract, and about getting a reputation as a troublemaker. That is one reason why others need to be able to raise concerns on their behalf.

As has been said, there is a global dimension to the Bill. The retailers who will be affected by the groceries code adjudicator all have extensive overseas supply chains, including in parts of the world where there is scant regard for labour rights, where pay is abysmal and exploitation is widespread. Pushing the costs and risks of production down the supply chain on to producers causes real hardship for our own farm businesses, food producers and processors, and other suppliers. At an international level, however, that squeeze is felt by some of the poorest people in the world, who have no social protection whatsoever. For the most part, they are not in a position to act as advocates for themselves, which is why it is important that others not only highlight the problems in the supply chain—ActionAid, Oxfam and others have done so for years—but can do so with a reasonable hope and expectation of securing meaningful change in practices.

I hear a lot of complaints from farmers in my constituency, but very few of them are willing to go public and put their head above the parapet. The hon. Member for Sherwood was careful not to identify any of his constituents for fear of the consequences. Anonymity and confidentiality are essential, but for suppliers who produce a unique product that no one else produces or a niche product that only a limited number of suppliers produce there is nowhere to hide, because they can be easily identified. I urge the Minister to respond and take on board the important role both of third parties and of the adjudicator in being able to initiate investigations.

I want to conclude by sharing with the House an advert that appeared in the Scottish press in the summer. Tesco, which posted UK profits of £2.5 billion this year, advertised for a buyer to operate in the Scottish islands among some of the most marginal farmers anywhere in the British isles. The job advert asked for candidates who would

“achieve…savings/income target through the 4 ways of buying: Buy for less; Someone Else Pays; Use less; Re-engineer”.

I find that quite shocking, as it is a naked admission from the retailer of what its supply chain model really is. Beneath all the hype and the glossy corporate responsibility literature, the supply chain model is to squeeze small, marginal producers as much as possible to maximise profits. That should be challenged, and when we debate the careful balance of these issues we must absolutely understand that those retailers have been ruthless with small farmers, and have made it increasingly non-viable for them to farm and to produce the food on which we all rely.

We have waited a long time for effective sanctions. Financial penalties will send a signal not just to the retailers but to farmers and producers that the Government are serious about helping them. It would improve confidence in the adjudicator as the post is established. We hear a lot that “Every little helps.” Perhaps it does, but we do not want just a little at this juncture. We want the measure to be a first step, and we want a robust Bill with solid sanctions. The Committees that have produced reports on the issue have said that the Bill needs to go further, and that proper financial sanctions are required. I hope that Ministers will listen and take that on board, and that we will see an effective groceries code adjudicator.

20:18

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), who speaks with great knowledge of and expertise in agriculture, and she knows the contents of the Bill. Her comments about pillar one were particularly well made. The subject has received poor press, but it is absolutely essential to the well-being of many farmers who farm on hill and other remote areas of these islands.

I declare an interest, as I am still responsible for an active farm that sends most of its products to a major supermarket via a slaughterhouse operated by Vion which, as we have heard, announced today that it was going to pull out of the UK. It employs nearly 1,000 people in the constituency next door to mine, and many of the farmers I represent use that facility to market their livestock. I hope that the Minister will take note of that, because it is a particular issue for us.

I commend and congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), on how she moved Second Reading. She did it with enthusiasm and panache. Not only is she able, but she is lucky, too. She was in the right place at the right time to pick up the Bill, which has support across the House and is one we have been waiting for for a very long time. She is not only able and lucky, but standing on the shoulders of giants who have taken the business forward in the past. Mention has already been made of Colin Breed, a former Member of this House, who was the first person to produce a report that put in print what many people believed—that is, that supermarkets, because of the way in which they had grown and now dominated the marketplace, were taking an unfair advantage. That led to the first Competition Commission report on the subject.

This is a failing market. Many of us believe that if markets are working properly they need light regulation, but this is certainly an example of a failing market in which the people making the purchasing decisions are so large and dominant in the market that they can adversely affect it to the detriment of the small producers. We need regulation, and I believe that the Bill is a fine piece of legislation that will contribute to resolving the problems.

Let me make a few suggestions about what we could consider in Committee when the individual clauses are debated. Mention has already been made of the ability of the adjudicator to implement fines. I certainly support that and would support a debate on the subject in Committee. It seems to me that just because an adjudicator could impose fines, fines would not necessarily be imposed or have to be imposed. The fact that the power was available to the adjudicator would make the job a lot easier and would put pressure on the supermarkets to take every opportunity to ensure that their dealings with their suppliers were fair.

Naming and shaming can have a big effect on supermarkets. I have been told that during the summer, when the dairy industry was in turmoil, the straw that broke the supermarkets’ backs, making them increase the prices they paid to farmers and enter into the voluntary code that a former Agriculture Minister was so instrumental in introducing, was the huge Twitter and Facebook campaign about the supermarkets that were the worst in abusing their suppliers. That was the turning point. Obviously, the farmers were protesting on the streets, but the campaign among consumers made a difference. Naming and shaming has a powerful impact on supermarkets, but the ability to impose a fine would give extra power to the adjudicator.

One question that has been asked is what role the adjudicator would have in the voluntary code that the supermarkets have entered into with their suppliers, which is something that the Minister should consider. I know that a number of people have written to the Department and not received an answer. Are we dealing just with the grocery code or with other codes that have been entered into voluntarily by the producers and the supermarkets?

Food chains are rather complex, and rarely does a farmer supply a supermarket directly. That does happen, but it is not the usual way in which food moves along the chain. Often, there are other people between the producer and the retailer. In the milk industry, farmers supply dairies that either bottle the milk and send it off in liquid form or produce dairy products such as cheese, yoghurt and so on. In the meat industry, the chain will often include slaughterhouses and meat processing plants. There are also other parts of the food chain, such as wholesalers and distributors. The systems are very complex, and I hope that the Bill will ensure that their complexity will be considered by the adjudicator and that the adjudicator will be able to intervene when he thinks the market is failing.

All in all, I believe the Bill addresses many of the problems that small producers have experienced over the past 20 years in dealing with massive purchasing organisations such as supermarkets. The Bill can be improved, and I ask the Minister to consider the ability to impose fines as well as whether the adjudicator will have a role to play in any codes that are entered into voluntarily between producers and supermarkets.

20:26

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate and, in particular, to follow the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams). For Jenny-come-latelies like me, it is particularly valuable to hear about the journey the Bill has travelled before bringing us here today.

It is also not only a pleasurable experience but a unique one for me, as this is the first time my constituents have urged me to speak up in the Chamber in favour of something the Government are doing. I do not know whether that says more about my constituents or the Government. I hope that we are seeing a coming of age moment for this Government. Let me take my first opportunity to welcome the new Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), to her position. I hope that this is a coming of age moment when the Government realise that the market when left to its own devices does not always work in a way that allows them to sit back and turn a blind eye.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) spoke about just how dysfunctional the relationship has become among the major supermarkets, the food producers and consumers, which means that it is time for the Government to act and intervene. The balance of power is so out of kilter that it is legitimate even for this Government to intervene to regulate. I hope that the new Minister—well, the relatively new Minister—will keep that feeling in her heart and consider it when it comes to the big energy suppliers and the payday loan companies. There is always a point at which her Government can say that enough is enough and that it is time for them to intervene.



East Lothian has some of the most beautiful and fertile agricultural land in the whole of this nation. The farmers in my constituency are facing a particularly difficult time after the bad summer that we had. Many of the crops will not yield what farmers had hoped for, and I hope for them that the Bill will offer some hope. We will judge the Bill on how it delivers for many of the hopes that we have. As well as a better future for farmers, I hope it will give them the opportunity to innovate, and that they will have the confidence to do that, now that they know there will be fairness in the supply chain.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan spoke about the importance for her farmers of having pillar 1 funding from the common agricultural policy. I hope farmers, especially smaller food producers, will see the Bill as an opportunity to plant for the future with some certainty. As farming is a major employer in my constituency, I hope this will lead to the creation of more jobs and improve the working conditions and pay of many of those who work in the agricultural sector and who, with the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Boards, have lost the security that they have enjoyed for decades as a result of the intervention of a previous Labour Government.

I pay tribute to the many Members who, over the years, have succeeded in building a consensus across the House. There is a very different feeling in the Chamber tonight. I was impressed, as I often am, by the words of the shadow Business, Innovation and Skills Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), when he said that we have an opportunity to make a good Bill a better Bill. I very much hope that the Government will take that opportunity in Committee and that they will be open to opportunities to improve and strengthen the Bill. I stress to my hon. Friend that this is not a pitch to join him on the Public Bill Committee. One can have too much of a good thing. I previously sat with him on the Committee that considered the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, where the many valuable contributions that he brought to the debate in that forum were unfortunately spurned by the Government.

We have already seen attempts to improve the Bill, some of which the Government have responded to positively. I hope we continue to see that spirit. I spoke about how we are to judge the Bill. I wish that on Report in the Lords, the Government had accepted an amendment that would have built into the Bill a point at which the Government will review progress. I hope both Ministers were listening to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), when she said that her Committee believed that that would strengthen the Bill.

We have heard from various Select Committees and many organisations. I particularly thank ActionAid and Oxfam for the briefings that they have provided on the general debate about food security. I hope Ministers will realise that not just in this place, but out there in a variety of organisations, there is concern about the need to review the Bill and consider further powers for the groceries adjudicator.

I came this evening not to bury the big four supermarkets, but more to praise them. There have been real tensions in communities in my constituency. We are a constituency of small communities and the arrival of out-of-town supermarkets has threatened the future of the town high street and the marketplace. The community has responded positively by innovating, but it will be another test of the Bill if it brings further benefits to high streets that are struggling to compete with the big supermarkets. We have some wonderful specialty shops in East Lothian, in places such as Haddington, North Berwick and Dunbar—some up-market delicatessens where it is a pleasure to browse and shop. It is one of the strengths of East Lothian and why people visit it.

However, there is also a place for the supermarkets and I want to put on record my support for them. Many of my constituents need somewhere on their doorstep where they can buy a cheap school uniform and get the basic range of food and provisions. I do not deny that there is a role for supermarkets, but I want to see the balance maintained in my constituency. Many others in the House no doubt have a similar situation and want to see our town centres grow, thrive, innovate, contribute to the local economy and create jobs.

I welcome the fact that the Government have changed their mind and listened to the concerns about third-party evidence. Will the Minister give us a little more detail? Many producers fear for their future if word gets round. We see blacklisting in other professions. What is the meat of the Bill that will protect those food producers? A little more detail on that would be useful, as would any plans the Government have for improving clause 18.

We have talked about trade associations and trade unions being able to provide evidence, but we have not yet heard whether campaigning bodies will be able to do so. It is very reassuring and I welcome all that, so I wonder why the Government bothered to include in the Bill the power to rescind that, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith)—I hope I have pronounced the name of her constituency correctly; the guttural Scots tongue comes in useful at times. The Government can send some important messages by setting out certain provisions in the Bill. What message do they send the big retailers if the Government are not sure whether or not to include that power? It is a bit of a hokey-cokey clause.

I also have concerns that I am sure Ministers will recognise. We have heard from Members on both sides of the House and from all parties about the effectiveness of naming and shaming. The Minister tried to press Opposition Front Benchers on the size of proposed fines, so I will now press for some detail on what form the naming and shaming will take. She spoke about the possibility of retailers having to place notices in the national press. Will the adjudicator be able to specify the size of those notices and what newspapers they should appear in? Will it just be national newspapers, or will it include local newspapers, which are struggling to raise revenue in the current economic climate? Also, local people often trust more what they read in their local press. It would be good to hear a little more detail about where the retailers will be named and shamed.

Furthermore, what evidence do the Government have that naming and shaming actually works, because we seem to see the opposite? One example is this House. We have come through the expenses scandal—I hope—although it does not always feel that way, but when we ask people on the street which party is worse when it comes to the abuse of MPs’ expenses, the reaction is pretty much this: “You’re all the same and all as bad as each other.” I wonder whether that could be consumers’ approach to the retailers. They might not distinguish between the supermarkets, all the information would simply be lost in a blur and there would be an overall perception that there is something rather fishy going on. I really do not think that consumers will use that power and information to hurt an individual major retailer where it hurts—in the pocket. If there is evidence to the contrary, it would be good to hear it.

The Minister spoke about where we have seen consumer power, but that has often been in relation to a single product range or an unethical issue. In the meantime, supermarkets have continued to enjoy large profits. In my constituency the choice is between only two major retailers. Because of the distance between the Asda store in Dunbar and the Tesco store in Haddington, consumers have to travel quite a journey to exercise that right. I will say at this point that Sainsbury’s is coming to Haddington. I am not plugging them so that they sponsor my Christmas card, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South, but perhaps that is a negotiation I might enter into after the debate. Sainsbury’s has shown good practice in working locally to build a vision for Haddington town centre, so that conflicting concerns can be balanced and the livelihood and sustainability of a town centre can be preserved while the out-of-town option is there.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Given the clear balance in the speeches that have been made today across the House, would not it be good if Ministers, rather than just waiting for the Bill to go to Committee, said now that they would table the kinds of amendments that everyone seems to be asking for—for example to introduce fines at an early stage?

[Fiona O'Donnell]

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes an excellent contribution. The Government have a track record in this regard. They accepted some of our amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill, but only after they had branded them as their own, so perhaps our suggestions will morph into Government amendments that will result in an improved Bill.

A message has to be sent. There is no more important issue on which we can send a message to the big retailers than that of fines, and I make that appeal to Ministers. The point has been made by hon. Members of all parties during this debate and by Select Committees and organisations outside this place that we need, at the outset, to give the groceries adjudicator the power to impose fines. That would set a strict limit. We do not want to be like a parent who tells their child, “I’m going to let you out, not give a curfew and see how it goes.” It would be better to set a benchmark at this stage—a line that the big retailers cannot cross—rather than let them see how far they can push us.

Some companies irritate many of us by constantly phoning to offer to represent us if we have been mis-sold payment protection plans that we did not know we had signed up to. The reality is that only now that they are beginning to be hurt in their wallets are some of those companies desisting from such practices.

In summary, I see hope for this Bill, but we have offered Ministers the opportunity to improve it. Although I do not expect that to happen this evening, I hope that they will take that opportunity in Committee so that the Bill can be all it can be.

20:41

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

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), whose remarks I echo. This has been a great cross-party debate and Members want to make sure that the Bill is good and right. I also welcome the fact that Ministers from the Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are at one on this. Even the Select Committees are united. There is parliamentary unity on the Bill, so this must be one of the greatest moments of all time.

I say to the Ministers that the Bill will need to have real teeth, for the simple reason that one of this country’s retail traders has more than 30% of the trade, a larger turnover than many small countries, and huge powers. It is a great idea to name and shame retailers, but we need to have the powers to fine them and to keep fining them. If they do not adhere in the first instance, there must be real pain, by which I do not mean tuppence ha’penny from the billions of pounds of turnover; the fine has to mean business. We have to turn this situation around.

I am not here to slam the supermarkets—they do a great deal of good—but we have to make sure that enough money cascades from what the consumer pays for his or her product at the supermarket back down to both the producer and the grower.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I endorse what my hon. Friend is saying and I know that the growers and producers in Northumberland will support this Bill wholeheartedly. What robust measures does he think would genuinely hold the supermarkets to account?

[Neil Parish]

I would like to see fines incorporated into the Bill—I am sure that the Government will listen when it is debated in Committee—so that there is real pain. I believe that the threat of fines, as well as that of naming and shaming, will help make sure that not too many of the large retailers will have to go before the adjudicator. If they have nothing to hide and if their retail trade practices are right, they will have nothing whatsoever to fear, either from the Bill or from potential fines.

It is not only the producer who is at risk in these trades. Many of the direct contracts that the supermarkets have with farmers in the dairy and meat trades are excellent. However, supermarkets may decide to have a price war and to reduce their prices, perhaps by using these products as loss leaders. That is wonderful for consumers, provided that it is the supermarkets who pay for those loss leaders, and that they do not go back down the chain and squeeze not only the producer, but the processor.

[Guy Opperman]

I know that my hon. Friend is a champion of the dairy industry. The Minister who will respond to this debate is the Minister who responded to the dairy debate in Westminster Hall. Does my hon. Friend agree that the dairy industry is the biggest example that we can cite of a price compromise affecting the farmer and the producer such that they effectively go out of business?

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Much work was done by the previous farming and food Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), to get voluntary dairy codes in place. The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) is carrying on that good work. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) said that we need to be sure that the groceries code adjudicator will be able to look at the voluntary codes and contracts. I repeat that it is essential that a share of the money that the consumer pays for his or her product goes to the processor and the producer.

We are moving into a world of some 7 billion people. That world does not have oceans of cheap food. In many ways, that is a good thing, but it is also difficult for consumers across the world. There are people in this country who are struggling to buy food and it is essential that they get a good deal. However, in order to get a good deal, we must ensure that the producer, be it of milk, beef, lamb, carrots, potatoes or other vegetables, gets a return. If they get a return on their investment, they will produce more food and do so efficiently. That is the way to ensure that we can deliver products at a good price on the supermarket shelf.

Some of the ways in which large buyers and retailers have abused their position over the years have made food prices higher rather than lower. In the short term, when the supermarkets have a price war that drives prices down, it seems like the consumer is getting a good deal, but it drives many people out of business, meaning that there is less production than there was before.

Until now it has been possible to go around the world and bring in the extra product that is needed. However, to take the meat sector, where is the beef that is out there in the world? Forty years ago, the Chinese were eating 500,000 tonnes of beef a year. Now, they are eating 5 million tonnes of beef a year. The UK produces about 1 million tonnes of beef, so one can see that instead of eating half as much beef as we produce, China is now eating five times that amount. All the beef that used to be sloshing around in Brazil and Argentina, which could once be bought cheaply and used, dare I say it, to drive down the price of beef in this country, is no longer there. That is why it is important not only to get things right for the consumer and the trade, but to ensure that we will have reasonably priced food in the future.

In the summer, 3,000 dairy farmers protested outside Westminster, and we had a huge meeting. It was absolutely right for the farmers to protest. They had some of the worst weather that I have seen in my lifetime, and the cost of producing milk went up while the price went down. However, is it right that those farmers with family farms have to march up the hill every time and show how desperate they are to make a fair living? Is it right that we have to use social media to name and shame supermarkets? Again, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire made that point. It is not right. There is something wrong with the process of trade in this country, and that is why the groceries code adjudicator is so important.

We set much store by the Bill. Other hon. Members referred to the common agricultural policy and the single farm payments. All Members want farmers to get more money and more of their income. Farmers would much rather have more of their income from the market—from what they produce—than from what they receive in the single farm payment. They would thus not be so vulnerable to the politics of not only Britain, but the European Union.

The rising population, the need to produce more food from the same amount of land throughout the world, global warming, and the fact that northern Europe and Britain will need to produce much more food, mean that we should be able to get a good price for that food. However, if we have not got the market right, the price of food will not go back to the producer, and we will not produce the amount of food that we need.

There is a need for food security, and a moral issue about producing food. Some people in the world cannot afford to eat and it is therefore important that we produce more food—sustainably, and in an environmentally and animal-welfare friendly way. That is what our consumers want: to be sure that, when they go to a supermarket or a small retailer, they get they get a fair deal, and that that also applies to the producer and the grower, not only in this country, but in developing countries. Our supermarkets often do not give producers throughout the world a fair deal. Let us hope that the groceries code adjudicator can do that.

We have rightly talked a lot about the retailer and the producer today, but we must remember that nearly 500,000 people in this country are involved in food processing, and 80% of the food that they process is grown and produced in this country. The Bill is therefore good not only for the producer but for the processor and I believe that, in the end, it will be good for our supermarkets.

Much as one would perhaps enjoy a major war with the supermarkets and the big retailers, it is ultimately not a war that we want because where do 70%, 80% or even 90% of the population buy their food? They buy it in supermarkets—they want to shop there. We must be sure that, when they shop, the groceries code adjudicator will have enough teeth to ensure that the consumer, the producer and the processor—everyone in the food chain—get a fair deal.

[Mr Spencer]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that farmers need to bear some of the responsibility? Many dairy farmers, instead of selling to a co-operative, decided to trade direct. If they stuck together, they would be much stronger. Some farmers almost pay gate money to obtain those direct contracts, and steal contracts from other farmers, thereby contributing to their own downfall.

[Neil Parish]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. I often say that farmers’ great strength is their independence, although that can also be their great weakness. I welcome the deal between Milk Link and Arla Foods because this country now has a co-operative that controls some 25% of the milk, giving it real clout in the marketplace. It is right for farmers to come together and co-operate, and the Bill will help such co-operation within the farming, processing and retail sectors. As I said, no retailer has anything to fear from the groceries code adjudicator if they have the correct practices, and that is right. Finally, I say again that the Government welcome this Bill, but the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee must look to put real fines in place so that those who abuse the grocery trade can be brought to book, and not only named and shamed, but properly fined.

20:54

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

I seem to be falling into the rather pleasant habit, in both this Chamber and Westminster Hall, of following the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) in debates on food policy. That is agreeable because he speaks with a great deal of authority and good sense, and I broadly concur with his remarks.

I represent one of the most urban constituencies of all Members who have contributed to the debate so far. There is farm land in the northern tip of my constituency, along the boundary that I share with the Under-Secretary, but the contribution made by my constituency to the food industry comes primarily from the major fruit trading market in Blochairn, two major bakers and bread makers in Lambhill and Sighthill, two major supermarkets in Sighthill and Robroyston, and the hundreds of constituents who work in the food retail, manufacturing and processing industries on modest, if not relatively low, wages. They make a huge contribution to the food that ends up on our plates.

I was struck by a point made by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) who reminded the House that in the past, weak regulation and regulators with insufficient powers have created problems in the markets. She emphasised the problems that have emerged in the energy markets—we all hear from constituents who are struggling with soaring electricity and gas bills—and the same may prove true in the media sector. This debate has shown that parties across the House do not want the same thing to happen in the food production and retail sectors, and I hope that Ministers will pick up on the need for the groceries code adjudicator to have proper powers, including the power to fine. We have seen in the home of capitalism—the United States—that in markets where there has been price fixing, the primary sanction used to bring companies engaged in that to account has been the use and imposition of fines.

With rapidly rising food prices becoming one of the biggest pressures on the living standards of millions of people across the country, our consideration of this long-overdue Bill to introduce a groceries code adjudicator is not before time. It is important that we continue to bear down on anti-competitive practices within the large food retail sector and food supply chains, which were so clearly identified in the Competition Commission’s 2008 report.

The Bill matters because food is the largest part of the UK’s manufacturing sector. It has a turnover of £76 billion a year and accounts for 16% of all manufacturing output. However, the grocery market is dominated by four major retailers, the sales of which totalled 85% of the £143 billion industry turnover in 2009; Asda, Morrisons, Tesco and Sainsbury’s accounted for two thirds of the total.

As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton and other hon. Members have said, the economics of sustainable food production will be crucial in resolving the problem of increasing food prices and ensuring that producers and consumers get a fairer deal. In 2008, the Competition Commission said that

“the transfer of excessive risk and unexpected costs by grocery retailers to their suppliers through various supply chain practices if unchecked will have an adverse effect on investment and innovation in the supply chain, and ultimately on consumers”.

I agree. On the impact that that has on food prices, Office for National Statistics data published last week show that, since 2005, the price of fruit has risen 28%; the price of vegetables is up by more than 40%; and the cost of fish has increased by 56%. Real wages are falling at around 4% a year, but food costs are going up by much more than the headline consumer prices index of inflation, so action to make supply chains more efficient to bear down on rapidly rising bills will be a key indicator of the success of the new adjudicator. Big supermarket chains have expanded into the convenience store market and compete directly with smaller chains and independent stores. It is important that the new adjudicator roots out any anti-competitive practices.

The purpose of the Bill is welcome. Its provisions owe a great deal to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and his team from their period in government, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who spoke earlier in the debate. However, as has been said, both Back-Bench Members and Opposition Front Benchers have concerns about the details, which we believe should be amended in Committee. The major concern is the lack of an independent power for the adjudicator to fine from day one for serious breaches of the code—a step that was recommended by the Competition Commission in 2008. In its report of that year and in its 2000 report, the commission identified two major breaches of the code by large retailers, but the Bill permits the adjudicator to levy fines only with the consent of the Secretary of State following an order, and further consultation and review. As many hon. Members have noted, there might be a delay of a year or 18 months before the power to fine is activated. What other public official in the nature of an ombudsman, which the office of groceries code adjudicator surely is, has such weak powers of enforcement and such a lack of independence from Ministers?

The code of practice applies only to supply contracts between individual suppliers and major retailers with a turnover in excess of £1 billion a year. It does not deal with supply chain abuses at more intermediate levels, such as regional wholesalers and processors. The Bill should be amended to allow the adjudicator to monitor fair dealing throughout the supply chain, and ensure that suppliers are protected from the threat of retaliation if they produce evidence of unfair practices.

Hon. Members have referred in the debate to the practice of below-cost selling—my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) referred to it in an intervention, and I suspect he might do so again in his speech proper. The practice involves a retailer selling an item for less than its input costs, as illustrated by the notorious example of supermarkets selling loaves of white sliced bread for 7p. The practice, which has been prohibited in France, Germany, Spain and Portugal, can force suppliers out of business, and has also caused huge pressures in other sectors, such as the dairy industry.

The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills have called on the Government to increase the powers available to the adjudicator, to widen the range of those who can bring forward complaints, such as trade associations, trade unions and pressure groups—I welcome the clarification we have received on that point—and to put more detail in the Bill on the power to fine. Those are all reasonable and constructive suggestions by two influential Select Committees. I do not believe I have heard a single hon. Member from the Back Benches, or from the Opposition Front Bench, who has dissented from those views, so I hope that the Government will reflect on the unified outcome of the debate and announce that when the Bill goes to Committee today they will accept and table amendments that reflect the will of the House as expressed today.

Although clause 7 affords the adjudicator the power to recommend changes to retailers, there are no powers for the adjudicator to compel action by retailers who do not take remedial steps at first instance. Similarly, clause 11 permits, but does not require, the adjudicator to provide advice to suppliers and large retailers on matters relating to the code. It seems somewhat counter-productive for the adjudicator, as part of his or her statutory duties, not to be required to publish guidance on how retailers can best comply with the terms implicit within the code.

Providing sufficient protection of anonymity for those bringing complaints before the adjudicator will be crucial to enforceability. National Farmers Union Scotland has argued that the code has so far proven ineffective because of the fear that complainants may be identified. Its view, therefore, is that complaints should be capable of investigation on the basis of credible evidence, whatever its source. I hope the Ministers, in winding up, will respond to the views that NFU Scotland has put forward in its submissions on the Bill.

I hope the Bill will secure an improvement in the living standards of our dairy farmers, which have been under such pressure in recent years, particularly in Scotland. Although one of the major processors, Müller-Wiseman, has recently increased standard farm-gate milk prices to just over 30p per litre during this winter period, given the increased costs facing dairy farmers that is not far from the absolute minimum that farmers in Scotland need to make ends meet. I hope that the adjudicator, when set up with sufficient powers, will be able to deal with the pressures that cause significant hardship to dairy farmers in Scotland and, as we have heard, in every part of the United Kingdom.

This is a good Bill. As hon. Members have said, we wish it well in Committee. I hope, in conclusion, that Ministers will reflect on what has been a good-tempered and consensual debate, take the positive suggestions offered by the House and provide a system that allows abuses in the market to be tackled and rooted out at source. That leads to one conclusion: the ability of the adjudicator to fine, without an order from the Secretary of State—an ability that must be in the Bill.

21:08

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I chair the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union parliamentary group. The group supports the Bill, because we hope that it will address the issue, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), of below-cost selling. We have been campaigning on this issue for a number of years by tabling parliamentary questions and early-day motions, and meeting Ministers, yet the problem continues. As my hon. Friend said, below-cost selling is when a retailer sells an item for less than its input cost—what is described as being sold with a negative gross margin. When the Competition Commission conducted an inquiry into items of known value, it identified that bread was a particular issue, as he said. It was not just one supermarket selling white sliced loaves for 7p—many others were selling bread at extremely low prices and low margins. As he said, other countries addressed the issue at the same time by introducing legislation to prevent the resale of goods at a loss. This area is regulated in several European countries.

My hon. Friend also quoted the Competition Commission. In the passage that he quoted, however, the commission went on to say that if the practice went unchecked,

“we conclude that this will ultimately have a detrimental effect on consumers, by leading to low-quality goods, less choice of goods, or less product innovation.”

That is exactly what has happened to the supply of bread. The loss of bread quality should worry all concerned—in many instances, it is now little more than water—and is contributing to the nation’s unhealthy diet. Price pressures are also having an impact on the working processes, so we are concerned about health and safety, particularly in relation to the preponderance of Baker’s asthma among workers producing bread for supermarket chains. As has been said elsewhere, the price pressures obviously result in firms closing, the loss of jobs and pressure on overall pay and conditions.

I want to refer to the three main points raised so far. The first concerns fines. The Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union has been involved in campaigns to name and shame. As I mentioned earlier, however, not only have they not worked but they have had the contradictory result of giving publicity to companies providing products at extremely low prices. In some ways, naming and shaming actually boosts supermarkets’ sales, as we saw with the Competition Commission’s inquiry into the 7p loaf. Our experience is thus not only that large conglomerates can ride out a naming and shaming campaign but that some actually benefit from it.

From my reading of the Bill, it looks as though the fines order will be brought into play only on a case-by-case basis. [Interruption.] No, the Minister says it will be on a general basis. If that is so, it will still be left to the Secretary of State to designate in the order the size of the fine to be levied. I would welcome more information. Will a tariff system be established? Will the recommendation on a tariff system come from the adjudicator? The House could usefully discuss whether a tariff system would prove effective and have an impact on companies’ practices.

The second issue concerns third party reporting. We have all welcomed that provision and put on record the fact that it will include trade unions. That is incredibly useful, and I congratulate the Government. Having said that, trade unions are anxious that companies might take retaliatory measures against a union or individual members. That is a concern, given past victimisation and blacklisting, so I would welcome the Government’s revisiting the blacklisting regulations to ensure adequate protection for trade unions, trade unionists and individual workers who blow the whistle on some of the practices of the supermarkets, as they put pressure on individual companies.

I am extremely worried by clause 15(10). I have seen clauses that allow for a review of the implementation of legislation, and for that review to bring forward recommendations that the House can discuss and on the basis of which we frame further legislation. That is the rational process. I have never before seen in legislation, however, the actual proposed new clause to be introduced. That flies in the face of the rational process of review, assessment and recommendation, after which the House comes to a view. It would help if we could hear why the Government feel they need the draft clause on the shelf, within the Bill itself, to introduce readily. It smacks of defeatism over the effectiveness of the legislation. May I also have some clarity on the process for the order? Will it be the affirmative process or the super-affirmative process—or whatever other process—that the Government recommend? There would need to be quite a heated exchange in this Chamber if we felt that the Government were reverting to type and removing those provisions from the Bill.

Thirdly, the appointment of the adjudicator is very important. I am therefore keen that the Government should concede that there ought to be some form of pre-appointment process via the relevant Select Committee, but I worry sometimes about the timidity of this House. Other Select Committees now have the right to approve appointments, so why not in this instance?

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech. As he is talking about giving this House some input in the appointment to an important post, does he agree that we should go down the route outlined in the Conservative party manifesto from the general election, which said that the Conservatives would

“give Select Committees the right to hold confirmation hearings for major public appointments, including the heads of quangos”?

[John McDonnell]

This point coincides with a private Member’s Bill in my name on the appointment of the Governor of the Bank of England. I can understand that the Government—or rather, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—might have some anxieties about that, but I cannot see why anybody should have any anxieties about the adjudicator being appointed with the approval of the relevant Select Committee. In fact, that is exactly what happened with the Office for Budget Responsibility. The appointment of the chair—in fact, the members were there too—was subject to the approval of the Treasury Committee. The post of adjudicator needs to be given sufficient authority, which often stems from the process of appointment. If the appointment was subject not only to pre-examination and review and so on, but to approval by the relevant Select Committee, that would send a message to the supermarkets and anybody else that the Government were serious about this job, and the individual concerned would have the full authority of this House to do as he or she saw fit in implementing the legislation. That is not an awful lot to concede, really.

It is rare to find such unanimity on the Back Benches across all parties. I genuinely do not understand why the issue of fines has arisen. In the old days, an influential figure in a sector of industry would phone No. 10 and the Prime Minister would drag in the Secretary of State and say, “We’re not having it, so you’d better amend it.” I hope none of that has gone on. I hope we will get a rational process in Committee, an acknowledgement of the unanimous view on the Back Benches and a Government amendment on fines that we can all agree on. If the Government strengthened the role of the new body—with the unanimous approval of this House, which they would get, because they have had it so far, apart from on this one issue—they could put down a marker to show that the Government mean business on this issue, and so do all legislators in this House.

In that way, the proposal will prove to be effective; otherwise, I make this prediction. There will be rows. The adjudicator will come forward, there will be publicity about a particular instance, the supermarket might pull back for a few months, or maybe a year, then it will return to its practices and we will end up going round the cycle yet again, most probably in two years’ time. We will be kicking ourselves and asking, “Why didn’t we give the adjudicator powers to fine?” Rather than waiting and revisiting the issue, why not do that now?

As for the order being in place and the choice being between fines in the Bill and fines in a statutory instrument that would take six months to introduce, there are people here with more experience than I, but getting a statutory instrument through this House can be quite difficult to say the least. If there is a civil servant out there or someone lobbying, the fastest I have seen it happen is 18 months to two years, so I have some scepticism about getting an SI through in that time. There will be lots of vying for parliamentary time in discussions with the Leader of the House and something could crop up that sends this issue to the back of the queue. It is not just a matter of saying, “Well, if it doesn’t work, we’ll bring forward an order in six months.” Instead, we could be waiting beyond the next Parliament. Some elements in the industry could play on and exploit that as part of their lobbying practices.

Ultimately, if the ability to fine were put in the Bill and a fine were imposed that the supermarkets, or whoever, were unhappy with, they would resort to a court of law anyway. If they felt that there was something wrong with the process, they could ask for a judicial review of the Government or the adjudicator. They have all the facilities to do that anyway, so I am not completely sure what the Government are arguing about on that point. I am hoping that we can have a rational process, and that the Government will see reason and table the appropriate amendments in Committee. I also hope that the work that has been done over the years by all those hon. Members who have been congratulated today will come to fruition in an effective piece of legislation.

21:20

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and his appeal for listening, for unanimity and for constructive work in Committee. This very good debate has revealed common themes and shared aims on both sides of the House. It has also shown that there is a real will, which we share, to get the Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible in a form that is fit and proper and that will enable it to do the job that we and Ministers want it to do. We do not want to miss this golden opportunity to get this absolutely right.

I have a radical suggestion. Perhaps we should dispense with the need to find names for a Committee, and simply keep on sitting here now until we have put the Bill to bed. With such high levels of experience in the Chamber today, and such clarity on what is required of the Bill, we ought to strike while the iron is hot. I am not sure whether all right hon. and hon. Members would welcome my suggestion, but I shall go on to pull out some of the themes that have been raised in the debate. We often struggle to discern any themes coming out of a debate, as Members put forward different—sometimes very different—viewpoints, and it can be impossible to pull any sort of consensus out of the morass. Today, however, there has been utter clarity, complete consistency and even—dare I say it?—a striking degree of unanimity.

That unanimity centres on two specific issues. First, real congratulations have been offered to the Ministers on bringing forward the Bill, and I offer the ministerial team my own congratulations as well. There has been some criticism over delays, some of which has been knocked back to us for causing delays while we were in government, but the fact is that we are now here and we need to get this right. That is one area of consensus: we all want to see the Bill reach the statute book as soon as possible.

The second area on which there is consensus is that the Bill is not yet fully formed. It is not far off, but it is not fully formed. To extend the metaphor that many others have used today, it is something of a pup that is showing great potential, but it is not yet a watchdog. It is all bark—in the naming and shaming—but there is little bite. As the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) suggested earlier, it is something of a fluffy and likeable little toy, rather than a trusty hound that can bare its teeth when needed and give the occasional nasty nip to the sensitive parts of a miscreant.

Let me turn to the one matter on which I have heard not one dissenting voice throughout the whole debate from any Member in any party, except during the opening remarks. I hope that the Ministers will be open to what they have heard about fines, because there was a remarkable level of consistency and agreement around the Chamber on that point. The Under-Secretary opened the debate with some well-balanced comments, saying that the arguments were finely balanced. She went on to say that financial penalties should initially be a reserve power. I do not think that the arguments are that finely balanced; I believe that there is compelling evidence to the contrary, and I shall say more about that in a moment. If they are so finely balanced, however, I would urge her to listen to the voices that we have heard in the House today. One after another, Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Unionist colleagues from across the water have stood up to say, “Put those fines on the face of the Bill.” Putting them somewhere else in the back pocket or leaving them at home to get them when they are needed means that the message going out to major retailers will be quite different.

Quite honestly—my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and I have discussed this—should we ever soon be back in government, we would not want to have to go to look for the tools that have been carefully hidden somewhere; we would want them to be right in our hands so that we can use them if they are required—not as a first resort and perhaps not at all, but we want them there as an option. That brings me to the first point about the question being finely balanced. We need all the tools in the toolbox from the off—not one tool left at home or not even yet purchased from the shop, because a reserve power is one that risks not being used.

Secondly, naming and shaming can indeed be powerful on occasions, but it is not always the most appropriate tool for the job. If it is the only tool available, I guarantee to Ministers that it will fail. One after the other, Members of all parties have raised instances where name and shame has been completely ineffective. Name and shame was not a rip-roaring success this spring and summer in respect of the dairy crisis. [Interruption.] The Minister says it was, but no; I can tell him that it played a part, but it was not effective. There was plenty of naming and shaming from February, March and April onwards. It was in the newspapers and in our postbags—day in, day out—so we knew who was being named and shamed, but they did not move, adjust or go backwards. What made the difference was not the pure act of naming and shaming, but protests—protests that were painful and unwanted, such as blockading dairies. Thousands of farmers confronted a Minister across the road from here. He was doing his job by facing up to it, but he was confronted by angry farmers demanding action. The Minister then went away and banged heads together. It was not naming and shaming in the local papers or even naming and shaming every day on the front pages of The Daily Telegraph or the Daily Mail that made a difference. What worked was farmers coming together to say, “This is not working; we have got to do more”. We should not have to resort to that, which is why I say in all honesty to Ministers, “Please do not rely on the single tool of naming and shaming. The message going out to the retailers is that you are not serious. You must have the tool in the back pocket ready to use in case it is needed.”

The third aspect is the need to put the power to fine on the face of the Bill. This is supported not only by Members on both sides of the House, as we have said, and by many in the other place who debated the issue and argued strongly for it. I shall not read them all out, but the need for the power to fine is also supported by War on Want, Traidcraft, the world development unit, the Country Land and Business Association, the National Farmers Union, NFU Scotland, the Farmers Union of Wales, the Ulster Farmers Union, the Association of Convenience Stores—the voice of local shops—Fair Deal Food, Action Aid, Banana Link, CAFOD—the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development—the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Church of England and the Women’s Institute. For goodness’ sake, work with us on this one. We will help Ministers to become heroes if they listen to those voices, as they cannot all be wrong, even if I am. Those organisations represent people right across the supply chain. They include the Federation of Small Businesses for goodness’ sake; it is everybody.

I will not read out the early-day motion that the Minister signed once upon a time. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] No, I will not; it would be unfair. I know, however, that in his heart of hearts, the Minister believes that this is the right course of action, as we have had this discussion before in debating chambers. When we talk about teeth, it does not mean the beast in front of us at the moment. It means having those penalties on the face of the Bill.

Let me move on to the excellent contributions to the debate, as I think the case for having financial penalties is overwhelming, clear, compelling and unarguable. We began with the contribution by my shadow ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). It was an excellent opening to the debate. In welcoming the Bill, he was consensual, but his speech was also challenging where it needed to be, which is what we as the Opposition should do.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, delivered a powerful and, as usual, forensic analysis of the Bill. Like all of us she welcomed it, but she also drew attention to shortcomings which I hope we shall be able to explore in detail in Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) pointed out that if we got the Bill right, it would be good for consumers. The Minister will agree with her observation that it would promote best practice and fairness throughout the management of the supply chain, would allow for investment in the boosting of productivity and innovation, and, in so doing, would provide an opportunity to reduce costs for both producers and consumers.

We heard an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who has spoken about this and similar issues in other debates. Today, he spoke eloquently and with great experience about the need for the Bill to be strengthened. He has made that point consistently, not least when interviewed by the Daily Mail for an article published on 16 November. I commend him on that, although the Daily Mail is not my regularly reading material.

The headline above that article was

“Supermarkets that bully small suppliers will NOT face fines after ministers cave in to pressure”,

but I do not believe that Ministers are caving in to pressure. I believe that they want to do the right thing, and to listen to what the hon. Gentleman and others have said today. I hope that they are open to his argument, and that the Government Whips will enable him to serve on the Committee, where his experience and insight will be welcomed. I loved his observation that naming and shaming was the preferred stand-alone option of the British Retail Consortium. He wondered, as we did, why that might be.

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) spoke powerfully—as he always does—for food production and processing industries throughout Northern Ireland. He called for the payment of a living wage in agriculture, and we thoroughly agree with him about that, as we do about much else that he said. He noted the strong support of the Ulster Farmers Union, and the individual support of its president, Harry Sinclair, for a significant strengthening of the Bill. He said that if the price-fixing by major supermarkets was occurring because they were a cartel, they should be—I think that these were his words—kicked where it hurts, which I am sure, in his mind, is right in the adjudicator’s office.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) said that the position of Government Members on regulation was often misquoted, and that they were not against regulation but in favour of better regulation. That, he said, was exactly what was required in this instance. Poor regulation was the problem, he said, but the Bill represented good regulation and—again—should be strengthened. The ability to make a living in the countryside must be preserved, and that included the living made by the small farmers in his area. He said that he had received only one piece of correspondence saying no to fines, but dozens expressing the opposite view, so why should fines not be levied?

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, welcomed the Bill and the fact that the Government had adopted about 80% of the Committee’s recommendations. However, he focused on the shortcomings of the Bill and the need for it to be strengthened further. He clearly felt that naming and shaming on its own, without additional penalties in the Bill, would be insufficient.

The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who has done so much in supporting the Bill’s progress and in marshalling a grand coalition of partner organisations throughout the supply chain both in the United Kingdom and internationally, rightly acknowledged those organisations in a roll of honour, but also acknowledged the many parliamentarians in all parts of the House who have brought us to this point. I think that that consensus-led approach should continue in Committee, but that we should aim not simply to let the Bill roll forward and accept whatever is presented, but to improve it so that we get it right this time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) had a private Member’s Bill that tried to introduce precisely this position, and he reminded us that his preference, as expressed in his Bill, is for the term “ombudsman” rather than “adjudicator”. He welcomed the Bill, but bemoaned the delay. He alleges that was fashioned by Government Whips; I am sure that is not true. He called for penalties to be stated in the Bill and for Ministers to name and shame those who have lobbied against strengthening its provisions. The Minister who opened the debate declined to try out the excellent mechanism of naming and shaming, however. The Minister who will conclude the debate can take the opportunity to try that out, and we will then see tomorrow morning whether it has any effect. Who is against strengthening the Bill? What are the names of those who oppose strengthening it? I would like to know, as I am not getting any letters to that effect. Instead, I am receiving calls from a wide coalition of people, including Members of this House, for us to work together and strengthen the provisions. I am convinced the Minister who will conclude the debate wants that as well, and I am trying to help him. Indeed, I am trying to help both Ministers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn highlighted the possibility of the entire supply chain being open to investigation and possible sanctions, and asked how we would handle that. Will the Bill result in that happening? After all, these issues involve not only the relationship between the big retailers and the individual producers, but a wide and complex distribution network across the supply chain.

I chatted briefly at the side of the Chamber with my hon. Friend about this evening’s very disappointing breaking news about Vion, and another hon. Member has raised that, too. It is a major employer and economic force in many constituencies, including that of my hon. Friend. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some assurances as to what role the Government can play in trying to protect these jobs at Vion and the economic benefits they bring to many constituencies.

The hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) chairs the all-party group on food and drink manufacturing. He saw the Bill as a positive encouragement for the supply chain, recognising good practice—of which there is, indeed, a lot. He made a forensic contribution. Interestingly, I noted that he supported the proposal that penalties should be stated in the Bill, and he agreed that the adjudicator should report on its success in respect of the code and whether changes to its scope and remit might be needed. I hope the hon. Gentleman finds himself serving on the Committee—although I do not know whether he shares that aspiration.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) reminded us about the new farming Minister’s previous stalwart support for an adjudicator with real teeth. The farming Minister, who will conclude this debate, was right then, as I have told him before, and he can help us strengthen the Bill to get the right policy now as well. My hon. Friend also talked about the important issues of food waste and food poverty, and explained how those topics tie in with the Bill. She made a worthy contribution.

The hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) said the Bill would be undermined if the adjudicator lacked the teeth it needed, and he described it as a referee without a whistle or a red card in his—or, I should point out, her—pocket. He is absolutely right. He said an adjudicator will have little impact without the metaphorical red card in its metaphorical pocket, and he rightly raised the spectre of the dairy crisis. He encouraged Ministers to show strength and to strengthen the Bill.

The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) said that the Bill needed to produce lasting reform, and that it must redress the imbalance in the supply chain so that there is long-term sustainability and a real economic boost throughout the supply chain. She called for statutory teeth as being a necessity. She spoke, too, of the need for robust powers of investigation and enforcement, and the ability to receive representations without fear of reprisal. Indeed, the issue of anonymity and people being able to come forward without fear of reprisal was another common theme. The hon. Lady also commended the idea of fines for serious breaches of the code. She said naming and shaming alone was not good enough because it was not strong enough. She called for an emboldened Government who will strengthen the Bill.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) has great experience in one of the great farming areas of Wales, and he raised the Ceredigion test, asking whether the Bill was robust enough. His answer was, “We like the fact the Bill is here, but it doesn’t yet pass the Ceredigion test.” I suggest to him that if we work together, we can make it pass that test. He cited the Women’s Institute’s support for strengthening the Bill; it is about not just jam and Jerusalem, but adjudication.

The hon. Gentleman made a good point about accessibility and the adjudicator’s remit, and I look forward to amendments being tabled on the subject in Committee. He called for “Chwarae Teg”—fair play. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) said that supermarkets had nothing to fear from a levelling of the playing field, and she rightly criticised the retrospective varying of supply agreements. What is that all about? It is the idea that a retailer or an intermediary can go back to a producer and say, “I’m sorry, you have to find some cost-cutting measures after the event.”

The hon. Members for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) and for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) are particularly affected by the Vion decision, and I hope that the Minister will respond on that. I am afraid that I do not have time to respond to all the comments that were made. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) welcomed the Bill, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) spoke up for people working in these sectors. The common theme that emerged time and time again was a welcome for the Bill but the fact that it would not be quite right until we strengthened it.

The Bill is good, but it is not yet quite good enough. It has cross-party support to get it on the statute book as soon as possible but, as we have heard, it needs cross-party support to go further and give it real teeth. It was rightly noted in the other place that Labour’s fingerprints are all over the Bill, but so are the fingerprints of hon. Members who serve on the Select Committees on Business, Innovation and Skills and on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as well as the fingerprints of Back-Bench champions such as the hon. Member for St Ives, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn and many others. I say to Ministers and to all hon. Members, not least those who might serve on the Bill Committee, let us take the opportunity to make this not just a good Bill but a great Bill, and work together to make it so.

21:41

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

It is a pleasant and, for me, unprecedented experience to speak at the Dispatch Box on a Bill that has received a welcome from Members from all parts of the House without exception, and I am very pleased that that is the case. I think it is because they share, to paraphrase the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), a desire to see a system in the supply chain that is fair to the producer, fair to the processor, fair to the retailer, and fair to the consumer. That is what we are trying to achieve in the legislation.

There is ample evidence, not least in the Competition Commission report that, in some ways, provides the origins of the legislation, of an imperfect market in the grocery trade. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) said that that there was a monopoly position for the big supermarkets. Strictly speaking, it is not a monopoly. Classical economics requires us to call it an oligopsony, but that term is not used very often. There are powerful players in the retail sector: there are a few buyers and many sellers, which produces an imbalance in the terms of trade. That is why I am pleased to introduce the Bill with the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), from our sister Department. It is wonderful to have two Departments thinking and acting as one in government in introducing legislation of this kind, not least, as the hon. Members for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), and many others said, because I campaigned personally for the provision for a long time. Other Members who have spoken have been equally assiduous, or more so, in arguing that case, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who has worked very hard on the issue, and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen). I loved his contribution: it was amusing, and most of what he said was well founded.

The measure has united—this, too, is unprecedented—the Chairs of the Select Committees on Business, Innovation and Skills and on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Select Committees do not always agree on absolutely everything, but both those Committees have had an opportunity to look at the measure in pre-legislative scrutiny. The hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) kindly said that the Government listened to what his Committee said, and that they accepted 80% of its suggestions to improve the measure. That is how it should be; that is the whole point of pre-legislative scrutiny.

Let me make one point to those who have criticised the timing of the Bill. As far as this Administration are concerned, I reject that accusation. The Bill was introduced as a draft Bill in the first Session of this Parliament, as we promised, and it was introduced as a substantive Bill as the very first Bill after the Queen’s Speech in this second Session of Parliament. I find it difficult to understand how we could have been more urgent in our approach. There was fair criticism of the time it took for nothing to appear under the previous Government, but I do not want to be partisan in my approach. It is important to maintain the coalition of interests on both sides of the House in support of the Bill.

The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), mentioned a few significant points, some of which were picked up by others. The most important initially was the business of indirect complaints and the capacity for anyone to bring forward a complaint. Let me make it absolutely clear that the Bill provides for any party to complain. It does not have to be the producer who is involved; it could be trade organisations or non-governmental organisations. Anybody who has information to put before the adjudicator should do so. Those complaints will be treated with anonymity, because it is part of the job of the adjudicator to ensure that that is the case. Yes, the adjudicator can take forward proactive investigations. If there is good reason to believe that an abuse of the code is going on, the adjudicator can take forward a proactive investigation.

The hon. Lady also asked about the recovery of costs and clause 10 makes that clear. She asked a perfectly proper question about the provisions for the transfer of functions or abolition, which she thought were slightly peculiar, but they are part of the Government’s normal process of inserting sunset clauses so that bodies do not persist simply because they were set up in primary legislation with no opportunity to repeal it at some stage in the future. There might need to be a significant change, a renaming, a merging of functions or any of the many other things considered as part of the Public Bodies Act 2011, so that is a perfectly proper provision.

The hon. Lady asked what the list of designated retailers was and it might be helpful to the House if I simply say who the 10 are. They are Asda Stores Ltd, the Co-operative Group Ltd, Marks and Spencer plc, Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc, J Sainsbury plc, Tesco plc, Waitrose Ltd, Aldi Stores Ltd, Iceland Foods Ltd and Lidl UK—[Interruption.] I cannot quite catch what the hon. Member for Ogmore is saying from a sedentary position, but I thought it was helpful to give the list of retailers included in the proposals.

I thought that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made a very thoughtful speech.

[Miss McIntosh]

Now that peace and unanimity is breaking out, will my hon. Friend return to the vexed issue of fines being imposed? We are a little envious that the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee has had its amendments incorporated and we would like 80% of our amendments to be incorporated at the same time.

[Mr Heath]

I will inevitably return to that point a little later, as it was raised by so many Members. Let me first, however, cover the other specific points mentioned in the debate.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) asked about companies outside the big 10. He is absolutely right that they are not specifically included in the Bill as levy payers, but let us recognise that the big 10 represents 95% of the grocery trade. If we are successful in the application of the adjudicator in improving standards of contract compliance, that will feed through to the rest of the sector by competition alone, if nothing else. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned length of contracts. That is not specific to the code of conduct, but the matter can be properly investigated in the context of an abusive relationship. Where such a relationship exists, that will be laid bare by the process.

The hon. Member for Bristol East made some good points about food waste. She knows that we have engaged with her on that issue and will continue to do so. I think I have a meeting with her in the near future to talk about that.

A number of Members spoke with a great deal of experience of the sector from having worked on the producer side. The hon. Members for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton all have direct experience of working in agriculture and could tell us about the sort of downward pressures that they know suppliers regularly experience. The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) spoke about trade associations. I hope I have been able to put her mind at rest about that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) raised a number of important points. He spoke about access to the code and, as I said, I hope I have given him some reassurance on that. He talked about changes to the code. That is an important point. According to the process set out in the Bill, the adjudicator can put forward for consideration changes to the code, but that proposal goes back to the Competition Commission for consideration before being put before the House. It is important that we maintain that linkage because fundamental to the Bill is the abuse that the Competition Commission identified between major retailers and their suppliers. It would be a great mistake for the House to substitute our opinion for the evidence adduced by the Competition Commission.

My hon. Friend also mentioned retrospectivity. Let me underline the point again. If an abuse is continuing at the time that the adjudicator is appointed, it is proper that he or she should investigate that abuse, but we have a strong principle in British legislation that we do not apply retrospectivity to something that occurred before the date that a particular statute comes into effect. Therefore it would not be entirely proper for the adjudicator to look at complaints within the terms of the code that pre-dated that appointment if they no longer continue.

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend says that the code would not apply retrospectively, relative to the date of the statute. Of course, the statute came in on 4 February 2010. The Bill merely provides for the referee to enforce the code. Retrospectivity in respect of the statute therefore does not apply.

[Mr Heath]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. If he would care to engage with Government lawyers on that point of law, I am sure we would be happy to engage with him. We can return to the subject in Committee or on Report.

The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) queried clause 15(10), and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) also thought it was a bit odd. Let us debate that in Committee. What is proposed there is a safeguard which we hope will not be used. It is designed to deal with the circumstances in which the adjudicator was swamped with spurious complaints which hindered him or her from doing their work. The adjudicator would be required to pare those complaints down to the categories set out there. It would not stop them taking information from any source, but it would stop them taking complaints from any source. As I have said, I do not envisage that that will be necessary and hope that it will not be, so it is a reserve power, but I completely understand the point made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington that it is in some ways an unusual provision. It is certainly something we can discuss properly in Committee.

[John McDonnell]

The point I was trying to make is that if we have to amend the legislation in due course by statutory instrument, it would be better to design the new clause on the basis of the experience and recommendations of the review, rather than just reverting to type.

[Mr Heath]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and that is clearly something we can discuss.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) mentioned the very bad news about Vion UK, which I understand will affect not only her constituents in Strath of Brydock, but many others in Livingston, Portlethen and Broxburn, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire mentioned the situation in St Merryn in Merthyr Tydfil. I can certainly give an assurance today that we will happily engage with colleagues in the devolved Administrations—most of those jobs are situated in Scotland or Wales—to see whether there is anything we can do to assist them in dealing with what will be a very significant event in the local economy. If there is anything we can do, I can give an assurance that we will do our best.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire also talked about—

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I would not want the hon. Gentleman to miss the opportunity to respond to the 20 Members who spoke in succession about strengthening the Bill by introducing fines, which was also referred to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Mr Heath]

I was about to move on to that, and it is a great shame that the hon. Gentleman took up some of the time I was going to devote to it.

[Mr Bailey]

rose—

[Mr Heath]

No, I will not give way.

I want to talk very briefly about the voluntary code in the milk supply chain, which I think is an important development. It would not be policed directly by the adjudicator, and I do not want to give the impression that it would.

Let us talk about sanctions. This is clearly a serious conversation we need to have in Committee and on Report. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary set out the Government’s position on naming and shaming. I do not entirely agree with the hon. Member for Ogmore, because I think that naming and shaming played a significant part in events over the summer relating to the dairy industry. I think that several of the large retailers were directly shamed by consumers into changing their tune about their intended reductions in the price of milk.

However, I accept that many Members have indicated that they would prefer to see fines from the start. There are arguments about why that should not be the case, including the fact that it would introduce a new legal process of appeal that would not be there if it was not introduced ab initio. I want to make it absolutely plain that only one thing has to be done by order, which is for the Secretary of State to bring in a tariff system on the advice of the adjudicator, so it is not a separate process for each infringement.

[Mr Bailey]

rose—

[Mr Heath]

I am sorry, but I really cannot give way at 9.58 pm.

Let us discuss what the effective sanctions are and make sure that we have got them right. The Government believe that we have got it right at the moment, but of course we will listen to what every Member has to say on the issue and ensure that we have legislation that is fit for purpose.

In closing, I think that we have had a very important debate. It means that we can go forward, perhaps not as heroes, as the hon. Member for Ogmore suggested, or as characters from grocery folklore, as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn said, but with something that will contribute to the well-being of our farming and retail industries. I believe that is right and commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 6 December 2012.

3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed. —(Greg Hands.)

Question agreed to.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords] (Money)

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(1) any expenditure incurred under the Act by the Secretary of State, and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money provided by Parliament.— (Greg Hands.)

Question agreed to.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords] (Ways and Means)

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the imposition of a levy on large retailers to fund the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.— (Greg Hands.)

Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Contracting Out

That the draft Contracting Out (Local Authorities Social Services Functions) (England) (Amendment) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.— (Greg Hands.)

Question agreed to.

Draft Care and Support Bill (Joint committee)

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

Resolved,

That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 8 November 2012, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider the draft Care and Support Bill presented to both Houses on 11 July 2012 (Cm 8386).

Ordered,

That a Select Committee of six Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Care and Support Bill presented to both Houses on 11 July 2012 (Cm 8386).

That the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 7 March 2013.

That the Committee shall have power—

(i) to send for persons, papers and records;

(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

(iii) to report from time to time;

(iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and

(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.

That Harriett Baldwin, Mr Paul Burstow, Margot James, Barbara Keeley, Grahame M. Morris and Dr Sarah Wollaston be members of the Committee.—(Mr Lansley.)

Petitions

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

22:00

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I rise to present a petition on behalf of the people of Warrington in respect of our objection to the proposal to potentially continue the licence at Arpley tip beyond 2013. Working with community leaders and councillors from all political parties in Warrington, we have collected 6,206 signatures from residents, many of whose homes and lives have been blighted by their proximity to Arpley tip, whose side effects have been felt for more than 20 years.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Warrington,

Declares that the people of Warrington have put up with the Arpley landfill site and the traffic, smells and other undesirable side effects which it causes for long enough.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the site's licence is not extended.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001128]

22:02

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I have a petition signed by more than 4,000 residents of North East Somerset to the honourable House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

The petition states:

The Humble Petition of residents of North East Somerset,

Sheweth,

That the Petitioners are concerned about the wellbeing of Alison Jukes, who was diagnosed with Gastroparesis in January 2012; further that the Petitioners believe that a possible treatment exists for this condition—gastric electrical stimulation—and a number of Gastroparesis sufferers in Britain have successfully received it; further that Alison has been denied the operation and her appeal has also been turned down; further that the Petitioners believe without this operation, Alison will be fed via a tube every day for the rest of her life and the Petitioners believe that eligibility for this treatment should not vary by location.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Department of Health to look into the consistency of the availability of gastric electrical stimulation across different Primary Care Trusts.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.

[P001132]

Telford Rail Services

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Greg Hands.)

22:03

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

I welcome this opportunity to raise issues relating to Telford rail services. May I begin by asking you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to pass on my thanks to Mr Speaker, who visited Telford on Friday? I am sure that you will pass on my regards to him. He visited a couple of local schools and did a parliamentary event, which I believe went very well indeed.

I will cover three big issues this evening. The first is the lack of a direct link from Telford to London. That issue is embroiled in what can only be described as the fiasco of the west coast franchise process. The second is the need for speedy and regular services at a reasonable price into the west midlands conurbation and across to Shrewsbury, with improved availability of seats. The third is the ongoing improvements to station infrastructure and the current investment at Telford Central station.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate, and especially on his second point about the link between Telford and the rest of the conurbation. Does he agree that that is especially important because it would allow his constituents to visit Dudley, which is, as he would concede, the birthplace of the industrial revolution, and the truly world-class Black Country living museum?

[David Wright]

It would give my constituents that opportunity, although, of course, we have the birthplace of industry in Telford. I will touch on that a bit later, because the Ironbridge gorge is designated as a world heritage site. Dudley does not have a world heritage site, as I keep telling my hon. Friend, but he does not seem to want to accept the views of the United Nations and UNESCO.

Telford sits on the railway line that runs from Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury. We have strong connections to the west midlands conurbation, due to our new town history. In fairness to my hon. Friend, many people moved out of the west midlands conurbation, from areas such as Dudley, to Telford when it became a new town and we welcomed them. There is a significant flow of local passenger traffic, including commuters and leisure users, into Wolverhampton and the local stations through to Birmingham New Street. On a serious note, rapid access to Birmingham New Street is crucial to the local economy, as is rapid access to Birmingham International, with its links to the regional airport. If High Speed 2 does come about—I certainly hope that it does, as it is a significant infrastructure project—connectivity with the west midlands conurbation will be increasingly important for commuters and business users in the Telford area.

At present, the local services are run by Arriva Trains Wales and London Midland. A service from Telford Central runs about every 20 to 30 minutes, depending on the time of day. Those services run to Shrewsbury and across into the conurbation. I will return to the local service issues a little later. First, I will spend some time talking about the lack of a direct rail service to London from Telford, and indeed from Shropshire and mid-Wales.

Direct services to and from the capital have a chequered history in our area. The line from Wolverhampton is not electrified, which has been a problem historically. With the advent of faster, more efficient diesel units, that is not such a problem now. In the past, services to and from London had to stop at Wolverhampton, where a diesel unit was attached or removed. The regular London service ceased in the early 1990s, with a brief return and cancellation later in the 1990s. The old service ran to and from Euston up to Shrewsbury, calling at Telford Central and Wellington, which is in the Wrekin constituency. At that time, the diesel change, which I have mentioned, caused a time delay and platform blockages at Wolverhampton. It is no surprise, therefore, that the service was cancelled. However, I am assured that due to the efficiency of the new diesel units—the Voyager-type trains—our services could be integrated into the wider timetable and into the electric routes, so that there are direct services to London.

After the abandonment of the service, there was an attempt to run an open-access service by the Wrexham, Shropshire and Marylebone railway. The Minister will be aware of that. Local MPs fought hard to get that service in the teeth of opposition from other rail companies, which tried consistently to block access to the lines. The service picked up passengers at Telford Central and was recognised as one of the best in the country for the passenger experience. The problem was that the length of the journey into Marylebone and the unsustainably low ticket price meant that it made a significant loss. The last service ran in January 2011. The service folded with the loss of more than 50 jobs.

Following that, colleagues from constituencies across Shropshire and mid-Wales and I lobbied hard for the inclusion of a direct service as part of the west coast franchise. We met all the main potential bidders, along with the former Secretary of State and the former rail Minister. We managed to get the main bidders to include services to Telford and Shropshire in their proposals, but now we are in limbo because of the £40 million debacle surrounding the west coast franchise.

The Secretary of State has told us that, when the current franchise ends on 9 December, services will continue for up to 14 months with Virgin, and then a competition will be run for an interim agreement—that is what he called it. That means that a short contract could follow the interim service from Virgin—we do not know for how long it will be. That could leave us without a direct service to and from Telford for several years, and possibly with a complete lack of service. That is frankly a mess, and companies are unlikely to invest in rolling stock to deliver a service to Telford, Shropshire and mid-Wales unless the Government give a clear commitment to include a service to our areas as part of a shortened contract or a future longer-term franchise.

That is extremely frustrating for commuters, businesses and local leisure service providers. We want to expand rail use and further promote Telford as an attractive location for business investment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) knows, we have a world heritage site in the Ironbridge gorge and numerous major tourist attractions across our area. We want increased visitor numbers. It is about making Telford a place that people want to visit and locate their businesses in, our getting to London more efficiently and, crucially, getting people from London to Telford and the midlands. It is not all one way—down to London; it is also about getting people out into the midlands from London to invest.

Will the Minister clarify exactly what is happening? Will he give the House an assurance that a direct service to Telford is a priority for him and the Department? Will he confirm a timetable—excuse the pun—for the arrival of services at the Telford platforms?

The second theme that I want to pursue is the provision of local services, which I mentioned briefly earlier. There has been a major increase in the use of local services. A fast, reliable, comfortable and reasonably priced local service is the central concern of most rail users from Telford. The Passenger Focus national passenger survey in 2011—the results of the 2012 survey will be out next January—shows broadly high satisfaction with local service providers. However, if we drill down further into local issues, hard evidence shows problems of overcrowding and the inability to get a seat, service delays and concerns about the cost of travel.

In the current readers’ survey in the Shropshire Star, most people who had a view said that the train service was satisfactory or good, but nearly 20% said that it was poor or very poor. That is not good enough. There is overall satisfaction with the main providers, but there are problems with the service locally. That is not new. I do not suggest that the difficulty started two and a half years ago. It is a long-term problem, which we must tackle. One constituent who spoke to me today after reading that I was holding the debate said that his recent experience as a leisure traveller on the service was poor and that, as a pensioner, he did not want to stand from Birmingham to Telford. He also said that that discouraged him from using the service in future. That is sad—people not wanting to use the service because they are not comfortable using it.

The general view is that we can do better. We clearly need to increase capacity at peak times and I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts. We want a regular service with trains that turn up on time, and people want a seat. It is not rocket science, but simple stuff, and we need to get it right.

My third point is about station infrastructure. There is some positive news. Telford central station is undergoing improvements. That involves providing better facilities in and around the main building, along with improvements to platform shelters. That is good news, which is really welcome. The station was looking pretty tired. It is not old—it is quite new—but it was looking tired because of its construction type. I welcome the investment.

There has also been better integration of bus and rail services. For example, the area outside the station is being used as a coach pick-up point following lobbying by me, local resident Ricky Jones and the senior citizens forum, which keeps me on my toes.

In closing, I make a plea for the retention of services at smaller stations. My constituency has a small station at Oakengates. I grew up in St Georges and Oakengates, and I am fond of that station, which gets a regular service and is not under threat. However, I want to flag up that alongside major services and infrastructure debates, little gems such as Oakengates station provide a valuable service to local people. I hope we can keep it that way.

I look forward to the Minister’s reply. If we were in American politics we would be in the same party, being fundamentally supporters of the Democratic party. I know he is a big fan of Hillary Clinton—as am I—and I hope he will demonstrate tonight that he is also a big fan of Telford.

22:15

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright), not only on securing this debate but on the courteous and inimitable way in which he has made his case. He raised a number of important issues, and I will do my best to respond to them in the time available.

The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that Shropshire no longer has a direct service to London. Wrexham, Shropshire and Marylebone Railway provided a direct service from Shropshire to London and was—as the hon. Gentleman said—an open-access operator run as a commercial entity. Many of WSMR’s passengers were disappointed when Deutsche Bahn decided to stop those services. That was, of course, entirely a commercial decision for Deutsche Bahn, and not something in which the Government could intervene. I understand, however, that the decision was made on the basis that the service could not provide a return on investment, and that the operator had made considerable losses since it was launched in April 2008.

WSMR held track access rights to run services from Marylebone to Wrexham until December 2014. Once it stopped running those services, any operator—either passenger or freight—could have applied to the Office of Rail Regulation for the rights to run trains on those routes. Alternative services are provided by other rail companies, such as Virgin West Coast, London Midland and Chiltern Railways, which is also owned by Deutsche Bahn. It is worth noting that even with a change at Birmingham International, existing services on Virgin and Arriva Trains are up to half an hour quicker than WSMR services from London to Shrewsbury.

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the cancelled west coast main line rail franchise is our top departmental priority at the moment, and I am truly grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s input to the wider debate. Clearly, serious mistakes have been made. I understand that the cancellation of the west coast competition came as a great disappointment to many passengers, and particularly to his constituents in Telford, given that First Group had stated publicly that it would introduce the direct services between Telford and London that the hon. Gentleman has spoken about.

As part of the two consultation exercises that the Department held on the inter-city west coast service, we received a number of representations about reintroducing direct services to Shropshire from London in the future. Although the Department did not specify a requirement for a direct service from Telford in the invitation to tender, we expected bidders to take account of consultation responses when developing their service proposals. All bidders therefore had the opportunity to propose enhanced services to Telford. However, the contents of bids are commercially confidential, and some bidders have chosen not to put details of their proposals in the public domain. I am therefore not in a position to confirm whether or not that was the case for the other shortlisted bidders, as it would be inappropriate and wrong for me to disclose what was in the confidential bids.

As the House knows, the Secretary of State has asked for two reviews of the west coast main line franchise process. The first, led by Sam Laidlaw, is examining the events that led to the cancellation of the ICWC franchise on 3 October. An interim report from Mr Laidlaw setting out what went wrong, and his initial thinking on why it went wrong, was published on 29 October. His final report is due at the end of this month.

The second review of the wider rail franchising programme—by Eurostar chairman Richard Brown—is due by the end of this year. Decisions on the timing and nature of competitions for future franchises will be taken once we receive Richard Brown’s report, so it would be wrong to speculate on his findings at this stage, including the implications for any services to and from Telford.

Obviously, we must learn lessons from the reviews and will need to run a new competition for the west coast franchise. The Government are fully committed to a franchising system that delivers for both the taxpayer and the fare payer, with private sector investment and innovation helping to drive the improvements and value that passengers deserve. We want that to happen as quickly as possible, but we want to get it right, which will take some time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will therefore forgive me for not speculating about the Laidlaw and Brown reviews today, but I should like to reassure him that we will continue to keep the House informed of all developments, as we have done so far.

As I have said, although the cancelled ICWC competition did not have a direct service to Shropshire included in the specification, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, when we are in a position to restart the bid, he will have an opportunity to make the case on behalf of his constituents.

A future west coast operator would also need to consider rolling stock for services. Unlike the majority of the network covered by the west coast franchise, the line to Shrewsbury via Telford is not electrified, meaning that any direct services would need to use more expensive diesel trains rather than today’s Pendolino trains. The House will recall that the coalition Government reaffirmed our commitment to a rolling programme of electrification of the rail network when we announced the latest phase of our investment programme in the summer, which will see more than £9.4 billion invested from 2014 to 2019 to deliver a greener, more cost-efficient railway that is better for freight and for passengers. This comprehensive investment programme represents the largest and most ambitious modernisation of our railways since the Victorian era. It includes an electric spine route running from the south coast to the east midlands, and a massive improvement of services in south Wales. I expect future phases of the programme to extend electrification even further. The lines serving Telford and Shropshire might well be a route that is considered.

Telford currently has two services an hour to Wolverhampton and Birmingham—there are slightly more in the peak hours—one of which is the fast service travelling direct to Wolverhampton before calling at Smethwick Galton Bridge for the interchange with Snow Hill line services, which go on to Birmingham New Street. The other service is the stopping service. I am aware that the existing services are very popular, although I am afraid I cannot promise to mandate new services at the moment. That said, nothing in the franchise agreements prevents operators from putting on additional services if there is sufficient passenger demand. The Department would be happy to look at any proposal that would mean that that happened. However, operators would want to reassure themselves that any new services were commercially viable, and that appropriate rolling stock was available, before they considered implementing new services. As with direct services to London, I expect that bidders for the next west coast franchise will want to look carefully at that to see whether such an opportunity exists.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned existing services and cited the example of an elderly gentleman who had to stand on his journey to Telford. I have considerable sympathy with him. I believe it is important that we have enough capacity on trains on the existing service to minimise such situations. I fully appreciate that travelling on a crowded train is not ideal, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees. Clearly, in some places, railways are the victims of their own success, with more people travelling on the rail network than ever before—I am talking not just about the Telford line, but about the whole of England and Wales.

Although I am not able to promise more capacity in Telford, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are facing up to the issue of capacity across the network. For example, the west midlands will soon benefit from 40 new rail carriages that have been ordered and are expected to come into service in 2014, strengthening a number of different services on the London Midland network. Although the Shropshire line through Telford is not planned to be a direct recipient of that additional capacity in this phase, this is a rolling programme targeting the most crowded sections of the network. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we will keep the train situation in his constituency under review.

It is important that existing services operate reliably, and I seek to reassure the hon. Gentleman. London Midland, for example, has faced driver shortages in recent weeks. That has affected passengers on its network, including on the Shropshire line. We take that problem very seriously indeed and are working closely with London Midland to address it so that we can reduce the sort of incidents and situations that have arisen on the line, causing problems for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and those of other hon. Members in recent weeks.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words on the investment at Telford station, which is being delivered as part of the national stations improvement programme. It is a reflection on the hon. Gentleman that he is prepared, in a debate of this nature, to be generous in recognising what is going on in his constituency, and the improvements that are being made to benefit his constituents. As he will appreciate, the national stations improvement programme has made a total of £150 million available over five years to improve passenger facilities at busy stations in England and Wales that the public have identified as not up to scratch.

The choice of schemes, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, has been managed at a local level with Network Rail and train operating companies working together to agree the most efficient way to deliver the upgrades. As the hon. Gentleman alluded to in his comments, Telford was one of more than 240 stations to benefit from the programmes so far. It is now nearing completion and has been a good example of that co-operative work. It shows that through continued investment in stations across the network—nearly £1 million on the project in Telford alone—we can make a real difference to the passenger experience. Although the programme at Telford has suffered some setbacks during its course, I believe that when the work is completed and passengers are able to enjoy the new facilities, such as the new, refurbished waiting rooms, they will agree with both of us that this has been money well spent.

We remain committed to further station improvements across the country, and as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the recent high-level output specification announcement included a further £100 million of funding for station improvements up to 2019, as well as another £100 million to extend the Access for All programme, delivering improvements for disabled people, also to 2019. The programme is of crucial importance, because there are still a number of stations where the facilities for access for disabled people are unacceptable and need to be improved. This investment will go a considerable way towards rectifying that problem in many stations.

The hon. Gentleman clearly feels that there is a lot of demand for services between Telford and London, and he has presented a strong case on behalf of his constituents in a reasonable and responsible way. I realise that I have not agreed that his points will be specified as a requirement in the next west coast franchise, but it is interesting to note that in the previous competition at least one bidder decided that there was a commercial case for running these services. As I said, he and other hon. Members will be able to contribute to the consultations prior to the franchise being drawn up, and they will have a chance, yet again, to express their views, and those of their constituents, on what is rightly for them an important issue—that of a direct service from Shrewsbury and Telford to London and back.

As I said, it is interesting to note that at least one bidder in the previous competition decided that there was a commercial case for running the services, which helps the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members in making their case. As we prepare to re-launch the west coast pre-franchising process, the Department will need to examine a wide range of options.

I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to respond in the House, and to explain the current situation and some of the constraints on what I can and cannot say owing to commercial confidentiality. I recognise that we are in this unfortunate situation regarding the west coast main line, but I urge him to make his case during the consultation process prior to the franchise agreement being drawn up. I wish him well in his endeavours on behalf of his constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

22:32

House adjourned.

Petition

Monday 19th November 2012 Petitions

Monday 19 November 2012

The Green Howards

Monday 19th November 2012 Petitions

The Petition of residents of Teesside and North Yorkshire,

Declares that the 2nd Battalion, The Yorkshire Regiment (Green Howards), who served this country loyally since 1688, is both a symbol of and major employer in both Teesside and North Yorkshire.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Defence to safeguard the jobs of the battalion’s soldiers, and that it further urges the Secretary of State to protect the battalion's name, badge and proud heritage.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Tom Blenkinsop, Official Report, 24 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 1036.]

[P001126]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Defence:

The Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) set out a plan to reduce the overall size of the Armed Forces. This will reshape the Armed Forces for “Future Force 2020” while also addressing this country’s financial deficit, which this Government inherited from the last. The Government would prefer not to have to make these reductions in the Armed Forces but a strong economy is a National Security imperative. It is fully understood that the decisions made have significant repercussions for the individuals concerned.

Reducing the size of the regular Army has required some units to be withdrawn from the Army Order of Battle or amalgamated. Against this requirement, following detailed work and very careful consideration, it was decided to remove the 2nd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment (The Green Howards) from the Army Order of Battle and absorb them into the rest of the Yorkshire Regiment.

The Army took account of a number of criteria in reaching their decision about which battalions should be withdrawn. These were: maintaining a regimental system which is largely regionally aligned; demographic sustainability of regiments according to projected regional supply of recruits in the 2020 timeframe; proportionality of outcome, with no cap badge deletions and no regiment losing more than one battalion in a re-organisation; balancing the whole infantry structure to maintain variety of roles and parity of opportunity of experience for officers and soldiers; taking account of previous decisions on mergers and deletions; historical manning performance; and ensuring a solution that the Army would see as fair and equitable.

The importance of the affiliations, traditions and history of the 2nd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment to Teesside and North Yorkshire is not underestimated, along with the importance placed on these by all those with connections to the battalion. It is a matter for the Yorkshire Regiment to determine how to keep the history and traditions alive for future generations.

While the Army recognises the disappointment that will be felt by those personnel currently serving with the 2nd Battalion, The Yorkshire Regiment, their families and veterans, these changes have been carefully structured to minimise the impact of the regular manpower reduction and to maximise the effectiveness of the Army. The future structure that has been announced has been designed by the Army to deliver military capability balanced against very challenging fiscal constraints.

The Secretary of State has said that those serving in units that are being withdrawn are no more or less likely than anyone else with similar skills and service record to be selected for redundancy. Clearly, however, as the Army reduces in size these reductions will be based on the future structure of the Army, and focused on where there are excesses of strength. It is therefore inevitable that as Infantry Battalions are amalgamated there will be an excess of infantry personnel. However, selection criteria will not include an individual's current unit or location.

The contribution to the defence of the United Kingdom made by all of the personnel affected by this decision, both past and present, is fully recognised and valued.

Written Ministerial Statements

Monday 19th November 2012 Written Statements

Monday 19 November 2012

Regulation of Business

Monday 19th November 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

I would like to inform the House that I am announcing today a doubling of the rate at which Whitehall Departments must cut the burdens their regulation places on business.

The Government are dedicated to enabling businesses to grow and create jobs, helping Britain compete globally. To achieve this, we must remove any unnecessary regulatory burdens that hold back growth and stifle enterprise.

Since January 2011, Whitehall Departments have been expected to avoid increases in regulation, under “one-in, one-out”. This ambition has not only been met but exceeded, reducing net costs on business by around £850 million. It has worked alongside the red tape challenge, which will identify 3,000 regulations to be scrapped or reduced, and the focus on enforcement initiative which is examining where inappropriate or excessive enforcement of regulation needs to be addressed. But even more is needed to remove red tape from business.

From January 2013, the current “one-in, one-out” constraint has required Government Departments to balance the costs of new regulation with deregulation that creates equivalent savings for business. This will be replaced with a “one-in, two-out” rule that whenever a regulation creates costs, twice as much saving must be found by scrapping or simplifying regulation. As under “one-in, one-out”, all cost and benefit calculations under “one-in, two-out” will continue to be validated by the independent Regulatory Policy Committee to ensure the credibility and robustness of the system.

“One-in, two-out” will be a new system, and Departments will not be able to use previous achievements to compensate for regulation introduced in the second half of the Parliament. This means that every Department, including those with good records to date, will have an even tougher constraint on new regulation. Additionally, the few Departments which have not met “one-in, one-out” to date will have to use the second half of the Parliament to make up lost ground. By the end of the Parliament, they will be expected both to have achieved “one-in, two-out” from January 2013 and to have introduced enough deregulation to balance out the cost of any regulation they introduced over the last two years.

This new approach is intended to ensure that regulation is the last resort for Government Departments. The pressure it creates on Whitehall Departments will mean that each new regulation is considered to ensure that it is necessary and delivered in a way which avoids unnecessary business burdens.

Balance of Competences Review

Monday 19th November 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

I wish to inform the House that, further to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Office oral statement launching the review of the Balance of Competences in July and the written statement on the progress of the review in 23 October 2012, Official Report, column 46WS, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has published its call for evidence for the internal market synoptic report.

The internal market report will be completed by summer 2013 and will cover the overall application and effect of the EU internal market, often also known as the single market. The internal market of the EU is designed to ensure the free movement of goods, services, capital and persons: the so-called four freedoms. It will explore the current state of competence in the internal market as a whole and will assess the strength of arguments for the need for other areas of competence to enable the internal market to operate effectively.

The call for evidence period will last 12 weeks. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will draw together the evidence and policy analysis into a first draft, which will subsequently go through a process of scrutiny before publication in summer 2013.

The report will focus on the “classic” single market issues: the EU as an area without internal frontiers designed to ensure the free movement of goods, services, capital and persons (the “four freedoms”). It will look at articles 26 to 66 and 114 to 118 of the treaty of the functioning of the European Union (TFEU), using these articles and the jurisprudence emanating from them as a legal base.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will take a rigorous approach to the collection and analysis of evidence. The call for evidence sets out the scope of the report and includes a series of broad questions on which contributors are asked to focus. Interested parties are invited to provide evidence with regard to political, economic, social and technological factors. The evidence received (subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act) will be published alongside the final report in summer 2013 and will be available on the new Government website: www.gov.uk.

The Department will pursue an active engagement process, consulting widely across Parliament and its Committees, businesses, the devolved Administrations and civil society in order to obtain evidence to contribute to our analysis of the issues. Our EU partners and the EU institutions will also be invited to contribute evidence to the review. As the review is to be objective and evidence-based, encouraging a wide range of interested parties to contribute will ensure a high yield of valuable information.

The result of the report will be a comprehensive, thorough and detailed analysis of the wider functioning of the internal market. It will determine how the four freedoms operate together to create an effective single market and ultimately what this means for the United Kingdom. It will aid our understanding of the nature of our EU membership; and it will provide a constructive and serious contribution to the wider European debate about modernising, reforming and improving the EU. The report will not produce specific policy recommendations.

I am placing this document and the Call for Evidence in the Libraries of both Houses. They will also be published on the BIS website and accessible through the balance of competences review pages on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website.

Public Service Pension Reform

Monday 19th November 2012 Written Statements

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

The Government have previously committed to reforming the Fair Deal policy and to delivery of this by offering access to public service pension schemes to staff who are compulsorily transferred out of the public sector.

The Government have today published a response to the consultation on the Fair Deal policy, which sets out further detail on the reformed Fair Deal policy for future staff transfers.

The document also contains some further questions for consultation, which will explore how Fair Deal should apply to those employees that have already been transferred out under existing Fair Deal when contracts are retendered. The publication also contains draft guidance setting out further details on how the policy will work in practice.

The Government welcome contributions from all interested groups.

The consultation document has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and can be found on the HM Treasury website at:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/consult_fair_deal_policy_ pensions _publicsector.htm.

The consultation will close on 11 February 2013.

The Government have also published two policy papers which set out further detail on the Government’s policy on actuarial valuation of public service pension schemes, and the operation of the employer cost-cap in the public service schemes. These documents have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and can be found on the HM Treasury website at:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/tax_pensions_resources.htm.

Parliamentary Written Question (Correction)

Monday 19th November 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

I wish to clarify a point on methodology used in an answer to a parliamentary question, made in the last Session.

In the answer of 24 October 2011, Official Report, column 59W given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the figure given for the average cost of processing the payment of an invoice, based on data for the last 12 months, was £2.62.

For clarity, this figure does not include staff costs.

EU Environmental Council

Monday 19th November 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)]

Lord de Mauley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Resource Management, the Local Environment and Environmental Science and I represented the UK at the Environment Council in Luxembourg on 25 October.

The Council held an orientation debate on ship recycling. The UK together with other member states said that close alignment with the Hong Kong convention was vital to ensure proportionality and enforceability. The majority of member states believed the issues of penalties and access to justice should be decided by member states in line with the subsidiarity principle.

Next, Ministers adopted conclusions on Rio+20: the outcome and follow-up to the United Nations conference on sustainable development 2012. A majority of member states, including the UK, backed the presidency text as drafted and following negotiations, a compromise was tabled. The European Commission tabled a declaration underlining its view that there is no need to review the sustainable development strategy as work is being taken forward under the Europe 2020 strategy but that it is open to plugging sectoral gaps in the 2020 strategy.

Following the morning session I attended a ministerial lunch hosted by the presidency. This lunch focused on climate change. Discussion included the outcome of the pre-COP 18/CMP 8 ministerial meeting on climate change held in Korea, which I also attended, and climate finance.

In the afternoon session Council conclusions were also adopted on the preparations for the 18th session of the conference of the parties to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. My ministerial colleagues and I focused our discussions on paragraphs 14 (on the EU QELRO—quantified emission limitation or reduction objectives); 16 (AAUs—assigned amount units); and 29 (climate finance).

Under paragraph 14 (EU QELRO), consistent with the coalition’s commitment to work for an increase in the EU’s CO₂ emissions reduction target, I suggested amending text to reflect the possibility of a QELRO that corresponds to an EU -30% target as well as the current one (which corresponds to an EU target of -20%). This would have sent a more positive signal on EU ambition ahead of COP18. However there was not a great deal of appetite for this inclusion among other member states, so I ceded the point, mindful that the EU’s offer to move to a 30% target is stated clearly in paragraph 10 of the conclusions.

There was a great deal of discussion on how AAUs should be treated as the first commitment period of the Kyoto protocol comes to an end and the EU prepares to move into the second commitment period from 1 January 2013. I emphasised the need to ensure environmental integrity and, therefore, was not willing to cede that strict limits need to be applied in some manner across the carry-over of AAUs to, and the domestic use and trading of these carried-over AAUs in, the second commitment period. The presidency repeatedly proposed compromise texts aimed at bridging differences but these were rejected. As there was no consensus on any new text on AAUs the presidency reverted to the text we agreed at the March Council, which emphasises the need for environmental integrity.

Several member states emphasised the importance of the EU having a strong position on climate finance before Doha. The UK supported inclusion of references to previous ECOFIN conclusions but clarified that we should not intrude on ECOFIN territory in these Doha conclusions. The presidency presented compromise text on this paragraph, which signalled our ongoing consideration of climate finance and the need for continuation of finance provision post-2012. The paragraph was adopted.

In other business, updates were provided on access to genetic resources and the benefits arising from their use; hazardous substances in textiles; the mutual acceptance of low emission zones vignettes and the exchange of best practices. On EU legislation for meeting environmental objectives—the example of air quality, the UK highlighted that new legislation was not necessarily the answer, a greater focus was needed on ensuring that current legislation was delivered.

Conflict Resources

Monday 19th November 2012 Written Statements

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

I, together with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for International Development and the Secretary of State for Defence, wish to inform the House about our plans for funding conflict prevention, stabilisation and peacekeeping activities for financial years 2012-13 and 2014-15, via the tri-departmental conflict pool.

We intend that this funding be spent within the strategic context set out by the building stability overseas strategy (BSOS). We reported progress on implementing the BSOS in our written ministerial statement of 16 July 2012, Official Report, column 103 WS.

Delivering this strategy is an important priority for the Government. Enhancing genuine stability by supporting the development of societies with strong and legitimate institutions which can manage tensions peacefully is central to our national interests. We have improved our early warning analysis, to better identify instability risks upstream and develop effective interventions. We have also enhanced the UK’s ability to provide a rapid response where that is needed. The co-ordinated use of our highly respected diplomatic, defence and development expertise is central to delivering these priorities. The National Security Council ensures we target our efforts, including our joint conflict resources, on the highest UK priorities. The Government’s commitment is reflected in the increasing size of the conflict resources settlement for the remainder of the spending review period. We are under no illusions about the size of the challenges, for example in the middle east and in Africa. But we are equally clear that the UK can help make a difference, as we have done in Somalia.

Our written ministerial statement of 5 April 2011, Official Report, column 57WS, provided details of the total settlement for conflict resources for the spending review period, covering both the conflict pool and the peacekeeping budget. In financial year 2012-13, the overall settlement will increase to £644 million, rising further during the remainder of the spending review period. The settlement continues to provide a mix of official development assistance (ODA) funding and non-ODA resources.

The peacekeeping budget—from which we meet our obligatory and assessed international peacekeeping costs—has first call on the settlement. The settlement provides £374 million for the peacekeeping budget each year. If costs exceed this figure, they are met from the conflict pool. For financial year 2012-13, we have estimated our obligatory peacekeeping costs to be some £435 million. An additional allocation of £61 million has been made, therefore, to the peacekeeping budget from the conflict pool. In-year monitoring allows us to make adjustments, when necessary, to the balance of resources among budgets.

An allocation of £435 million to peacekeeping leaves a balance of some £209 million available for the conflict pool for financial year 2012-13. The allocation round for this financial year has provided an important opportunity to align conflict pool resources with the BSOS aims of early warning, rapid crisis prevention and upstream conflict prevention. Programme allocations have been decided on their ability to deliver results on the ground against these objectives, with a tight focus on the highest priorities, where the risks are high, where UK interests are most at stake and where we know we can have an impact. Due to the unpredictability of conflict programming we have over-committed initial allocations to ensure we fully utilise the resources.

In the BSOS we said that the UK needed to be better able to respond rapidly to unexpected conflict risks. The new early action facility (EAF) helps us do that. The EAF provides a guaranteed, flexible funding resource of £20 million each year for the remainder of the spending review period to respond rapidly to early warnings of conflict and emerging opportunities to prevent conflict. Potential uses include funding a short-term surge in UK effort, support for peace negotiations or new peacebuilding opportunities. The EAF is already being used for projects in Syria, Libya and Somalia.

We have also introduced provision for sustained, multi-year funding. This is an important step forward, providing predictability to build long-term relationships where needed and to deliver greater value for money. For some programmes we have set firm multi-year allocations; in others, where medium-term perspectives are less clear, the allocations in the outer years of the spending review period are partial or indicative.

In line with priorities identified in the BSOS, we are aiming to increase the proportion of conflict pool activity focused on upstream prevention, including by supporting free, transparent and inclusive political settlements; working with Governments to develop effective and accountable security and justice systems; and building the capacity of communities, regional and international institutions to resolve conflicts.

Judicial Review

Monday 19th November 2012 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

I am today announcing a review of the judicial review process.

Judicial review is a critical means of holding the Executive to account, ensuring that decisions are lawful. However, there has been a huge growth in the use of judicial review, which has expanded far beyond what was originally intended. In 1974 there were 160 applications for judicial review, but by 1998 this had grown to around 4,500 applications, and to around 11,000 by 2011. In 2011, for every application for permission to bring a judicial review that was granted, five were refused (a higher proportion was refused in immigration and asylum cases). In those cases where permission was granted, an even smaller proportion was successful.

Much of this growth is the result of an increase in applications to review decisions in immigration and asylum cases, but judicial review is also used as a means of challenging other types of decisions, for example, in planning matters, in large infrastructure projects, in procurement exercises and in other key reform programmes.

The Government are concerned about the burdens that this growth has placed on stretched public services. This can lead to unnecessary costs and lengthy delays, and may in some cases stifle innovation and frustrate much needed reforms, including those aimed at stimulating growth and promoting economic recovery.

The Government therefore intend to seek views on a package of options designed to tackle these problems. This package will include shortening time limits in certain cases, restricting the opportunities for an oral reconsideration of the application for permission in certain circumstances, and introducing new fees. The purpose of this is not to deny or restrict access to justice, but to provide for a more balanced and practicable approach, ensuring that weak, frivolous and unmeritorious cases are identified early, and that legitimate claims are brought quickly and efficiently to a resolution. In this way, we can ensure that the right balance is struck between reducing the burdens on public services, and protecting access to justice and the rule of law.

Commission on Devolution in Wales

Monday 19th November 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

The Government established the Commission on Devolution in Wales (the “Silk Commission”) in October 2011 with the support of the Welsh Government and all the parties in the National Assembly for Wales.

The Commission’s remit is divided into two parts. I can inform the House that the Commission has today published a report on part I of its remit. The report. “Empowerment and Responsibility: Financial Powers to Strengthen Wales”, makes recommendations on the devolution of fiscal powers to the National Assembly for Wales.

I welcome publication of the report and have placed copies in the Library of the House. The Government will carefully consider the Commission’s recommendations and respond in due course.

The Commission will now turn its attention to part II of its remit, in which it will review the powers of the National Assembly for Wales. I wish to inform the House of changes to the membership of the Commission for part II. I am making two new appointments to the Commission to replace commissioners who are standing down: Helen Molyneux, chief executive of New Law Solicitors, Cardiff, is joining the Commission as an independent member in place of Dyfrig John CBE, following a recommendation by the Commission, and Jane Davidson is the Welsh Labour party’s nominee in place of Sue Essex.

I have also appointed Trevor Glyn Jones CVO as an additional independent member to ensure representation on the Commission from north Wales for its part II work. Mr Jones recently retired as Lord Lieutenant of Clwyd, and all four party leaders in the Assembly have agreed his appointment.

Access to Work

Monday 19th November 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)]

I wish to announce today measures to strengthen and improve the Access to Work scheme.

Access to Work helps over 30,000 disabled people each year retain and enter employment. It provides valuable support such as help with travel to work, purchase of specialist equipment and support workers. Last year the Government spent £93 million on this highly effective and well regarded programme.

Following Liz Sayce’s review of specialist disability employment programmes, “Getting in, staying in and getting on” the Government have already announced significant improvements to Access to Work, including an additional £15 million over this spending review period, availability of the scheme to young disabled people undertaking work experience under the Youth Contract, and a targeted marketing campaign. On 4 July we announced that we were establishing an expert panel, chaired by Mike Adams, to help us take forward some of the recommendations in Liz Sayce’s report, and to provide advice on the further transformation of the programme. I am grateful to Mike Adams and the panel for their advice.

Today, I can announce that the panel has completed the first phase of its work, and that we will be implementing a number of changes between now and March 2013 aimed at further strengthening the programme.

I would like to announce a number of changes aimed at streamlining the application process for individuals who already have a good understanding of their needs, and experience of receiving this type of support:

We will introduce a fast-track assessment process so individuals who already know their support requirements will move swiftly through their application.

We will make it easier to transfer equipment so that individuals can move more easily between employers with their special aids and equipment.

We will allow individuals to use their disabled students allowance assessment information as part of the Access to Work assessment process.

Access to Work aims to increase levels of personalisation and to promote independence where ever possible and appropriate, so in line with this:

Access to Work will aim to find the most appropriate independent travel to work option to make each individual aware of all available options, such as travel buddies, travel training, or adaptations to a vehicle, where appropriate. I wish to make it clear that there will be no withdrawal of taxi support for individuals for whom this is the most appropriate and independent travel option.

Access to Work will strengthen the support agreement letter to place more emphasis on individually tailored travel plans so all individuals will have a personally tailored solution in their agreement letter taking account of all available travel options.

We will invite disabled people’s user-led organisations to produce innovative employment related peer support proposals to support disabled individuals using Access to Work. Any proposals will then be assessed before being taken forward. This will mean that individuals accessing Access to Work will have the opportunity to benefit from peer support alongside their standard package of support.

Access to Work has an important role to play in facilitating an open, constructive and productive relationship between employer and employee. In line with the expert panel’s advice, we will introduce changes that strengthen Access to Work’s ability to perform this role:

Access to Work will amend its guidance and products to ensure that employers are made aware of when and how they will play a part in the application process.

Access to Work will ensure that its advisers consistently act as a catalyst to encourage employers to think of creative, individually tailored adjustments for every disabled employee, for example, by using case studies with employers to bring potential solutions alive.

Access to Work will further up-skill advisers to work more constructively with employers to deliver the most appropriate adjustments in order to ensure that their disabled employees are supported as effectively as possible.

I would also like to announce two further changes aimed at facilitating the relationship between employer and employee. Access to Work has, since 2010, operated a list of standard equipment it would not normally expect to fund. The list has not, however, always operated as effectively as it might have done, and may have discouraged some applications. Consequently, we will cease to operate this list and instead Access to Work advisers will work constructively with employer and employee to identify where Access to Work can assist.

I would also like to announce today that, whilst the principle of sharing costs of adjustments between employer and Access to Work will remain in place for medium-sized and large employers, we will remove cost share for those employing between 10 and 49 people. This brings these relatively small businesses in line with provisions that already exist for micro businesses.

I would like to emphasise that these changes are aimed at making Access to Work more responsive and easier to use, especially for small businesses. Under the Equality Act, employers are under a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. These changes will not mean that the tax payer picks up the bill for reasonable adjustments that others should be making.

Finally, I would like to announce further help for disabled people wishing to establish their own business through the new enterprise allowance (NEA), which provides valuable support for aspiring jobseekers wishing to start up their own business. From 3 December we will pilot extending Access to Work to eligible disabled people undertaking business start up activity on the NEA scheme in the Merseyside region.

Subject to effective operation in Merseyside, we will aim to roll out the measure nationally in the new year.

The Access to Work expert panel has already moved on to the second, wider phase of their work and are considering how the system can be further personalised, how the scheme could support young people who are moving from education into employment, and how it can work more effectively for employers of all sizes, and those who are self-employed.

Collectively these changes represent a significant step forward for this effective programme, and a step closer to our goal of delivering disability employment support fit for the 21st century. I now look forward to the next phase of our work on this programme to further enhance the support that we can provide to help more disabled people get into, and remain in employment.

Measuring Child Poverty (Consultation)

Monday 19th November 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

On Thursday 15 November the Government laid before Parliament and published “Measuring Child Poverty: A consultation on better measures of child poverty”. The Command Paper is available online at:

www.education.gov.uk/aboutdfe/departmentalinformation/consultations/a00216896/measuring-child-poverty

The consultation will run until 15 February 2013.

The consultation is in three parts. It reaffirms the Government’s commitment to ending child poverty and makes the case for a better measure, examines what the dimensions of a new measure might be and explores a number of design questions.

The most recent statistics showed 300,000 children moved out of relative income poverty. However, this was largely due to a fall in the median income nationally that pushed the poverty line down; absolute poverty remained unchanged and children who were “moved out” of poverty were no better off than before.

Family income remains an important part of how we consider child poverty, but income alone is not enough. The intention is to design a multi-dimensional measure that includes but goes beyond income.

The consultation proposes eight dimensions; worklessness, unmanageable debt, poor housing, parental skills, access to quality education, family stability and parental health.

Once the consultation has closed, the Government will consider how to take forward multi-dimensional measurement of child poverty and will respond to the consultation in due course.

House of Lords

Monday 19th November 2012 Lords Chamber

Monday, 19 November 2012.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood took the oath.

Death of a Member: Lord McCarthy

Monday 19th November 2012 Lords Chamber

Announcement

14:36

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)]

My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, on 18 November. On behalf of the House, I express our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.

Schools: Arts

Monday 19th November 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

14:37

Asked By

[The Earl of Clancarty]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of their proposals to change the school qualifications system, what plans they have in relation to the teaching of the arts in secondary schools, including visual arts, drama, music and dance.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, creative subjects such as art, drama and music should be part of pupils’ educational and cultural experience. We are considering how to ensure that high-quality qualifications are available in these subjects and will make an announcement in due course. We recognise the importance of the arts through our national plan for music education and our support for the music and dance scheme. This year we are spending around £110 million on music, dance and other creative arts in schools.

[The Earl of Clancarty]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the huge concern expressed by many in the arts about arts and design being omitted from the EBacc—a concern, will the Minister take note, shared by the CBI? Does the Minister accept that if cultural skills and learning do not take an absolutely central role in the school curriculum, we will lose out in the development of the creative industries, which are going to play, without a doubt, a significant part in the regeneration of this country?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I agree very much with the noble Earl about the importance of the creative industries and about the importance of those subjects—it is important that they should be taught in schools. I am aware of his concern about the EBacc and the anxiety that it might lead to a narrowing of what is offered in schools. We think that the EBacc, for those schools that want to follow it, would still allow between 20% and 30% of the timetable to be used for the teaching of other subjects, including important ones such as music, art and design, and drama.

[Lord Lloyd-Webber]

My Lords, the Chinese seem to be taking a different attitude to all areas of the arts. They realise how important the creative industries potentially are to their economy. In everything from applied arts to music to drama, they are actively seeking our teachers as well as sending students to us here to learn. It is vital that the Government take on board that the creative industries are important to our economy and that we must recognise that within education.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I very much agree with my noble friend about how important the creative industries are from an economic point of view. He makes his point with a great deal of experience and force. However, the case for the arts in our curriculum should not rest solely on the economic benefit that they bring—although that is considerable—but on the fact that they have merit and value in themselves, and young people should have the chance to learn about them because that is part of a rich and broad education.

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that young people with learning difficulties benefit enormously from this particular list of subjects, which help them not only to learn something new but to integrate with their fellows, and perhaps to join society later on in life?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I agree with the noble Countess. These subjects have a range of benefits for all kinds of children.

[Baroness Wall of New Barnet]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that what ought to be included in the discussion around the arts, drama and dance is how these subjects will lead to employment in the way in which the qualifications are designed and delivered? The creative and cultural sector skills councils are all one now and it would be advisable to talk to Creative Skillset about what skill sets employers are looking for.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important to talk to employers and a range of interested parties that can help contribute to our thinking. It is worth making the point that the original thinking behind the EBacc was driven by the relatively small number of children who had that mix of EBacc subjects, which experience seems to suggest are most likely to lead to those children being able to go to our top universities. When only 4% of children on free school meals were doing the EBacc subjects, it was pretty clear that the number of those children who were going to be able to go to our top universities would be constrained. The idea behind the EBacc is not to set about a narrowing of education but to try to tilt the balance back towards some more rigorous subjects. About 15 years ago, half of all children did the equivalent of the EBacc subjects; today it is about 22%. If we can tilt it back a bit more that way, I think that would be good.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury]

My Lords, last February, in response to Darren Henley’s admirable review of cultural education, the Government committed to immediately drawing up a national plan for cultural education. It is now November and as “immediately” has still not occurred, can my noble friend tell me when we are going to see this plan?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

We have already announced and taken steps on some of the elements of Mr Henley’s excellent plan. The formal response is not as immediate as he, others and my noble friend would have liked, but we are expecting it early in the new year.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, does the Minister not acknowledge that the maths on this simply do not add up? There are only so many teaching hours in a day and given that it has been estimated that the EBacc will take about 80% of the curriculum time, is it any wonder that the latest figures from the Joint Council for Qualifications are showing that entries for GCSE in design and technology, art and design, music and drama are already beginning to fall? The Government’s policies are already having an impact on the take-up of these important subjects.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I make the important point that EBacc subjects are not compulsory. It is for schools to decide what is the best thing to offer; if schools think that the EBacc is not right for all their pupils, they should act accordingly. However, as I said, if between 20% and 30% of time is available for other subjects, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that those important subjects we have discussed will continue to be offered. In terms of what has happened so far to the number of pupils taking GCSEs, obviously any results we have had so far in 2012 cannot have been affected by the EBacc since the time lag means that none of that would have worked through.

[Baroness Afshar]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the mother of a music teacher who insisted that I stand up and talk about her experience, because she finds that children who are not necessarily academic become valorised by being taught music, which enables them to do other academic subjects. She wanted me to read the following quote from a very well known music director.

[Noble Lords]

Question!

[Baroness Afshar]

My question is: are we going to stifle future music directors whose talent would bud if only they had the confidence that they gain by doing a subject such as music? If that subject is not valorised, they are not recognised.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I hope that I have made it clear, my Lords, that it is hugely important that that desire should not be stifled. Children should be able to study music through the money that we are putting in through the national music education plan, through the new music hubs that we have established and through the support that we are giving to schemes which will make available instruments to children learning for the first time. All those things will help make sure that music is valued, as it should be.

Employment: Rights

Monday 19th November 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

14:46

Asked By

[Lord Monks]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their plans for employment rights to be exchangeable for shares.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Lord Marland)]

My Lords, in October, the Chancellor announced that he intended to create a new employment status called employee owner. This new employment status has different employment rights from employees. Employee owners could own shares worth between £2,000 and £50,000 in companies they work for and will not be subject to capital gains tax.

[Lord Monks]

I thank the Minister for that reply, but can anyone here imagine a decent employer trying to bribe workers to give up their employment rights in return for shares of questionable value? After all, some 50% of small firms fold within five years. Will not decent employers agree with Justin King, the boss of Sainsbury’s, who said that this is not what we should be doing? Will the Government stop once and for all encouraging employers to show a degree of contempt for workers’ rights and ditch this tawdry proposal?

[Lord Marland]

My Lords, I have obviously read the TUC’s views on this, and I am not surprised that the noble Lord should wish to propound them, but we must understand that this is a voluntary, not a compulsory, scheme between employees and employers. Surely that is the best way forward for employee relations, as the noble Lord must concede.

[Lord Razzall]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if the Government are determined to proceed with this proposal, it is absolutely essential that, when legislation is brought forward, safeguards are built in to ensure that there is no compulsion from the employer on the employee and that a mechanism is put in place whereby appropriate legal advice can be obtained by any employee before he takes up this offer?

[Lord Marland]

I could not agree more with my noble friend. We should obviously look at this proposal. It will go through this House as it is going through the other place at the moment and we will have the opportunity to scrutinise what is currently a concept and put some straight edges on it, which this House always does so well. I could not agree more that it needs looking at very carefully. However, this is a voluntary scheme, as I have said, and it is surely in the best interests of corporate endeavour to have employees and employers working together as a scheme.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, is it not a fact that one person’s volunteerism is another person’s bullying? Does the Minister agree that these plans are on a par with efforts now being made to disestablish the NHS Agenda for Change national pay scheme? Will he agree to look into the activities being undertaken by those who want to dismantle Agenda for Change and intervene to stop them?

[Lord Marland]

We have to be very careful about bandying around harsh words such as “bullying”. That is not reasonable. We have a voluntary agreement. Companies in my experience—I have a reasonable amount of experience—do best where both employees and employers co-operate. I was proud to be a founder shareholder of a business where well over 80% of the employees were shareholders. It meant that there was a community of interest and spirit of endeavour. We want to encourage that. It is incumbent on this Government to find ways of generating enterprise and a spirit of going forward together. This scheme does that admirably.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, I am very concerned to hear that Mr Justin King does not approve of this scheme. Is he saying that Sainsbury’s shares are therefore not worth holding?

[Lord Marland]

I am afraid that I am not much for making a commentary on share prices; my record is not outstanding in that regard. I wonder whether Mr King’s competition is with Waitrose, where of course there is broad employee ownership and, I understand, a very good spirit of co-operation.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

Does the Minister not agree that there is nothing incompatible in a good company recognising workers’ rights? Why is he suggesting that it would be better to have shares and not to have employment rights?

[Lord Marland]

No one is suggesting for one moment that we do not recognise employee rights. It would be outrageous not to do that. We have no intention of doing that. We are putting forward a very sensible and well thought-out scheme, which recognises employee rights but also recognises that if you want to be a shareholder in endeavour or to create value for yourself in a small, emerging company then you have to take the same road as the people who are employing you. This is a fantastic opportunity for employees to share in this enterprise and it is a terrific scheme.

[Baroness Brinton]

Does the noble Lord accept that there is a world of difference between a mutual association such as Waitrose, where the entire staff own the organisation, and the proposed scheme where employees may have a small share? I wonder whether he might consider that the comment coming from Sainsbury’s is more about motivating employees.

[Lord Marland]

My noble friend makes a good point. It is a factor of balance and I merely used the Waitrose example as a contrary to the Sainsbury’s example. The range here is from £2,000 to £50,000. It is a significant shareholding to have £50,000 in a company, if you so wish it, so I think that this is set fair for a good future.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, does the Minister not accept that there is a difference between past employee shareholdings and a trade-off, which is what is proposed for employment rights? I suspect that our late colleague, Lord Bill McCarthy, would have asked a forensic question at this point. How does the Minister expect this scheme to run? Is it to be a one-off trading of all your employment rights or is there to be a sort of tariff, where you trade in flexible working for so many shares, maternity rights for so many more, the right to join a trade union for a few more and health and safety legislation for a few more than that? How is this actually going to work and what are employees being asked to sell?

[Lord Marland]

As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, knows, I normally have a high regard for his interventions but not in this case. The Benches opposite have to be so careful about bandying words such as “bullying” and talking about giving away employees’ rights. Noble Lords need to read the text to understand that we are not giving away all employees’ rights.

[Noble Lords]

No.

[Lord Marland]

Noble Lords should read the text properly so that they understand that it is a limited forgoing of some rights in favour of having a tax-free shareholding in the company. That is gain and loss, up to a point, but it is only marginal.

Polio Eradication

Monday 19th November 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

14:53

Asked By

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to extend the programme to eradicate polio to ensure an expanded contribution from non-governmental donors.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, since 1988 the number of polio cases has fallen by over 99%. Polio is now endemic in just three countries: Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan. We remain strongly committed to polio eradication and are exploring with the Global Polio Eradication Initiative how to increase impact and sustainability and how to broaden the funding base, including from non-government donors.

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington]

I thank my noble friend. As she points out, polio eradication is an outstandingly successful development programme. During just one day in India, for example, Rotary International is able to vaccinate 172 children. In the UK, the Government’s match-funding initiative has been able to leverage £123 million from non-government sources from a £40 billion investment. Given the success of this programme, will the Government commit to looking at renewing and extending it with a higher cap in future?

[Baroness Northover]

I start by paying tribute to my noble friend for her own commitment in this area. We can indeed eliminate polio, providing everyone contributes in the way she has indicated. My noble friend is right; the Rotarians were instrumental in securing strong, local ownership in northern India to ensure that all children were vaccinated. It is very much a success story and Rotary International is involved in similar initiatives, I am pleased to say, in Nigeria and Pakistan. We are looking at financing options from 2013, recognising the benefits of match and challenge funding.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My Lords, the Minister will know, as she has clearly just said, that there are lessons to be learnt from the example of India, where for 18 months now not a single case of polio has been reported. Could we have a more explicit description of what has been learnt? What efforts have been made to improve the take-up of the vaccine in Pakistan and Nigeria, where fear and suspicion are being peddled by some religious leaders and others to persuade parents to refuse to allow their children to be immunised?

[Baroness Northover]

Yes, the lessons from India are being carried over, and it is excellent to see that India is offering technical support in Nigeria and Pakistan. That is also where NGOs can play a part in reducing levels of suspicion about vaccination. There are a number of challenges, not least from the fact that there is a lot of conflict in the areas where there is not yet adequate take-up. However, that has been eradicated in the DRC and Somalia, so this can be done. It is a matter of making sure that we drive through and finish this particular programme.

[Lord Chidgey]

Does my noble friend recognise that the Global Polio Eradication Initiative currently faces a funding shortfall of up to $700 million, which is jeopardising its potential for completely eradicating polio? With vital programmes facing delay or cancellation and countries that were previously polio-free now facing the risk of re-infection, what targets are the Government setting for restoring the public/private sector global donor fund, which has now dropped to 20 members from 50?

[Baroness Northover]

My noble friend is right that we are concerned at the lack of engagement by some countries. This is a window of opportunity. There is a programme to try to eradicate polio by 2018. We will all be aware of what an incredible achievement that would be. We are so close. The United Kingdom has been a major donor in this area. In 2011, 9.04% of the contribution to the eradication of polio came from the UK. Gates is a very powerful player here. We are very pleased to see the Secretary-General of the United Nations convening countries to try to ensure that they are engaged, and the key ones to engage here are Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

My Lords, how do the Government intend to implement this proposal? As yet, that is not clear.

[Baroness Northover]

There is a very clear programme, which the Global Polio Eradication Initiative is taking forward. There is an independent monitoring board, the chair of which is Sir Liam Donaldson, of whom noble Lords will obviously be well aware. There is an effective strategy to deliver this by 2018 but it needs funding. Gates has been extremely effective in leveraging match funding. The United Kingdom, as my noble friend said, looks at match funding. It is important that we engage others in taking this forward, but I assure my noble friend that the programme is there.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, the Minister rightly spoke of the need to ensure that there is matched funding. What are the Government doing to find and stimulate new sources of innovative finance so that state finance can be used to trigger investment from other sources?

[Baroness Northover]

The Rotarians might be the kind of example that the noble Baroness is thinking of. There have been a number of match-funded programmes, and we are continuing to look at developing this further. It is extremely important that it is not only the donor nations that carry this forward; there must be engagement in the countries in question. It is encouraging, for example, to see the effort that was put in in India and the current efforts in Nigeria. It is by those countries tackling this, taking ownership of it and ensuring that their communities are responding that we will eradicate this disease.

[Lord Skelmersdale]

For how many years does vaccination have to continue before polio can be eradicated?

[Baroness Northover]

One strain of polio has already been eradicated. In India, for example, the last case of polio was a number of months ago, and it will be given a clean bill of health by 2014. Vaccination has to continue for some time afterwards, as the noble Lord will appreciate, to make sure that there are no as-yet-undetected cases. That is built in to the way the programme is being taken forward to 2018.

Property: Commonhold

Monday 19th November 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

15:01

Asked By

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will support the development of commonhold properties by means of the guarantees to be given under the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, under the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act, the Government intend to issue up to £10 billion of debt guarantees to support the building of both private-rented and affordable-rented homes across the UK. As commonholds typically consist of privately owned properties and given that, in any event, commonholds are relatively rare, it is unlikely that any commonhold scheme will come forward under the guarantees programme.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I am disappointed to hear that commonhold is unlikely to benefit. Does the Minister agree that many young people, particularly first-time buyers, would like to be empowered owners of their own homes and that commonhold is the fairest way of doing that in blocks of flats? Does he also appreciate that this is the first time that I have had any sort of reasonable answer on housing from a different department? No matter how I table my Questions, I always get an Answer from what is now called communities—but the name changes so it is hard to keep up—no matter what the Question is. When I write to the Minister for Housing, he refers the letter to the Treasury, and the Treasury sends back a hopeless reply saying, “It’s nothing to do with us”. Does the Minister not think that this is a moment in history to have more joined-up government and better liaison and understanding between departments?

[Lord Newby]

I absolutely agree with the need for joined-up government. As noble Lords would expect me to say, on a whole raft of housing initiatives, not least in relation to the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act, the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government are working extremely closely together.

I understand why the noble Baroness is such a keen proponent of commonholds, but between 2002 and the present day, there have been only 15 commonhold developments in England and Wales comprising a mere 161 units.

[Lord Adonis]

Has the Minister seen today’s Financial Times, which reports:

“While the government had hoped that pension funds would invest … £2 billion”,

in infrastructure,

“by early next year, a year of talks has so far raised just £700 million”?

When does the Minister expect to raise the missing £1.3 billion?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the initial £700 million consists of a commitment by a significant number of pension funds to put in £100 million each as a starter. We are working very hard with them to scale up the programme, but it is a new programme. Pension funds have never done this kind of thing before and, not surprisingly, they want to dip their toe in the water before they immerse themselves more fully. I am very confident that they will see this initial £700 million as an effective investment, and then they will rapidly scale it up in the way that the noble Lord wishes.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am a tenant in a flat in a mansion arrangement such as that described. Surely, moving into mansion flats is very attractive for couples or individuals when they are downsizing, which therefore frees up the whole of the housing chain. Will the Minister encourage the relevant department to look at strategies for encouraging commonhold so that this move is not discouraged by the endless confusion over freehold and leasehold? Perhaps there could be talks with Core Cities to encourage developers to follow these kinds of policies as a way to make more housing available all through the spectrum.

[Lord Newby]

The Government and I will be very happy to make that commitment. The problem with commonhold is that virtually no one knows what the word means. Since being asked this Question, over the past week I have asked a number of housebuilders and senior chartered surveyors whether they thought that it was a good idea. More than half of them said that they did not know what it was. There is a big education job to be done.

Very often the management of mansion blocks is by a management company in which each leaseholder has a share. At their best, they can work very effectively and are almost identical to commonhold, but clearly there are ways in which we can improve how those blocks are managed.

[Lord Barnett]

My Lords, does not the noble Lord appreciate that there is a major need for large infrastructure plans to be implemented now? Industry has made it quite clear that guarantees are not sufficient. They want some Treasury cash. Why is the Treasury not willing to introduce just a little cash to implement these plans?

[Lord Newby]

Our experience is that everyone wants some Treasury cash but, sadly, they cannot all have it. It may be of some comfort to the noble Lord to know that in the past quarter, housing starts were up 18% over the previous quarter. In terms of social housing, housing association starts were up almost one-quarter.

[Lord Myners]

My Lords, will the Minister explain the circumstances in which it would be cheaper for the taxpayer for infrastructure to be financed with the use of a Treasury guarantee than for that same expenditure to be funded directly by the Treasury?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the noble Lord is making a classic error to assume that there is an endless pot of Treasury money for use in infrastructure expenditure. As he knows only too well, guarantees do not feature as public expenditure unless they are called in. Our expectation is that the 70 expressions of interest we have had so far under the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act are all extremely viable schemes and that the guarantees will not be needed.

Electoral Registration Data Schemes (No. 2) Order 2012

Monday 19th November 2012 Lords Chamber

Charitable Incorporated Organisations (Insolvency and Dissolution) Regulations 2012

Charitable Incorporated Organisations (Consequential Amendments) Order 2012

Motions to Refer to Grand Committee

15:08

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the draft orders and regulations be referred to a Grand Committee.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I rise on an allied matter to the Electoral Registration Data Schemes (No. 2) Order 2012. Perhaps I may ask the Minister to update the House on when it will be able to consider the second day in Committee of the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, the Bill is not on the Order Paper or in Forthcoming Business. Therefore, I have nothing more to add to announcements that I have made in the past.

[Baroness Boothroyd]

My Lords, I was not able to be in the House when this matter was raised recently but, of course, I have read the exchanges and the related documents. I hope that the House will allow me to put a few comments on the record.

During my time as Speaker, I worked with three Clerks of the Commons. I believe that I had their great respect and support. They certainly had mine. If there was any success in that Speakership, much of it was due to their support and advice. Much of the time, the Clerk and I were as one with the way in which we should proceed. But, if I recall correctly, there were a couple of occasions when I overruled that advice. The decision was a very difficult one, taken against considerable professionalism and precedence. But I took it in what I believed to be the best interests of the democratic process, and to provide debate on a contentious issue of public interest and concern—and the roof did not fall in.

For us, of course, there is no Speaker here to make that ultimate decision. We all know what the Companion tells us; it has been repeated many times recently in this House. But by its very nature, it is advice that is offered to us and it is only advice; it is only expected to be taken. It is not a command, nor is it written on tablets of stone. I put it to the Leader of the House that, as there is no individual in this House to make the ultimate decision, is it not for your Lordships’ House to make that final decision? Certainly, such a decision and the order of the business of this House should not rest with the Leader nor with the Opposition, nor should it rest with any other individual who does not carry the authority to do so.

We are an integral part of the democratic system. The way in which your Lordships conduct their business is a matter for the House itself. I concern myself at this stage not with the substance of the amendment itself, or its merits or demerits, but with the question of admissibility. That is the principle question. Should this House not initially deal with the question of admissibility? I accept that it would be difficult to do so without discussing the substance, but it would not be impossible. Of course, following a decision on the principle, the substantive amendment would then either fall or be dealt with in the usual matter. That is surely the common-sense way of approach.

We are constantly being reminded that we are a self-regulating House. Let that be demonstrated, and let us carry out that self-regulation and operate the democratic process that we are here to perpetuate, for goodness’ sake.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be interested in the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and I look forward to the Leader’s response to what she has said. I thank him for his earlier reply.

It is now a full fortnight since the Government told your Lordships’ House that they had not concluded their considerations on the issues in relation to the amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Hart of Chilton, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, Lord Rennard and Lord Wigley, to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. On that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, asked the proposers of the amendment to see whether they could try to find an amendment which would be considered to be admissible. I was grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion. It is my understanding that those who propose the amendment stand by the merits of their amendment and its admissibility. But in order to go the extra mile, and to respond to a reasonable request from the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, they have indeed given consideration to the suggestion. I understand that they have been in further detailed discussions with the clerks, and have sought further legal advice from Queen’s Counsel to see if there is an alternative way forward. I understand that their efforts to do so are continuing. These actions show that they have shown, and are showing, their readiness to be reasonable, and to leave no stone unturned on this issue, as I believe the House would want them to do. That is the right attitude and the right approach.

The Government should conclude their considerations and bring this Bill back to this House. As the noble Baroness suggested, they should let this House—this self-regulating House—decide what it wishes to do in relation to this amendment and get on with its job, its constitutional role, of scrutinising legislation, however uncomfortable that might be for the Government.

15:15

[Lord Strathclyde]

I assure the noble Baroness that the Bill will not progress without the full scrutiny of this House. As I said earlier, the Government have not reached final conclusions on their deliberations but I am glad that there has been this short pause. As the noble Baroness has just informed the House, the pause has given an opportunity to those most eminent Members of this House to explore with the clerks whether the amendment can be made admissible. That is entirely the right approach. It would be strange and unfortunate if we were to break the precedence of many years and for this House to accept an amendment decreed as inadmissible by the clerks.

Perhaps I may be the first to welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. It is a pleasure to see her in her place and to hear her speak with such eloquence once more. It is one of the great advantages of this House that those with pretty much an entitlement to sit in this House are former Speakers of the House of Commons. With the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, we have the best examples of those who have sat in that illustrious Chair in another place, both giving their views on the advice they received and what they did with it when they were Speakers of that House.

There is also another wonderful thing, which is that the House of Commons is the House of Commons, the House of Lords is the House of Lords, and this House has developed different processes and procedures. While we are a self-regulating House, it is not a self-regulation of anarchy; it is self-regulating within the rules. Perhaps I may conclude by repeating once again what the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, said on a very similar occasion a few years ago, when she was Leader of this House. She said:

“It is a consequence of our procedures that the House has collective responsibility for observing these procedures and that all Members of your Lordships’ House therefore need to co-operate to see that procedures are observed”.—[Official Report, 20/4/99; col. 1112.]

She was quite right.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I have been listening carefully to the Leader of the House and he has not clearly informed the House of the position in relation to this Bill. It is not unheard of for Bills to be abandoned during the course of a normal parliamentary Session; indeed, I am delighted that the Government decided to abandon the House of Lords Reform Bill. When they abandon a Bill, they normally make a clear statement to the House on their intentions. However, at the moment, we are getting very mixed messages from the Government. Whenever his counterpart, the Leader of the House of Commons is asked about the position in relation to this Bill, he states clearly—and procedurally he is right—that it is now a matter for the House of Lords. Thereby, the Bill is within our ownership and the Commons can do nothing about it until we have considered it and taken it through its proper stages. The noble Lord said during his reply that there was to be a “short pause”. The House is entitled to have at least some indication from the Leader of what he means by that.

[Lord Strathclyde]

First of all, to avoid any doubt because it is important to be clear, I can confirm that the Bill has not been abandoned; it has been postponed. When the Government have come to a conclusion that it should continue, the House will be informed in the normal way, either on the Order Paper or in an edition of Forthcoming Business. However, I can lend some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. Although the current edition does not propose a date for the Bill, it includes plenty of other government business that we can get on with.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this, but I wish to say—because the Leader keeps quoting my noble friend Lady Jay in our exchanges, and I fully respect what my noble friend said when she was a very fine Leader of this House—that it is ultimately for this House to decide on the admissibility of an amendment, because this House, ultimately, is self-regulating.

Motions agreed.

Green Deal Framework (Disclosure, Acknowledgment, Redress etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Monday 19th November 2012 Lords Chamber

Electricity and Gas (Energy Companies Obligation) Order 2012

Motions to Refer to Grand Committee

15:19

Tabled by

[Baroness Verma]

That the draft order and regulations be referred to a Grand Committee.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move the two Motions standing in the name of my noble friend on the Order Paper en bloc.

Motions agreed.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Monday 19th November 2012 Lords Chamber

Report (1st Day)

15:20

Clause 1 : The Intelligence and Security Committee

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out “body” and insert “Select Committee of Parliament to be”

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I hope that Members, wherever they are in the Palace of Westminster, will make a point of listening to this debate as it is a very important one and raises an issue which has been under continuing discussion, certainly in the House of Commons but outside it as well, over the past 14 years. The issue is very simple: the Intelligence and Security Committee—the ISC—which comprises Members of the Commons and of the Lords and which monitors the agencies responsible for national security, is to be reorganised. The Government propose that it should comprise a committee of parliamentarians constitutionally detached from Parliament: that is, an arm’s-length committee.

My Amendment 1 proposes full Select Committee status for the ISC, thus enabling it to enjoy the absolute protection of privilege conveyed under Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689. Amendments 2 and 4 in the next group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, seek to graft on to the Government’s arm’s-length committee proposal all the rights and privileges of a full Select Committee. The Government claim that they can do this under some highly controversial statutory provision which lawyers believe could be overturned in the courts.

The issue for the House today is simple: why is there all this ducking and weaving by the Government to avoid giving the ISC full Select Committee status, which is what my amendment seeks to do? The noble Lord, Lord Henley, who was the Minister when these matters were considered in Committee, argued that the Government’s proposal for the arm’s-length committee was to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect against the disclosure of sensitive information, retain a statutory ability to prevent publication of sensitive material, ensure that the most sensitive material can be withheld from the committee and to ensure that safeguards exist so there is adequate provision for those exceptional circumstances where the disclosure of information even to the chairman would be damaging to national security. I find that quite remarkable. The Government also seek to ensure that, as regards appointments to that committee, there is little risk of unauthorised disclosure. I argue that all these safeguards are fully and equally available under Select Committee status without any potential challenge on parliamentary privilege.

There are three issues to be considered: the confidence of the public in the new arrangements; the practicality in terms of protecting national security; and, finally, privilege itself. On the confidence of the public I can do no more than quote the very wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in Committee. He said:

“The issue is the confidence of the public in this committee”.

He added:

“The advantage of a Select Committee is primarily that it is something that people know and it has, over the years, established a position, as a concept, of independence”.

He asked:

“Is it not better to use the strength of the Select Committee process and procedure and, above all, of public understanding rather than to try to create something special?”.—[Official Report, 9/7/12; cols. 925-6.]

I could not put it better myself.

On practicality, my amendments provide a choice. We could put this whole arrangement into statute with the consequential deletions of Clauses 1 to 4, or we could proceed by way of a series of parliamentary resolutions, which is my preferred option. Let me explain.

I believe that Parliament could carry resolutions that would make the committee as hermetically sealed as the structure that currently exists. We are told that such a committee could not be prevented from taking evidence in public session. In response, I argue that a resolution of both Houses could introduce a general prohibition on the Select Committee taking evidence in public. It could further place a requirement on the committee to seek the permission of the appropriate agencies and the Prime Minister in conditions of dispute. As prime ministerial appointees, members are currently responsible for reporting collectively to the Prime Minister. It is argued that such limited powers to report would not be possible if the committee were appointed by the legislature. There is no reason why the resolutions of both Houses should not stipulate the procedure to be used in the publication of reports. They could require the committee to publish its report subject to sidelining by the Prime Minister, as happens today, for reasons of national security. A resolution of both Houses could require that the committee sought the approval of the appropriate agency before reporting to the House. The resolutions could further provide that, in the event of a dispute arising between the agency and the committee over reports to the House, the matter could be referred again to the Prime Minister and the committee could be required to comply with his or her decision.

It is argued that although a Select Committee is neither more nor less likely than the ISC to leak, as a Select Committee it would have the right to publish reports in a way that could prove prejudicial to the interests of national security. A resolution of the House could introduce in response to that problem a general prohibition on the Select Committee publishing reports without approval. It could further place a requirement on the committee to seek the permission of the appropriate agency and the Prime Minister in conditions of dispute. Safeguards would be available for every eventuality in the event that it were to be created a full Select Committee of Parliament. If, in unforeseen circumstances, the committee, or any member of it, threatened to breach the committee’s rules and procedure, as agreed by the House in resolutions, it would always be open to the Leader of the House, on the instructions of the Prime Minister, to dissolve the committee or remove any member of it on a resolution, if managed with caution.

It is also argued that a move to a parliamentary arrangement could lead to greater pressure on Ministers to be accountable as witnesses with less emphasis on agency heads giving evidence. The argument is not supported by an examination of practices in some of the other committees of the House. All that is possible by way of resolutions in the House of Lords and House of Commons. I also argue that the committee needs increased powers to call persons and papers and to communicate with other committees. There are times when the information that comes before the committee should, in certain circumstances, be referred to other Select Committees, but, of course, with the permission of the agencies.

The ISC also needs the power to take evidence under oath. Select Committees have that power. It would not take all evidence under oath but it should at least have the power to do so. As I say, Select Committees have that power but the ISC does not. Without going into any details, there are times when the committee, if assurances were given under oath, might have the confidence, with the approval of the Prime Minister, to make statements that would be extremely helpful during the course of public debate and in the exercise of reassuring public opinion, which in my view is a very important consideration. Again, all that is possible by way of parliamentary resolution or statute, if that be the will of Parliament.

To nail my case to the mast, I call in aid the wise words of that old parliamentary sage, the former clerk of the House of Commons, Mr W R McKay, who, in a letter to me of 21 July 1998—14 years ago—told me:

“You asked for my comments on the attached paper about a possible Select Committee on Security and Intelligence. The general premise in the paper, that select committees are creatures of the House is correct, and the House may, either in the committee’s order of reference or by instruction, require a committee to sit in private or to take evidence or report in a particular manner. Thus the House could, if it so decided, require a committee to obtain the consent of an external body (you suggest the Prime Minister, or a relevant agency) before publishing particular evidence or, conceivably, before publishing a report … the interpretation of the order of reference of a select committee is a matter for the committee itself to decide”.

He quotes page 633 of Erskine May, the 2012 edition of which is updated on page 635—I checked this morning. He then sets the precedents for such a committee, going back to 1837: to name but a few, the Joint-stock Banks Select Committee of 1837, the National Expenditure Select Committee of 1939-40, and the Special Commission on Oil Sanctions of 1978-79. This is a former clerk to the House of Commons indicating to me that this is possible

15:30

The remaining and perhaps most important issue is privilege, which I have been discussing with the Minister outside the Chamber and in it. My proposals under Amendment 1 automatically carry with them the defence of privilege. The Government’s alternative approach—supported by the noble Lord, Lord Butler—for an arm’s-length committee established under statute does not enjoy any form of parliamentary privilege. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, argues that by adding the words “of Parliament”, the committee can be seen as a servant of Parliament. He then quotes three examples: the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, the Public Accounts Commission, and the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. I can now add two more to his list: the Speaker’s Committee on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—IPSA—and the House of Commons Commission itself. All are creatures of statute. None attracts any measure of protection under Article 9. These are not my words, but the words of the current clerk of the House of Commons in a letter to me last week, which he gave me permission to quote in this Chamber.

The Government are effectively seeking to cross that line. Article 9 is absolutely clear:

“The freedoms of speech and debate of proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”.

The proceedings of these arm’s-length committees which I have quoted and those of the committee proposed by the Government are not proceedings in Parliament. It would be misconceived, an abuse, and wrong for them to acquire Article 9 protection. Statutory committees are a breed apart: they are outside bodies and one cannot just hand out the protection of privilege—an historic parliamentary right—as if it were confetti. The proposition that parliamentary privilege be applied by statute to the Intelligence and Security Committee is something which I personally view with deep concern if it is to be done under the arrangements being proposed by some both inside and outside this Chamber.

I do not doubt the ability of Parliament to legislate to apply parliamentary privilege. However, I believe that this would be misconceived. Privilege is not a kind of stardust which can be sprinkled on outside bodies; it attaches naturally to Parliament and the committees which it appoints directly. Furthermore, a new statutory provision might well encourage the courts to intervene in the application of parliamentary privilege: for example, to define what is and is not a parliamentary proceeding. This would have implications for the whole committee system in both Houses. While a court might have no difficulty in deciding that evidence formally given or a report made by a committee was covered by privilege, what about briefing material prepared by the staff for an evidence hearing, or visits or letters from the chair to members of the committee? We have no guarantee of the protection of privilege in these circumstances.

It might be said that over the years there has been little opportunity for the courts to decide on such matters, but in practice that is wrong. The House of Commons authorities intervene in a significant number of cases where the parties propose to rely on what we judge to be parliamentary materials. If the ISC were to be statutorily privileged, it, too, would need to intervene—or intervention would need to be made on its behalf—to avoid the point at issue being dealt with by default. Of course, the Commons’ intervention would not be to assert Article 9 but to assert a new, highly controversial statute and privilege that the Government might be considering.

It is only too easy to challenge these matters in the courts—as we have experienced over the years. We all agree that the ISC needs the protection of privilege. The issue is how we do it. I appeal to the House that if we are to do it, we should do it properly. I fear that there will be a last-minute attempt, on a whipped vote in the Commons, perhaps on a Thursday afternoon when they have all gone home, to graft on to the Bill some statutory provisions covering privilege, or some means of protecting the ISC. All that will do is lead to future problems in the courts. Let us sort this out here today. I beg to move.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, the Intelligence and Security Committee has considered very carefully the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, to which the Opposition have given their support. As he said, they have some advantages. The committee is as enthusiastic as anybody about displaying the fact that it is a servant of Parliament and not just of the Executive. As the noble Lord said, if the committee were to become a Select Committee, that would automatically confer the protections that it needs to protect its proceedings in the interests of national security. However, I regret that, for reasons that I will explain, we cannot recommend that the House goes down the avenue that the noble Lord has recommended. We believe that the objectives can be achieved in other ways.

There is no difference in the House about the requirements that we need. We want to demonstrate that the Intelligence and Security Committee is a servant of Parliament. We all agree that on most occasions its evidence will need to be taken in private. We all agree that there will have to be safeguards in relation to appointments to the committee, and that both the evidence and the witnesses need protection from judicial intrusion or from the Freedom of Information Act 2000. There must also be safeguards against the committee inadvertently compromising national security in its published reports. There is no difference between us on any of these matters. The only question is how they should be achieved.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, would like the committee to become a Select Committee of Parliament, which would automatically confer privilege. He also wants the safeguards that I mentioned to be protected and conferred by parliamentary resolution. Safeguards secured by such resolution would confer privilege but would not automatically protect the proceedings of the committee from the Freedom of Information Act. As I understand it, if such protection from a Freedom of Information Act request is to be given, it has to be considered by, and depends on a certificate from, the Speaker. I see that the noble Lord is nodding his head at that.

That illustrates the difficulty. The noble Lord is recommending that the safeguards for national security in the proceedings of the Intelligence and Security Committee would no longer be a matter for the Executive but would be protected by a resolution of Parliament. In other words, responsibility for protecting national security would be transferred to Parliament, but I submit to the House that that is objectionable in principle. The Executive cannot surrender their responsibility for protecting the work of the intelligence agencies and national security. That, in the last resort, must be a matter for the Government. That is the fundamental objection to the noble Lord’s proposal.

There is another objection. There can be circumstances in which the Government ask the Intelligence and Security Committee to inquire into a very secret matter in order to satisfy the Government that the intelligence agencies have not been behaving wrongly. That is not something that a Select Committee could be used for. That sort of secret request, where something needs to be looked at in confidence, is not something that the Executive could require a Select Committee to do on their behalf. The Intelligence and Security Committee simply would not be able to fulfil the functions that it needed to fulfil if it became a Select Committee of Parliament. I say that with regret, because there are many advantages to that route.

The noble Lord made a big point of saying that to proceed by way of giving the Intelligence and Security Committee—a committee created by statute—parliamentary privilege has disadvantages. I acknowledge that. When it comes to my amendment, which seeks to confer the advantages of privilege on the Intelligence and Security Committee, I acknowledge that point and I will not be pressing that way of doing things. But of course it is perfectly possible, and indeed more desirable, to put those protections in the Bill without any reference to parliamentary privilege at all. That would overcome the objections that the noble Lord has legitimately raised. I suggest to the House that that is the better route.

For those reasons, I regret that I and my noble friend Lord Lothian, who regrets that he cannot be here today, and the Intelligence and Security Committee cannot advise the House to take the route that the noble Lord has proposed.

15:45

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton]

My Lords, I rise to speak with some hesitation because I have not been able to take part in these debates previously. However, I feel as a former chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee that I should echo some of the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, raised, particularly what he said about the Executive not being able to surrender responsibility for security.

On the other hand, I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said about the importance of privilege for the Intelligence and Security Committee and I am not entirely convinced that this can be solved in any other way. I have a dilemma. There are conflicting things that we are all trying to do. We are trying to make the Intelligence and Security Committee as effective as possible. I am not convinced that a Select Committee would in any way be more effective. I think that the current arrangements work rather well, but I am struck by my noble friend’s desire to increase confidence on the part of the public in that committee and I know that that is what he is trying to do.

However, he has not gone into the practicalities of a Select Committee on this occasion as he has done on others. For example, every member of the House of Commons can attend a Select Committee, so the normal rules could not apply there. The practicalities of location could be met, I am sure. I am left with this dilemma because I do not think there is any way in which the Executive can give up their responsibility. I am not sure about the mechanisms that have been mentioned—for example, the Speaker giving authorisation—and I am worried about freedom of information, although I am worried about freedom of information on a raft of issues and not only on this one.

There are two groups of amendments and, in a sense, we are going on to the next group, which relates to parliamentary privilege and is absolutely essential to the issue of whether we need to go down the path of a Select Committee. My noble friend thinks however, that if there were to be a Select Committee as he envisages, with all the complications that exist, it would increase the confidence of the public. On the first occasion on which the ISC, as a Select Committee, refused to give information or agreed to redactions that people then probed and it was not able to give answers, the Select Committee would be criticised just as much as the ISC has been in the past. I hope that my noble friend will resist the temptation to raise expectations about any increase in accountability or transparency were this committee to become a Select Committee of the House because I do not think that it could function in that way.

Many of us who have been involved worry that the agencies took a little time to come round to giving information when the ISC was first established—I see the noble Lord, Lord King, who was chair at that time, nodding in agreement—and we could suffer a setback if this committee became a Select Committee. It might be recoverable, but we would have to re-establish a system of confidence once again. I hope my noble friend will not raise expectations that this would suddenly mean more accountability and transparency. The one issue that concerns me is making sure that the ISC has all the protection that it needs.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, the House is getting a surfeit of chairmen, members and former members of the ISC and I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness. She followed directly after me—I think that is right, if my memory is correct—and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours was a very diligent member of the committee during part of the time when I was chairman. I would like to welcome a promising new young member of the ISC in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Butler—who, very unusually, has sat on both sides of the fence, as one might say, and speaks with all the authority of seeing it from both sides.

I respect the approach that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has taken. He has the credit of holding this view continuously for a considerable number of years and has pursued it very diligently, as is clear from the speech he has made in your Lordships’ House today and the detail into which he has gone. I am on record as saying that I have seen the evolution of this committee progressively over the years. The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, made exactly the point that it was bound to evolve, has evolved, is continuing to evolve and will evolve in the future. The question that faces your Lordships today is whether we should now take a further major step forward and recommend it that it should go straight to a Select Committee.

I am very disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has tabled Amendment 1 because I thought the previous feeling of the debate in Committee was that it was right to consider Amendment 2—which had previously been Amendment 1—the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and then, in the light of what the House thought about that, to move to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. The noble Lord is a very astute parliamentarian and his Amendment 1, if I may say so, is entirely a device to get in at number one, because if the House was to vote for it his subsequent amendments would abolish it. If the House agreed to Amendment 3, it would delete the clause in which he had just carried Amendment 1. It would then delete all the clauses that apply to the ISC. That, of course, is the position. He is saying that nothing should be set up under statute and therefore you do not need anything in this Bill about the ISC. You pass the responsibility for creating the appropriate committee over to the authorities in the House of Commons with the support of this House. We do not have the opportunity to consider the alternative approach yet, although the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has given us a good snapshot of what the House might be interested in doing.

There was common agreement in Committee that it is absolutely vital that the committee develops, as it has progressed significantly beyond the 1994 Act which limited its powers and responsibilities simply to the Secret Intelligence Service, the Security Service and Government Communications Headquarters—GCHQ. In those first few years, we extended progressively into the assessment staff in the Cabinet Office, the JIC organisation and the Defence Intelligence Staff. I brought in the NAO to oversee the finances and produce reports on financial aspects on which we needed further advice. We also took in evidence on police activities, including in the area of serious crime, and a whole series of different things which spread its range. I would like to think that, under successive memberships of the committee, it has commanded significant public confidence. Indeed, I remind noble Lords that it has been going for 18 years and I do not think there have been any serious allegations of leaks. There might have been, if not a nod, perhaps a suggestion of one, but I have to say that over the period there have been significantly more from the intelligence agencies, which are meant to be distrustful of our ability as parliamentarians to contain secrets. On this occasion I will not go into the details of Mr Shayler and Mr Tomlinson, both people who did not give great service to our country in particularly difficult times.

I did not realise that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, was going to mention this, but there is a role for the ISC that is quite outside Parliament, in the sense of being mandated by it, on which the Government did come to the committee. The Home Secretary at the time, Jack Straw, rang me and said, “We have a problem. Some very serious allegations are being made and it is not going to be dealt with simply by us issuing denials that they are true. Will the committee undertake to investigate the allegation of a failure by the Security Service in connection with the Secret Intelligence Service to root out serious Warsaw Pact Soviet espionage?”. If people do not know what I am talking about, it got into the tabloids as the “granny who came in from the cold”. A KGB archivist, Mr Mitrokhin, provided the most amazing fund of top secret intelligence. Having been turned down by the United States—I think he went to the US embassy in Vilnius, although at the time all sorts of people were turning up at US embassies, so they said that they had too many of them—but fortunately a suitably intelligent British agent spotted the potential value of the archive. It was top secret stuff and I said that we would undertake the investigation only on the condition that we had access not as circumscribed in the Act but to any secret information that was in any way relevant to the case. We took full evidence, including from Mr Mitrokhin himself, and many noble Lords will have seen the outcome of that. The report showed that although one or two mistakes were made, the more serious allegations against the intelligence and security agencies were not justified. I like to think that that report, from an all-party committee drawn from both Houses, investigating an absolutely top secret matter, commanded considerable public confidence.

It is important that this committee commands public confidence in this country. As the Foreign Secretary says in his article in the Times today—more in connection with Part 2 of this Bill—it is important, too, for this committee to have a role in maintaining international confidence. As a country, we depend enormously on our intelligence agencies and what they produce, but also considerably on a whole network of alliances of intelligence agencies. The difficulties of the world at present are such that one cannot be sure from where the next challenge, terrorist threat or any other sort of threat, such as that from organised crime, might emerge. We must maintain international confidence that our intelligence agencies and parliamentary oversight procedures are secure to the standards that our allies would expect for information that may be extremely sensitive as far as they are concerned.

As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made clear, that background is such that, whatever we come out with here, it cannot be an ordinary committee. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, wants to abolish the ISC as it stands under statute and just create a select committee. He then, very properly, includes a whole range of extra requirements that would have to be added to a select committee for it to operate in this way. He very confidently said that all the necessary safeguards would be available. However, I do not know what authority he has for saying that, as it will be a matter for the House to decide which of those safeguards it wishes to impose. That is why the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is surely right: the Government cannot surrender or pass over responsibility for national security. The Government must maintain that responsibility; our duty in Parliament is to hold them to account for how they discharge that responsibility.

I wait to see whether the Minister can help us on the legal point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler. We have managed to stumble along for 18 years without getting too worried about the issue of privilege, but it now seems to be becoming much more of a concern that we should have that protection, if it is necessary. Why can it not simply be put in the Bill and made quite clear what that privilege protection is? That would seem to be an entirely satisfactory way to deal with it.

A number of complications arise, whichever route we take. When the noble Lord, Lord Henley, summed up the debate in Committee on this point, he made clear that the Government would go away and reflect on the comments that had been made. We were privileged at that time to have the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, here, who, as your Lordships will know, of course has considerable experience in the security field with the responsibility that he had. He said that he respected and welcomed what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, had said and that he would wait to hear the Minister’s conclusions when he came back—we welcome the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who has now taken over that responsibility—but he did not actually, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, knows, support the Select Committee route. I do not support it at this stage either but do support the steps that need to be taken. I think the noble Baroness and I are pretty much in step on this: we should ensure that the committee is recognised to have as parliamentary a status as is possible, while retaining for the Executive the overall responsibility for national security and ensuring that the ISC—which I would like to think has made a reasonably promising start—can continue to evolve and serve the nation as it has sought to do in the past.

15:59

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting debate, as was the debate we had in Committee. I am at something of a disadvantage—or perhaps it is an advantage—as the Minister and I are the only speakers in this debate who have not been members or indeed esteemed chairs of the ISC. I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, say, “Good”—I hope it is.

I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, and I will explain the reasons why. I join the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours because the way that he has brought forward this argument today does the House a great service.

In Committee, many Members of your Lordships’ House, who have had a lifetime’s experience of these matters, proposed a number of different ideas for reform of the Intelligence and Security Committee, ranging from the designation of parliamentary privilege through to issues such as public hearings. What was striking in that debate—and is again today—was that there was an overwhelming consensus on all sides of the House that the Bill could be significantly bolder. It has been evident throughout the debate that there is some dissatisfaction with the Government’s approach. Your Lordships’ House does not feel that what is before it today adequately addresses some of the concerns raised in Committee.

We fully support the Government’s stated aim, which is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said at Second Reading,

“improved parliamentary and independent oversight of the security and intelligence agencies”.—[Official Report, 19/6/12; col. 1661.]

What we have in Part 1 of the Bill, as illustrated by this and the next group of amendments, is a missed opportunity. In Committee, we discussed a range of different options for strengthening the independence of the ISC beyond what is proposed in the Bill. What emerged were two different blueprints for achieving pretty much the same aims and objectives. First, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, two distinguished members of the committee, proposed an arrangement along the lines of existing parliamentary committees established by statute, such as the Ecclesiastical Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, and the House of Commons Commission. The committee as envisaged would have the independence and powers afforded by being a creature of Parliament rather than the Executive, but would retain the security of checks and balances provided for in statute. The second way forward, proposed by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, seeks to establish the Intelligence and Security Committee as a fully fledged Select Committee of Parliament, having all the privileges attached to that arrangement, but with safeguards or restrictions provided through resolutions of Parliament rather than statute. I think my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours used the phrase “hermetically sealed”.

However, both these blueprints are seeking to achieve the same end point. They are both seeking a concept of the ISC as a creature of Parliament rather than the Executive; independence that is recognised by the public but still guarantees the absolute security of sensitive information disclosed to the committee; and maintaining the good relations and trust that have been established with the agencies. It seems that the choice between the two concepts is one less of principle and more of practicality: which proposal will best achieve this end? My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, have both confirmed that they are seeking to achieve the same ends.

As my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has already stated, chief among the advantages gained by being a parliamentary Select Committee is parliamentary privilege. This would grant the ISC, among other things, protection of members and witnesses by parliamentary privilege, which encourages free disclosure within the secure confines of the committee; the power to take evidence under oath; and the power to hold witnesses in contempt for deliberately misleading the committee.

I have listened carefully to my noble friend’s arguments about the designation of parliamentary privilege, and in Committee we debated and supported amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, to grant the ISC parliamentary privilege by amending the Bill of Rights. Indeed, I have attached my name to similar amendments in the next group, because I fully support the ISC obtaining parliamentary privilege. However, if, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, has compellingly argued today, there are serious problems with seeking to designate privilege in this way, it would appear that a Select Committee arrangement is the only option that would satisfactorily guarantee the committee these powers. The notion that privilege, if gained in the way that has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, may be struck down by the courts, which I am absolutely clear is not what they are seeking, is hugely concerning. If witnesses and members of the committee had given evidence to that committee under the assumption that they had immunity, only later to have that immunity revoked, it would have huge implications for the work of the committee. The absolute and total guarantee of parliamentary privilege is therefore a compelling reason to support the ISC’s move to full Select Committee status.

The question then rests on whether a Select Committee arrangement could be relied on to act in a way that absolutely guaranteed, without qualification, the protection of our national security. The Opposition would support the establishment of the ISC as a Select Committee only where such a guarantee could be satisfied. Under no circumstances should any change in the structure of the ISC result in sensitive information being disclosed that could put at risk our national security or the safety of intelligence sources or operations. Restrictions or safeguards on the committee’s powers could include a number of areas—we have heard of some of them today—and others that may be agreed by Parliament. For example, the Prime Minister could veto the publication of material by the committee for reasons of national security; proceedings of the committee could be closed to the public unless agreed by the Executive and/or provided for under its own terms of reference, such as annual public hearings of the heads of the agencies; there could be an executive prerogative to instruct the Leader of the House to dissolve the committee or to remove one of its members by a resolution of Parliament; or there could be a veto or agreement of a nomination to the committee. I use those just as examples— there will be others that I am sure will occur to your Lordships, particularly those who have been members of the ISC—but providing for such safeguards in legislation, as in the Bill before us, is perhaps the clearest way of ensuring that they are met.

In Committee, the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, argued against a Select Committee structure on the basis that it would necessitate public evidence sessions. He rightly said that,

“there are many occasions when to attempt to take evidence in public would create an even less high regard for the committee that it maybe has at the moment, because questions would be answered by the agency heads with the words, ‘We cannot answer that question’”.—[Official Report, 9/7/12; col. 923.]

I completely agree with the noble Marquess on that point. In the majority of cases, the committee must sit in private. To do otherwise would not only damage the reputation of the committee, as I have said, but, most seriously, undermine its core function of effective oversight over the intelligence services. However, as has been argued by my noble friend, the mechanism by which Select Committee powers and terms of reference are constituted are sufficiently flexible conceivably to provide for any one of those concerns.

I understand from my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours that he has it on the authority of clerks of both this House and the other place that Parliament may, either through the committee’s order of reference or by instruction, specify the terms under which the committee may sit, may take evidence and report, including requiring the consent of another body including the Government. Indeed, there are already known precedents for such restrictions. The Defence Select Committee already holds evidence sessions in private in order to hear classified and national security-sensitive information. For its recent report on maritime surveillance, published in September this year, it held part of its first evidence session in private. As my noble friend has indicated, there have been instances in the past where the House has resolved that a committee report to the Prime Minister and it may even be precluded from publishing certain material on the grounds of national security. Given those assurances, a Select Committee arrangement would both guarantee the ISC parliamentary privilege and ensure the necessary safeguards for our national security.

My understanding is that, if the House were today to pass my noble friend’s amendment and the Government accepted the will of your Lordships’ House, the Government could seek to withdraw Clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill in the Commons and then issue a statement that they would seek agreement through a resolution of the House to establish the ISC as a Select Committee of Parliament. If the Government and the Opposition were unable to reach agreement over the terms of such a resolution—including all the necessary safeguards that I have referred to and others—then presumably the ISC would continue under its present arrangements.

We have heard a compelling argument from my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours that it is not possible to designate a body of parliamentary privilege such as the ISC simply by amending the Bill of Rights or by other statutory means. If this is indeed correct, it is undeniably a compelling reason for pursuing the Select Committee route rather than the statutory one. However, even if it were possible to do so, there is a further reason why we believe that the Select Committee should be the model that we aim for. That reason was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I am sorry that he is not here today as his contribution in Committee was valuable. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, was supported by the noble Lord, Lord King, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, when he asked:

“Is it not better to use the strength of the Select Committee process and procedure and, above all, of public understanding rather than to try to create something special”?—[Official Report, 9/7/12; col. 926.]

This is more than just a cosmetic change. The parliamentary Select Committee structure is one widely recognised as being capable of serious and robust scrutiny. It is a concept that is familiar to the public and one that they understand as being independent. While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, about public confidence in the committee I do not think that most of the public know of the existence of the ISC, whereas they are aware of the structure and work of Select Committees. Even if it were possible to guarantee the committee watertight parliamentary privilege, as I now seriously doubt, it would still ultimately be a hybrid committee. A halfway house would undeniably be better than what we have in the Bill but it would still be a peculiar body. If we are to go to all the effort of dressing up the ISC to look and sound like a parliamentary Select Committee, although with question marks over parliamentary privilege, why not simply have a Select Committee to do the job fully?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for presenting his amendments in such a typically articulate way. He draws to our attention the challenge that faces us in achieving confidence—the word that was used by many noble Lords and spoken of by my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater. In a nutshell, this is about the scrutiny of Parliament and the responsibility of government, and how those two can be reconciled. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, talked about not wishing to create a special committee, this is a special committee because it deals with matters that are self-evidently outside normal public scrutiny.

This group of amendments, which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and others for bringing to the House, concern the status of the ISC and, although we have not talked about it much, the remit of the Intelligence Services Commissioner. As my noble friend Lord Henley previously noted, the Bill proposes a number of important changes to the ISC’s status. Members of the ISC would be appointed by Parliament, rather than as at present by the Prime Minister, and those members would be free to choose their own chair. The ISC is created by statute to ensure that there are safeguards in place to protect against the disclosure of sensitive information and therefore the Government do not consider it appropriate for the ISC to be a full Joint Committee established under the Standing Orders of each House, as other Joint Committees are. I hope that noble Lords will find it useful for me to expand on this reasoning.

It is essential that the ISC operates within a framework that protects the highly sensitive material to which it has access. In particular, the Government must be able to prevent the publication of sensitive material by the ISC. They must be able to withhold the most sensitive material from the committee—albeit that those powers are rarely used currently and can be expected to be rarely used in future—and must have some role in the appointment of members of the ISC. Without guarantees in those three areas, the risk of disclosure of information that might damage national security would be increased. That might, in turn, lead to a situation where agency heads found it hard to reconcile their statutory duties to protect information with their duty to facilitate oversight. That could therefore lead to the sharing of less sensitive information and a corresponding reduction in the effectiveness and credibility of oversight.

The Bill provides the necessary guarantees in each of those three areas. The Prime Minister would be able to require matters be excluded from the ISC’s reports if the matter would be prejudicial to the discharge of the functions of the agencies or the wider intelligence community. Ministers would be able to withhold information from the ISC in the limited circumstances provided for in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 1. A Member of this House or of another place would not be eligible to become a member of the ISC unless they had first been nominated for membership by the Prime Minister.

Although it may be possible to replicate those safeguards in Standing Orders of this House and another place, Standing Orders can be amended at any time, as noble Lords will know, and can be suspended for a specific period, or dispensed with for a specific purpose, by a Motion in the relevant House. Standing Orders do not therefore have the same permanence, or provide the same level of protection to sensitive information, as statutory provisions to the same effect.

It seems to me that we can divide the noble Lord’s amendments into two sets. Both are concerned with the same aim—that the new ISC should be a Select Committee—but they get there by different routes and with different consequences. It is not absolutely clear what the effect of the noble Lord’s first two amendments would be. If we were to accept them and the amendment that he proposes to Schedule 2, the ISC would still be created by statute in the Bill and safeguards would still exist to protect national security in the three areas that I have listed. My noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater drew attention to the inconsistency of the amendments, but we accept the noble Lord’s wish to draw the issue to the attention of the House in the way that he has by tabling Amendment 1.

The noble Lord’s amendment would not create a full Joint Committee, because that can be done only by the Standing Orders of each House. It would create an entirely novel body—a Select Committee established by statute. To what extent would such a body share the characteristics of other Select Committees? The Bill makes clear, even were it amended in other respects according to the noble Lord’s wishes, that the ISC is quite different from other Select Committees in fundamental respects—for instance, in relation to appointments and reporting. That being so, it is unclear whether or to what extent changing the ISC in this way would give it the other characteristics of a Select Committee. Indeed, the risk is that describing the ISC as a Select Committee when it has characteristics that are not shared by such committees could mislead as to the ISC’s true character. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment and that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, will reconsider her position on it.

The noble Lord’s next four amendments would, together, remove the first four clauses, which deal with the ISC. It is to be assumed that the noble Lord’s intention with those amendments is that a new ISC should be created solely by the Standing Orders of each House. Indeed, the noble Lord said so in his speech introducing his amendment. I have already listed the vital safeguards relating to appointments, reporting and provision of information contained in the Bill. Without these safeguards, we will increase the risk of unauthorised disclosure of the sensitive information to which the committee has access. As I have already said, Standing Orders cannot adequately replicate the safeguards against disclosure of information that might damage national security contained in the Bill. It is only by enshrining these safeguards in statute that we can ensure that they are sufficiently robust and enduring.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My noble friend has put much more clearly what I tried to allude to. The only correct position that would seem to emerge from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and the noble Baroness who speaks for the Opposition is that nobody should vote in favour of Amendment 1. If they vote for it and do not carry Amendment 6, we will have a complete muddle. What is involved here is actually not voting on Amendment 1; the issue about the Select Committee should properly be addressed under Amendment 6.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My noble friend may well be quite right.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

If Amendment 1 were to be carried, there would be discussions in the House of Commons. It would probably come back with a decision and an announcement to the House that it intended to set up a committee by way of parliamentary resolutions, so none of those issues would arise.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I hope that I can reassure my noble friend and the noble Lord that I intend to use my eloquence so that the House is not presented with this issue of confusion. That must be my task, and I will pray in aid the words of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. I hope that the House will not mind if I quote him at length. In Committee, he said:

“I think we all agree that the ultimate purpose is that the public should have confidence in the committee’s scrutiny of the intelligence services. However, it was clear from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that if this were to be a Select Committee, it would have to be hedged around by a very large number of parliamentary resolutions, and that would have the same effect as the constraints that are written into the Bill. The question is: would that make it more convincing if it were a Select Committee when it was a Select Committee unlike any other because it would be so inhibited by those restraints?

They say that something which looks like a duck and quacks like a duck can be regarded as being a duck, but this would not look like or quack like a Select Committee; it would be something completely separate”.—[Official Report, 9/7/12; cols. 933-34.]

I hope noble Lords understand why I wished to quote the noble Lord; it was such a brilliant précis of the position.

I can see much force in that argument. It was reinforced today by the noble Lord and by the former chairman of the ISC, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, raised the question of parliamentary privilege. It may be possible to give the committee bespoke statutory immunities that would provide it with protections which would replicate aspects of privilege. The noble Lord said that that might well be what the Government are proposing, but it would not be the same as legislating to provide the same privileges for the committee. If the ISC were given privilege by statute, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said, that might encourage courts to rule on proceedings in Parliament. Courts already rule on this question. The Supreme Court judgment in the recent Regina v Chater case is an example of that. For instance, it might be possible to give protection for witnesses before the ISC so that the evidence they give to the ISC in good faith cannot be used against them in criminal, civil or disciplinary proceedings. The Government are considering whether that is a viable approach and whether it is the best approach to tackle this issue. We may bring forward amendments to deal with this issue at a later date.

The addition of the “of Parliament” amendment, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian—accepted in principle by the Government and to which we will come presently—would have a number of consequences. One possible consequence is that the ISC would have the power to take evidence on oath. This, in turn, raises the possibility that those who intentionally mislead the committee, while giving evidence under oath, would be subject to the same sort of sanctions which might apply in similar circumstances to a witness before a Select Committee. If, on further analysis, that is not a consequence of that amendment, we would be content to look at whether there is the need for a provision in the Bill to make clear that the ISC may take evidence on oath. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, will be happy not to move his amendment in the light of what I have described of the Government’s position on these matters of privilege.

I turn to Amendment 30, which again is tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and relates to the role of the Intelligence Services Commissioner.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

That is an error on my behalf. I tabled it over the weekend when we were not here. I will not move that amendment.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I apologise for that and will move on to deal with the substantive issue. The work of the commissioner is a different role from that of the committee. Of course, it complements it. I hope that we will be able to use our ability to enhance it and ensure that it continues to meet our needs. The Government believe in strengthening oversight and, clearly, the commissioner has a role in that.

On the basis of the arguments that I have presented, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have participated in this debate. In my response, I want to dwell on something that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, slipped into the middle of a sentence. He used the word “aspects” of privilege. The distinction between what I am calling for here—Article 9 protection under the 1689 Act—as against what he is proposing, is full privilege for a Select Committee of Parliament to be known as the intelligence and security services Select Committee.

When I talk about full privilege, I am not talking about some qualification of freedom of information legislation, which I suspect is what the Government and perhaps even the noble Lord, Lord Butler, have in mind, but about full privilege under the Act: rights of access to documents covered by privilege; rights to call Ministers covered by privilege; rights to hold in contempt covered by parliamentary privilege; rights to insist on evidence being taken under oath, if necessary, under parliamentary privilege; rights to have witnesses protected from the courts; rights to have Members protected from assault on free speech; and protection of Members against a threat of intimidation or any undue pressure which prejudices their rights to act freely as Members of Parliament.

These are rights contained in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, which I do not believe that it will be possible for the Government to allocate as they propose, whether under the statutory provision which we have been talking about up until today or the amendment of the freedom of information legislation, which is the debate going on behind the scenes.

I would like to deal with the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, when he talked about transfer of responsibility from the Executive to the Speaker. As I understand it, under the arrangements that the Government propose, instead of a Speaker’s Certificate being required in an FOI case there would be a ministerial certificate. This House is full of lawyers, and I am not a lawyer—but am I mistaken in thinking that a ministerial certificate can be overturned by an information tribunal? That is what the law says, although I am not a lawyer and am ready to stand corrected. But if that is the case, it means that this is not an argument over whether you are simply transferring the responsibility from the Executive to the Speaker, potentially you are transferring it from the Executive, on matters of national security, to the information tribunal. Perhaps I am wrong but, even as a barrack-room lawyer, I think that I have got that right.

On the view expressed by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, I regard perception as extremely important in this whole discussion. Is a halfway house committee, detached from Parliament, more credible in terms of public perception than a full Select Committee of Parliament, circumscribed in the ways that I have suggested to the House in the course of moving my amendment?

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, cannot support me today, but we are on the route. As I said to him before, privately, inevitably we will end up with a Select Committee—the question is when.

My noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon pointed to the precedent of a Select Committee on Defence in the House of Commons handling these matters in conditions of secrecy and dealing with them as if they were matters of national security, and secret. I understand that committees of this House have dealt in exactly the same way with very sensitive material and have not leaked; all I am asking is that those committees be replicated in a wider Select Committee, comprising Members of both Houses.

Finally, this is not a precedent. Countries throughout the western world have Parliaments that have Select Committees on intelligence. Some on occasion even meet in public—I have not advocated that. They do not leak, and when the members of our ISC travel abroad, as I did when I was on the committee for five years we often met Members of other Parliaments who sat on Select Committees in their Parliaments dealing with these matters. In the United States of America, in the Congress and the Senate, they have Select Committees. If they can do it, why cannot we? It is on that basis that I wish to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.

16:33

Division 1

Ayes: 162

---

Labour: 140
Crossbench: 12
Independent: 3
Bishops: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 247

---

Conservative: 125
Liberal Democrat: 58
Crossbench: 44
Independent: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 2
Labour: 2
Bishops: 1

16:46

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after “Committee” insert “of Parliament”

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

In moving Amendment 2, I wish to speak also to Amendment 4, with which it is grouped. I hope that I can deal with this group of amendments shortly because the Minister, rather unusually, dealt with them in his response to the previous group of amendments and asked me to withdraw them, which I will do.

However, if I have a complaint against the Government, it is that I moved these two amendments in Committee, seeking that the Intelligence and Security Committee should be described as the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament to emphasise its role as a servant of Parliament rather than as a servant of the Executive. I also moved Amendment 4 in Committee, which seeks to confer privilege on the committee. On that occasion the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Henley—spoke sympathetically in response to both amendments, as, indeed, has the Minister today. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said on 9 July, some four months ago:

“Noble Lords will understand from what I have said that there is a degree of sympathy for both amendments, and particularly the first, but more work needs to be done”.—[Official Report, 9/7/12; col. 918.]

Four months have passed and it seems that the Government have not done that work and reached a conclusion in amendments that they could put before the House today. That is a pity.

These are probing amendments. The Minister has said again that he is sympathetic to the addition of the words “of Parliament”. A more substantial issue is Amendment 4, which seeks to confer privilege on the Intelligence and Security Committee. As has come out in the earlier debate, there are genuine difficulties about that. I acknowledge that in response to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I understand that the clerks of the two Houses of Parliament see difficulty in extending parliamentary privilege in this way.

On behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I want to make it clear that the safeguards that are provided by parliamentary privilege are essential—not parliamentary privilege itself. Provided those safeguards can be in the Bill—in other words, the protection of witnesses and the protection of the proceedings of the committee from judicial intrusion or the Freedom of Information Act—that is equally satisfactory. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours expressed some doubts about that and the Minister, in reply, said that there were aspects to be considered. It seems to me that it cannot be impossible for those protections to be provided statutorily in the Bill. Provided that is done, I would not seek, nor would the Intelligence and Security Committee seek, to press Amendment 4. I hope to hear from the Minister, if he does not mind repeating himself a little, that the Government will seek to provide those protections that the Intelligence and Security Committee needs in an alternative way from that of privilege. I beg to move.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I wish to intervene only very briefly, perhaps to rephrase the question about the ministerial certificate that I put during the course of my previous intervention. Is it true that the ministerial certificate could be overturned by a tribunal? Perhaps those in the Box can advise the Minister. If that is the case, it means that the responsibility has been transferred from the Executive to the tribunal, as against being transferred from the Executive to the Speaker. We should know whether that is the case.

If I am correct, the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, is suggesting that somehow that to which I am referring could be dealt with in the legislation whereby there would not be a right to challenge a ministerial certificate, as is the case with a Speaker’s certificate. When he talked about judicial intervention, perhaps he was referring specifically to that. As I understand the freedom of information legislation, it is not possible for a challenge to be mounted against a certificate granted by the Speaker. That is why I always felt that it was far better that the Speaker had that role, because the Speaker of the House of Commons would always uphold national security. It is inconceivable that a Speaker could not be trusted in these circumstances. It seemed to be being suggested that because this power was being transferred from the Executive to Parliament, it was placing something in jeopardy. On the contrary, I should have thought that the Speaker of the House of Commons—whoever that might be at any stage, now or in the future—could be thoroughly relied on to be as secure as the intelligence services themselves in protecting national security.

In one of his amendments, the noble Lord seeks to add the words “of Parliament”. Where we have a committee set up outside of Parliament—at arm’s length—are we saying that, in order to make it look as if it represents Parliament in some way, we simply tag “of Parliament” onto the end to give it the imprimatur of Parliament? As a concept, it is ridiculous and it abuses the institution. What other organisations or statutory bodies of such notable importance are going to be set up with these words simply added onto the end in order to give them some extra credibility? I am opposed to an amendment of that nature.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, much of the debate regarding this amendment was covered in the debate on the previous group of amendments. I will therefore keep my comments brief. We put our names to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian. We considered that the arrangements that they are proposing for the ISC, which is a variation of a statutory parliamentary committee, to be the next best option were the Select Committee option to fail.

In the previous debates, I referred to a committee being strengthened in its independence by the privileges and status afforded by being a creature of Parliament rather than a creature of the Executive, while retaining robust safeguards over the constitution and the work of the committee in the interests of national security. The idea of a security committee that is covered by parliamentary privilege and also bound by safeguards established by statute is of course attractive, as it would give the absolute guarantee needed on issues such as the disclosure of sensitive information and the appointment of members. However, my concerns lie—the noble Lord, Lord Butler, also acknowledged these deficiencies—with the argument raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours that parliamentary privilege conferred in this way would be suspect and potentially challengeable in the courts. That makes me nervous and I am sure that it makes other Members of the House nervous. If my noble friend is right that the present statutory committees of Parliament are not covered by privilege, it is difficult to see how statute can provide for it in this case, for the fundamental reason that the committee will not be a fully fledged body of Parliament.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that discussions would take place. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, referred to that. I am very concerned that, if I understand correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said that no discussions on the issue have taken place with the Government. There is an overwhelming desire on all sides of the House to get the issue right.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

Perhaps I may do justice to the Government. There have been discussions. My complaint is that they do not seem to have reached a conclusion.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I do not know whether that is better or worse. It is disappointing that the Government have not been able to reach a conclusion, given the overwhelming desire on all sides of the House to get this right and to ensure that the committee has the privilege that it will need to do its job properly. I remain concerned about the process that is being used. I wait with interest to hear what the noble Lord will say about the consequences of pursuing parliamentary privilege in this way. Without assurances that the committee will have full privilege, I will have serious reservations about the viability of the proposed amendments, despite the fact that I fully support the aims behind them.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I was tempted to make a relatively short summary for this debate, but the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, give me the chance to elaborate on certain matters to which other noble Lords alluded. As we know, the proposal of the Government in the Bill is to change the ISC’s status. It will be appointed by Parliament and will report to Parliament as well as to the Prime Minister. The two amendments in this group concern the status of the ISC. The first would change the name of the Intelligence and Security Committee to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. The Government’s intention is that the ISC will be a committee of Parliament created by statute. It will not be a classic Select Committee that covers departmental bodies, but a statutory committee of Parliament.

The Government are in principle supportive of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, to change the name of the committee to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. While we are not in a position to support the amendment at this stage, we will be in a position to do so later. I hope that in what I say I will give the House reassurance that the time since July has not been totally wasted, and that the Government are quite a long way down the road of sorting out the particular issues to which noble Lords quite rightly drew the attention of the House. If the ISC becomes a committee of Parliament, it may even be necessary to make some consequential amendments. The amendment may bring the ISC within the ambit of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by making it a part of the House of Commons and the House of Lords for the purposes of the Act, which was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. It may change the ISC’s status under the Data Protection Act 1998, as Section 63A of that Act may become relevant, making the corporate officers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords the relevant data controllers for the ISC’s data-processing activities.

17:00

The noble Lord is right to make sure that the Government are aware of these issues. He may be referring to the exemption in Section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act. Suffice it to say that a number of other exemptions in the Act would also be relevant in an FOI request, not least Section 23, which is an exemption for information relating to or supplied by the agencies, which is an absolute exemption. If the noble Lord would like further details about this before Third Reading, I am happy to provide him with them. It may well be necessary to bring forward consequential amendments to make clear the status of the ISC under the Data Protection Act and Freedom of Information Act. Those matters will need to be thought through thoroughly. I hope that noble Lords will accept that the Government intend to proceed in this way.

The second amendment deals explicitly with the significant issue of parliamentary privilege. We have discussed this at some length in the previous group of amendments because much of the debate hinged on the protection of privilege. The House has considered this matter on a number of occasions in recent years. The Government’s most recent consideration of the issue is contained in the Green Paper published in April this year.

Freedom of speech in the context of the Bill of Rights is just one aspect of parliamentary privilege. At present, the Intelligence and Security Committee is a statutory committee. It is a statutory committee of parliamentarians, but it does not benefit from parliamentary privilege. The amendment would provide that the proceedings of the ISC under the Bill would be proceedings in Parliament for the purposes of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights.

The noble Lord tabled the same amendment in Committee and my noble friend Lord Henley expressed a degree of sympathy with it on behalf of the Government and said that more work needed to be done. I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord that this work has indeed been done. The parliamentary authorities and the ISC have both been involved in these discussions, and discussions with the parliamentary authorities have highlighted that it would be a unique proposition for a statute to confer parliamentary privilege in this way. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, referred to that. It is conceivable that doing so could have wider and possibly unwelcome ramifications for the relationship between the courts and Parliament.

As I have already said, we have considered whether it is possible, instead, to give the committee bespoke statutory immunities that would provide the committee with protections that would replicate certain aspects of parliamentary privilege. For instance, it might be possible to give protection to witnesses before the ISC, so that evidence they give to the ISC in good faith could not be used in criminal, civil or disciplinary proceedings. We are considering whether this is a viable approach and whether it is the best approach to tackling this issue, and we may bring forward amendments.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The noble Lord has repeatedly said, “We are considering”, and “It might be possible”. There is an element of doubt. It may be possible, but if it is not possible, are they then ruling out Select Committee status?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I have every confidence that a solution to the issues and challenges of providing the necessary protection will be found. However, I was not intending to use this debate to present those conclusions to Parliament. I am sure the noble Lord will look forward with interest to hearing them in due course.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, for tabling these amendments. I hope he will feel able to withdraw this amendment in the light of my reassurances on progress.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and to other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I wish to make two points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is being a little unfair in describing the Intelligence and Security Committee, even in its present form, as detached from Parliament. We do not feel detached from Parliament and, certainly in the circumstances described by the Minister, when we are more closely appointed by and report to Parliament, we will be even less detached. So there is some point in adding the words “of Parliament”.

Secondly, the Minister raised a point about the certificate of exemption under the Freedom of Information Act. He said that a Minister’s decision can be challenged at a tribunal whereas, on his understanding, the Speaker’s certificate cannot, and so the committee would be safer in the hands of the Speaker than in the hands of the Minister. I had hoped, when he raised this point in the previous debate, that a lawyer would intervene and advise us. My understanding is that the Executive always has the last say on this. The Minister is quite right that a tribunal can overrule a Minister but, in the end, a Minister can overrule a tribunal. An example which the House will remember is the risk register on the Health Bill where, in the end, the Minister overruled the tribunal. My understanding is that a Minister always has the last word. I pause for a moment in case there is a lawyer in the House who can correct me but, if not, I offer that as my belief.

On the basis of what the Minister said and in the expectation that a solution can be found to providing the protections that the Intelligence and Security Committee needs other than by means of conferring parliamentary privilege, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Amendments 3 and 4 not moved.

Amendment 5

Moved by

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

5: Clause 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert “and the Chair shall be remunerated in line with arrangements for Chairs of Departmental Select Committees of the House of Commons”

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, again I can speak quite briefly to the amendment, which provides that the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee should be remunerated on a basis similar to that of chairs of Select Committees of the House of Commons.

I emphasise that the present chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee has not asked for this amendment to be brought forward. However, the members of the committee feel strongly that the chair has to do a large amount of work—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord King, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, also did—and that it is an anomaly that, whereas other Members of the House of Commons who are chairs of Select Committees receive remuneration, the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee does not.

As I understand it, the Government’s position is that this is, in these days, a matter for IPSA. However, I hope that they will be willing to put this issue to IPSA with their recommendation that it should consider it sympathetically. If the Minister is prepared to go as far as that, my colleagues and I on the Intelligence and Security Committee will be happy not to press the amendment.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I vigorously support this amendment because it has always been my view that the chairman should be remunerated. I served under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, and he should have been remunerated, as indeed should my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton. However, what worries me a little is that the matter is to be left to IPSA. That is a very controversial proposition to put, not because IPSA is as unpopular in the Commons as we know it to be, but why should an organisation established to deal with parliamentary allowances and expenditure be required to deal with the expenditure of an outside body? This is the first body, but are we to presume that in the future IPSA will extend its tentacles to managing the financial arrangements of more bodies that are established under statute? Is this the beginning of the growth of IPSA into something even larger than the current organisation which is causing so much grief to Members of Parliament? I simply put the question. If a mechanism is to be found, perhaps I may suggest that IPSA is not the ideal organisation to proceed with this responsibility.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has just said—in the knowledge that there is no back pay in this world. It does seem very weird to be considering this. I am not sufficiently familiar with the remit of IPSA, but although we have been arguing about the extent to which this committee is or is not part of Parliament, in the area of pay and rations it appears to have been put right inside it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser have been added to this amendment, as was the case in Committee. We argued then, and argue again now on Report, for the establishment of the ISC along lines similar to that of a Select Committee, and indeed preferably the same lines. It would therefore be inconsistent not to argue that the chair of this committee should be remunerated in much the same way as the chair of a Select Committee. The work that is undertaken is enormously serious and therefore the role should be recognised and fairly compensated on par with that of a chair of a Select Committee.

We have just heard comments about whether IPSA is the appropriate body for this role, and in Committee it was the Minister who said that it was. I have been involved in politics both in your Lordships’ House and in the other place for a good many years and I still enjoy irony, which is much underused in politics, so I find the argument of the Government rather ironic given the debate over Select Committee status which has underscored the difference between this committee and a committee of Parliament. Perhaps the Minister can change the Government’s position and we will accept the amendment.

The details of the committee’s arrangements are to be established in statute, but when it comes to discussing remuneration, it will be for IPSA to decide. It really does not seem appropriate for that body to do so, and the Government cannot have it both ways. If the ISC is to remain a body provided for in statute and ultimately accountable to the Executive, which is the case in this Bill, then regardless of any closer ties to Parliament it remains a creature of the Executive. It therefore seems completely illogical for IPSA to be the body which decides on the remuneration of the committee’s chair. I support the amendment. If the Government think that IPSA is the way forward, they have got it wrong, and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, we turn now to the remuneration of the ISC chairmanship. I have to say that the loyalty which members of that committee have shown to the chairmen and the work they undertake reflects the commitment that those who have held that office have demonstrated to the security services. I note the widespread view that this position should be properly remunerated in some way or another, and the Government support that view. There is no real consistency in the way that Select Committees are treated and no absolute rule that all Select Committee chairmen will be paid. In the Commons at present, not all Select Committee chairman receive a salary for those functions. In the Lords, there is only one such salaried chair, the chairman of the EU Select Committee, who is paid a salary—not by virtue of holding that position but by virtue of also being the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees.

17:15

I ought to explain why the Government think that IPSA should be the body that considers the level of remuneration. At present for Members of the House of Commons, pay is the responsibility of IPSA. Currently IPSA pays MPs’ salaries in accordance with resolutions of the House. Those resolutions specify which chairs of committees should receive additional pay. As I have said, not all Select Committee chairs are so specified. I should add for the sake of completeness that from 1 April 2013, IPSA will itself determine MPs’ salaries in toto. It will have responsibility for setting the salaries for MPs generally and may determine that MPs who hold a position or office specified in a resolution of the House should receive a higher salary than ordinary Members of Parliament. That is, I think, a matter for Parliament. IPSA will only say what the pay should be for those holding such a position.

Where the chair of a committee is an office specified by a resolution of the House, the Government would be happy to support a Motion to that effect, which would indeed mean that the matter could be considered.

[Lord Gilbert]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister. Have the Government given any serious consideration to the possibility that the chairman of this committee, like the chairman of the PAC, should always be a member of the Opposition?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I have indicated to noble Lords that the chairman of this committee will actually be elected by the members of the committee itself, from within the membership of the committee. It is a matter for the members who they choose, in the customary manner. The chairman does not have to be a member of the Opposition or a member of the Government; he has to command the confidence of the members of the committee, who vote for the position.

[Lord Gilbert]

We have a long-standing convention that the chairman of the PAC is a member of the Opposition. I think that is thoroughly healthy and am just trying to find out—or tease out of the Minister—whether the Government have a view one way or another whether it would be appropriate to have a similar arrangement for this committee.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Lord is persistent but he is more persistent than the committee has been long standing. The committee in its present form has not yet been set up. The new committee will establish its own traditions and it is not for me standing here at the Dispatch Box as a member of the Government to say how the committee should conduct its affairs when I, and the Government, have said that the committee will elect its own chairman. It is a matter for the committee to decide.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My noble friend will recognise that this is a long-standing issue that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. I happen to strongly support what he said and believe that it would be in the interests of the reputation and credibility of the ISC—which is of great advantage to the Government and the nation—if it is seen to be a committee that is in no sense government-led, or led by a member or supporter of the Government, but is chaired by a member of the Opposition.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am not at all doubting the value, for example, of the Public Accounts Committee, to which the noble Lord referred. However, it is up to this committee to decide whether to establish its own tradition. To predetermine its traditions, as suggested by the noble Lord, gives a false description of what “tradition” really represents.

I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to move on, because I was going to suggest another scenario: of course, there is no reason why the chairman of this committee should be a member of another place. It is a Joint Committee of both Houses, and although noble Lords may consider it unlikely that a Member of this House would be elected its chairman, that may indeed happen, and it probably would not be appropriate for the salary to be determined by IPSA in that respect. It would be a question of us seeking to resolve the issue should the occasion arise.

I understand what noble Lords and the noble Baroness are trying to achieve; that is, some sort of established practice within existing committee procedure. I have some sympathy with the argument. The ISC is an important committee, carrying out a very valuable oversight function, and the chairman of that committee has a critical role in that respect. However, deciding on the appropriate level of financial support for the chair of the ISC is very much a matter for existing mechanisms within the two Houses and would be best resolved in that way. It is for Members of the House of Commons and, for Peers, the House Committee to resolve this issue, not the Government. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, on the basis that Members of your Lordships’ House receive no remuneration for being chairs of Select Committees, I am happy to have removed any incentive to run for this position. On the basis that it would be within the power of the House of Commons to move a resolution referring this to IPSA, and that the Government would give a favourable recommendation and support that matter, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

Amendment 6 not moved.

Schedule 1 : The Intelligence and Security Committee

Amendment 7

Moved by

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

7: Schedule 1, page 13, line 29, at end insert—
“(1) The Chair of the ISC shall be elected by the House of Commons by secret ballot.
(2) A candidate wishing to stand for election to the Chair of the ISC must seek in advance of the ballot the formal consent of the Prime Minister for their candidature, to be notified in writing.
(3) The first election will take place as soon as there is a vacancy in the Chairmanship, not at the next General Election.”

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 7. This is the first time I have intervened on Report so I draw the House’s attention to the various relevant entries on the register of interests. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby for having put her name to this amendment.

I did not take part in the debates on Part 1 in Committee. My interests were much more with Parts 2 and 3, and I have tabled some amendments that we shall debate on Wednesday. However, developments since have led me to table this amendment, which inserts a new paragraph at the beginning of the section headed “Procedure” in Schedule 1 that provides for the direct election of the chairman of the ISC by Members of the House of Commons. To borrow the phrase of my noble friend Lord King, it is an evolutionary development in the power and prestige of the committee.

My purpose in moving this amendment can be simply stated. First, it is to buttress the independence of the chair of the ISC. Secondly, it is to increase the democratic accountability of that role. Thirdly and most importantly, it is to increase public confidence in the operations of the ISC. I make it absolutely clear that I am in no way attacking or criticising the existing or past holders of the office of chairman of the ISC, but my amendment reflects the fact that with the provisions of this Bill as a whole, the Government are moving into new, uncharted and potentially dangerous territory, which requires us to consider whether extra precautions are needed to buttress our civil liberties. I note in passing how the reputation and reach of the existing Select Committees appear to have increased since their chairs were directly elected.

The amendment would establish a further check and balance appropriate to the consideration of matters as complex and as delicate as national security. First, it would open up the chairmanship of the ISC to any Member of Parliament who wished to stand for it. In doing so, it would reduce the concern—I make no assessment as to whether it is justified—that leaving the appointment of the ISC entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister runs the risk of being rather too cosy for modern conditions. I note, and my noble friend Lord Taylor has referred to this already, that the Bill as drafted permits—empowers—the members of the ISC to choose one of their number to be their chair. While I welcome that development, I do not believe that it goes far enough. Since the Prime Minister controls the membership of the ISC, he controls the population from which the chair is chosen.

Secondly, the amendment would balance this by requiring each candidate to obtain the formal approval and consent of the Prime Minister before standing. This would eliminate candidates who might have shown no prior interest in or experience of the intelligence or security field, or shown—dare I say it?—an overdeveloped interest in opportunities for self-promotion. Thirdly, the amendment does not seek to wrench apart the existing arrangements immediately. The other provisions of the Bill will take some time to bite and so should this provision.

Let me also make it clear what the amendment does not do. It does not seek to make the ISC a Select Committee of Parliament—we have had an extensive debate on the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours—so the reporting arrangements would remain unchanged, with the Prime Minister able to require redaction or exclusion as under Clause 3(4) of the Bill. I accept the force of the argument that there must be limits to transparency in this area.

My principal reason for tabling the amendment is that, as we move slowly but apparently inexorably into the shadowy world of closed material procedures, special advocates and restricted reporting, we need to ensure that there is at least one person at the heart of the process who has a direct democratic mandate given to him or her. As an example of how this power might be used, a number of amendments have been tabled to Part 3 of the Bill about review procedures, sunset clauses and so forth. A directly elected chair of the ISC could and should play a vital role in reassuring Parliament and the public that the new powers to be given under the Bill are being exercised properly but above all proportionately. I beg to move.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, my name is also attached to the amendment and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts on an extraordinarily brief and clear description of the reasons for it. I begin by paying a moment’s tribute to the person—no longer alive, I am sad to say—who started the whole process of Select Committees. I still remember when I was a Minister in the Labour Government which fell in 1979 the amazement that I felt when Lord St John of Fawsley got up and proposed the idea of Select Committees, which were to be independent of the Whips and free to be accountable to Parliament and to express their concerns about matters of public policy. I think that the Select Committees have done this Parliament very proud indeed, not least at the far end of this building, in the House of Commons, where, time and again, they have come up with remarkable insight and courage in a way that has added hugely to the prestige of Parliament, a prestige that was becoming slowly lost because of the inevitable predictability of so many of our open debates.

The amendment which my noble friend has moved, which I support, fully comprehends the point made so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, which is that no Act of Parliament should be able to take away from the Prime Minister his fundamental responsibility for the security of the citizens of this kingdom. However, there is no need to go as far as the present ISC does in accountability passing to the Prime Minister rather than to Parliament as a whole.

The ISC is of course a special case. It is unlike any other committee of Parliament. It is certainly unlike Select Committees, but also unlike other committees that have served Parliament over the years. It is different, of course, because of the sensitivity of the material that it deals with. It is therefore the responsibility of this House, in its consideration, to try to get the correct balance between accountability to Parliament and the sensitivity of much of the material that the ISC deals with. The noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, said that effectively, but rightly indicated that there was room for some evolution of this committee. Perhaps I might say a word or two about that evolution.

The proposers of this amendment have chosen it very carefully to ensure that a totally unsuitable person cannot be appointed to be chairman of this committee. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson said, we are leaving a veto with the Prime Minister against a candidate for chairmanship who might be wholly unsuitable. That is absolutely right because the Prime Minister, by the nature of his office, has a greater access to detailed intelligence than most of the rest of us. However, I have one word of warning because the issue of accountability to Parliament is of the first importance. In responding to an earlier amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, properly stressed time and again the importance of treating sensitive information with due respect and care. What he did not mention enough was that the House faces a genuine concern about intelligence. It is simply not the case that there is no public concern about the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I hope that I do not offend people by mentioning two cases that spring to mind.

One is that the general issue of intelligence goes back a very long way. Those of us who recall the period immediately after the Second World War will remember the so-called Cambridge group, who turned out to be extremely able people in the intelligence that they sent to the Soviet Union, and that every one of them was totally accepted as a respected member of the establishment. It took a long time for people to realise that people such as Sir Anthony Blunt and others could actually be spies.

17:30

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

I have a great deal of sympathy with this amendment, but I cannot understand why the Prime Minister should be asked for formal consent. Consent, yes, but I do not understand the argument for formal consent.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

If the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will allow me, I will finish the argument I am trying to make—I will not be lengthy—and then endeavour to address his question.

I want to go back for a moment to the other source of considerable concern about intelligence, one with which I have fairly close acquaintance: the doubts that were raised about the intelligence used as the basis for the British involvement in the invasion of Iraq. At the time, the question was whether the intelligence we had about the possibility of Iraq having nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction was sufficiently sound for us to rely on. It was my view and that of my party that it was not; it was the view, equally honestly held, of other Members of this House, that it was. There was uncertainty, which has left behind it a strong desire to seek greater accountability. We would be very foolish not to recognise that that is still a live issue.

I come back to the issues concerning the particular proposal that we have made and that my noble friend has put before your Lordships. The proposal that the House of Commons as such should be entitled to elect a chairman of such a key committee will enable it to take into account its experience of committees of this kind. I have a good deal of sympathy with the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord King, that the chairman should normally be drawn from the opposition Benches. That seems to be a kind of double guarantee that the committee would seek to be objective and not to protect people who should not be properly protected.

The second argument for the House of Commons as such to appoint the chairman, subject to a veto of candidates by the Prime Minister, is that that would essentially make the committee the creature of the House as a whole. The committee would no longer report specifically to the Prime Minister; it would report generally to Parliament. That is an excellent idea because it brings all parties—indeed, both Houses of Parliament—together in supporting the intelligence committee.

I conclude by saying a word about formal recognition. That is simply to indicate how seriously the proposal of the Prime Minister’s ability to draw the line at particular candidates must be taken. It would require him to agree in writing that that candidate should not be allowed to go forward in a certain, limited number of cases. I say as loudly and clearly as I can that this amendment meets the needs for greater accountability and what the noble Lord, Lord King, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, said about the need for evolution of the committee to make it more accountable and democratic, in the broadest sense of the word. It is a proposal that the House should consider very carefully before making any final decision about it.

[Lord Gilbert]

I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s support on my little, modest proposal but I am afraid that I cannot follow her on this business about any member of the House of Commons being able to stand for the chairmanship and then the Prime Minister having the right, or duty, to veto. Can she not see the possibility of the appalling public relations shambles which that could lead to? She has much experience in ministerial office. As soon as it is known that the Prime Minister has vetoed a candidate, there will be enormous pressure on him to say why and all sorts of invidious matters will be drawn out. I am afraid that it would be very unfortunate, to put it mildly.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

The noble Lord would not expect me to agree with him, and I do not. However, in our forthcoming discussion on Report, both today and on Wednesday, he will have the opportunity to consider further whether it is not now high time that we accept a greater degree of accountability—one that has to carry with it an ability to limit, in extreme cases, people who would be wholly unsuitable as members of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

Perhaps I might respond to those two very rational and articulate contributions promoting the idea of a popular vote, as it were, in the House of Commons. I can see the benefits of that and those of ownership. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, mentioned stakeholding in the House of Commons. However, it seems that at least four problems need to be thought through.

First, the amendment would explicitly exclude anyone from the House of Lords ever chairing this committee. In the previous debate, while not seeking it for this House, we envisaged the possibility that at some stage there might be someone appropriate in this House to chair it. As I read it, the amendment would effectively preclude anyone from the House of Lords—unless it is envisaged that there be a nomination process for this House but that nobody in this House has a vote; only the House of Commons has a vote. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, may have been about to suggest that that was possible. It would be a peculiarly quaint electoral procedure for those who were nominating candidates to be precluded from voting on them.

Secondly, it would almost inevitably undermine the possibility of another envisaged benefit of convention: of the place going to the Opposition. It would not preclude it but would make it much less likely that the tradition of the position going to a member of the Opposition would be carried through, if for no other reason than the Opposition being, by definition, a minority in the House of Commons. Anyone from the majority party would therefore have an enhanced ability to achieve the post.

Thirdly, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. As someone who has held relatively recent ministerial experience, I can tell your Lordships that there is no way that the Prime Minister could veto a nomination for the chairmanship of this committee without it becoming a major issue—not least because the person thus vetoed would make it a major issue. Once that was out, there would be all sorts of demands, in terms of natural justice and fairness, to put into the public domain the reasons why a Prime Minister should think them so serious that he or she should veto a Member of Parliament—an honourable Member—who was considered unworthy or somehow deficient in integrity or in other skills from being chairman of this committee.

The fourth reason is that, having known the House of Commons relatively recently, I am not sure that this is a position on which we should envisage political campaigning, but I assure noble Lords that that is what we will get if this position is put up for a 100% franchise in the Commons. Therefore, having listened to what has been said, and appreciating what lies beneath the suggestion that there be an electoral college for this composed of the whole House of Commons, I think that before going down this road we would have to think very carefully about the consequences that would arise in the dynamism of real politics from such a decision.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I want to argue both ways on this issue because I am of a very mixed mind. I shall start by taking on the case put by my noble friend Lord Reid, who said that it would become controversial and difficulties would arise if it were to be subsequently known by the wider public that there had been some dispute over whether the Prime Minister had been prepared to endorse the candidature of a particular candidate. I would have thought that these matters would be dealt with by the usual channels. The amendment refers to seeking,

“in advance of the ballot the formal consent of the Prime Minister”.

In other words, the Prime Minister would be asked discreetly through the usual channels whether he or she might be minded to endorse the candidature of a particular candidate or candidates, and in the event that there were to be a refusal I would not have thought that the candidate who had been refused would want it generally known that the Prime Minister of the day had turned down their prospective nomination for chairman.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

I entirely disagree with my noble friend. Not only would the candidate want it to be known, they might well have a particular reason for wanting to be chairman of the intelligence committee and indeed might even, in a rather covert fashion, be pleased to have been refused the endorsement of the Prime Minister. I do not want to mention any particular such candidates in the House of Commons, but off the top of my head I can think of half a dozen.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

If we go back to the speech of the noble Lord who moved the amendment, he never said that any Member of the House of Commons could stand. I had to disappear outside the Chamber for medical reasons, but I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, argued that any Member of the Commons should be able to stand. However, I do not think that that was the noble Lord’s suggestion. I am presuming that he was moving the amendment on the basis that there would be a membership of the committee that was put to the House on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, and from those members there would then be a person who, with the endorsement of the Prime Minister, could be chairman of the committee. We may be speaking at cross purposes and I stand to be corrected. If the noble Lord is indeed suggesting that any Member of the House could stand to be chairman of the ISC, then I would completely oppose that.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My purpose at this stage, and clearly the amendment has aroused a good deal of interest around the Chamber, was to ensure that we have the widest possible opportunity for people to stand. There are already provisions within the Bill about consultation between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and about the procedure, and I did not see those falling away. As to whether anyone would be absolutely precluded—probably not.

17:44

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

If it were indeed the whole House, then I would oppose the amendment, and I will explain why. I sat on the committee for five years when the chairman was the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater. In my experience, and this will be the experience of those members of the committee who now serve under the chairmanship of Malcolm Rifkind, I noticed that this relationship was very special. I balance the openness of the Select Committee with, on the other hand, the special nature of that relationship between the agencies and the chairman. There are circumstances in which I can imagine that relationship breaking down. That is why it is an extremely sensitive appointment. You must therefore have a narrower shortlist, to put it bluntly, than simply the membership of the whole House of Commons.

I have another argument as well, although perhaps I am doing somersaults here. I have a reservation. Subject to the shortlist that I have just referred to, I have argued in the past that not only is the relationship between the chairman and the agencies very special, but I would take it far further than the Government propose to provide for in the legislation. I believe that the chairman of the ISC should have access to everything that goes on within the agency—everything operational or whatever—and should be the only person on that committee who has total access. The legislation before us will provide a qualified element of access to operational material, but it will not provide for looking at the activities of the agencies in future. It will essentially be about retrospective operations. Ideally, in the committee that I would like to see constructed, the chairman would have access to everything—future, prospective, current and past operations—but would be the only member of the committee to do so. In those circumstances, the idea that any Member of the House of Commons could stand as chairman of the committee would be ludicrous.

As I say, I have very mixed views. If it comes to a vote, I shall probably vote for the amendment, in the hope that it is much harder to overturn a resolution in the House of Commons when it has come from the House of Lords than simply to initiate a debate on an amendment in the Commons. On that basis, I hope that the amendment is carried.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, I share some confusion over this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has asked whether it is intended that the chairman should come from a group that has already been put forward and proposed, while the noble Lord, Lord Reid, made the point about the membership of the House of Lords. As I read the Bill, you could end up with one Member of the Commons and eight Members of the Lords. That is pretty unlikely, but I can certainly see that we have moved from having one Member of the Lords as a member of the committee to having two. I can see a situation in which the new Opposition do extremely badly in an election and are very short of membership in the Commons but still have to man all the committees and so on. In those circumstances, they might well prefer it if they had one or two extremely well qualified members, perhaps recent Members who had lost their seat and moved into your Lordships’ House and who would be very useful members of the ISC.

Against that background, there would then be the problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Reid, has said, of whether or not the Commons should vote for Lords. I would trust the members of the committee, knowing the ways in which they have arrived on it, to be well capable of deciding who should be their chairman. That is well established practice, as we know from elsewhere. I therefore feel that, subject only to the qualification that the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, raised, I support the idea that the chairman should be a member of the Opposition. I feel an amendment coming on at Third Reading, and that is one that the Government might like to prepare for.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

My Lords, the amendment makes heavy weather of finding a chairman. Most, if not all, members of this committee will have a long history and reputation in both Houses. I do not see where the difficulty would be if at the first meeting the members chose a chairman. I do not see anything wrong with that. That is a tradition that I found in local government. The first time we met after we were elected, we picked a leader of the group. That happens in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons, where I used to belong.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I have a very full response to give to this amendment, but we have had a very full debate. It has been a very useful debate. I know that it is customary for Ministers to thank noble Lords who have presented amendments, but I thank my noble friends because they have brought to the Report stage an interesting idea about the relationship between the ISC, Parliament and the Prime Minister. Having said that, with even the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, having some doubts about the efficacy of this amendment, I am at one with the noble Lords, Lord Reid and Lord Gilbert, and my noble friend Lord King in seeing the great difficulties that this election might present. It was interesting to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Reid, analysing the motives that people might have for seeking to be rejected by the Prime Minister as being a suitable candidate. I have little doubt that some people would seek to exploit that situation.

I shall reiterate the Government’s position on this matter. This committee will be elected by Parliament and nominations will be provided by the Government. Parliament will be the final arbiter of who sits on the committee. The Government propose that the chairman of the committee will be elected by the members of the committee. That represents a sufficiently practical solution to the particular task that this committee undertakes. We have had some speculation about whether the chairman of the committee should be drawn from the Opposition. I have given the Government’s position, which is that it is for the committee to decide who should be the chairman of the committee. I do not believe that it can be done by an election by another place or by this House electing the chairman. For that reason, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I think I am probably the only person who has not served on the ISC. I think all the other speakers have served on it, so I am probably slightly blind-sided on some of this. The noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, said that the problem is that it would exclude Members of the House of Lords. It may possibly do so, but not necessarily. Secondly, he said that it would prevent the chairmanship going to a member of the Opposition. Again, it may possibly do so, but not necessarily. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, talked about the political fallout. Yes, but this is a very important committee, and it will be even more significant when we pass the rest of the provisions of the Bill. If the price of that is a little political disturbance, I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing. I understand his fourth argument, which was about political campaigning. At this end of the Palace, the arrangements for electing chairmen of Select Committees have gone pretty well. They have been shared out and fought over, and both parties have ended up with some chairmanships, but not all of them.

The issues are answerable. I am not saying that they are not challenging. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn—

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

Just to set the record straight, I have never been a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, although I have been at the end of some of its pertinent inquiries.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I am happy to withdraw that allegation, if allegation it is. As for what the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, said about heavy weather, I ask the House to consider that the committee will play an increasingly important role. The Justice and Security Bill, when it becomes an Act, takes us into new territory with closed material procedures in courts. The chairman of the ISC will have a very important determinant role in this. Having a chairman who is selected from a narrow body of people pre-selected by the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition is perhaps just a little too cosy. I leave that thought with the House, perhaps for reflection when the Bill continues its passage through the other place. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

Amendment 8

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

8: Schedule 1, page 13, line 31, at end insert “and to paragraphs (Pre-appointment hearings) and (Access to meetings)”

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames added his name to this amendment. Grouped with it are Amendments 9, 10, 11 and 12. At the previous stage of the Bill, we debated the procedure of the ISC. I acknowledge that it can determine its own procedure, subject to any specific provisions in the Bill. That is why my first amendment makes specific mention of two of the proposals in this group of amendments. The group is broadly about the interface with the public or, at any rate, about the face presented to the public and, to pick up a term used by the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, earlier this afternoon, the credibility of the committee. Given its remit, there is bound not to be that much of an interface, so it is even more important that means are sought to relate it to the public, where that is proper, in order to create trust and confidence. I am thinking about the direct relationship—putting the agencies into the public domain, so far as that is possible—and of the ISC itself, so that it is able to do its job properly.

Amendment 9, the first substantive amendment, is about pre-appointment hearings or, as they are also known, confirmatory hearings. I am flattered that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, has picked up the amendment I had at the previous stage word for word. In fact, after that stage, I decided that one word could be improved on. It is not necessarily wrong, but it could be bettered. It is to change the word “may” in what the ISC can do to “shall”. The public increasingly expect more to be known about senior public sector figures—what sort of people they are, what their aspirations are, how they see the job and how they expect to spend the budget—and to be able to observe their body language on occasions. I say that having watched, on screen rather than in person, a confirmatory hearing in another part of government. I was fascinated by the way that after only a very few minutes of questioning, the person being questioned relaxed so much that the way he was sitting, the way he slumped in his chair, crossed his legs and generally looked far too much at ease for the occasion told me an awful lot about his approach to his relationship with the people who were questioning him. I do not know whether they read it in the same way.

18:07

Given their positions, I would not expect very much about the individuals I have listed in this amendment to come into the public domain. However, that is not because they are civil servants—they are not civil servants. As we were reminded last time by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, they are Crown servants. I had a look at that and it is made entirely clear in Section 1—it could not be much more up front—of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which provides that the provision does not apply to certain parts of what is described as the Civil Service. I suppose that you could be a Crown servant within the Civil Service, but I do not know because this is well beyond my knowledge. In a sense, that is by-the-by for this argument. It seems to me that the public, above all, would expect the oversight committee overseeing these agencies to know about the heads of the agencies. Such arrangements as pre-authorisation hearings could happen without a specific provision but I want to make it clear that I believe that they should happen.

I am not sure whether this drafting of the list of people who should know that they will be questioned is the best way to do it but it needs to be made clear that this is the way in which the world is going and what the world expects. We are not talking about only the heads of the three agencies. Last time, I added—it is included in this amendment—the words,

“such other persons as the Prime Minister may direct”.

As we debated at the previous stage, not all intelligence and security matters are within the agencies, which Clause 2 makes clear.

I support Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, which proposes annual hearings. In Committee, it seemed clear that there was quite a concern around the House to consider in public what can be considered in public without danger to national security. I sensed an underlying view that this would enhance the reputation of the ISC.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that every year there is a debate, usually in the Moses Room, about the annual report? Has she been able to attend any of those?

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, no, but I am aware of that. I am seeking to push the boundaries a little further. The noble Lord tuts quietly that I have not been there. Last year, I read the Hansard report when I began to take an interest in these matters. I sense a feeling that this would enhance the reputation of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Amendment 11 would be a broader arrangement than could take place in a debate in either House, whatever its venue, given that it provides for giving evidence before the ISC in a session open to the public. Therefore, it is more extensive.

I am very much alive to the danger to which some noble Lords pointed that questions asked in public can be so feeble, as can the answers, that it can have the opposite effect of just appearing to be completely stage managed and uninformative. I believe that we should give the ISC the scope to do the job that it is doing, and is capable of doing, in private to take it as far as it can go.

I have tabled Amendment 12 about access to meetings and I am aware that I take a different view on this from a number of other noble Lords. That is not because I want all or very many meetings with the ISC to be held in public. My point is that it should direct its mind to the issue. At the previous stage, from those with experience of the current arrangements, we heard ideas of what might be considered in public. Those ideas included recruitment to the agencies, issues of diversity, language, and recruitment from all sections of society. I would add to that retention, which generally goes along with recruitment, and a number of human resources matters, such as sickness rates and diversity at different levels of seniority. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, told us that today the ISC had been considering certain of these amendments. It might have been quite interesting to hear some of that debate in public. As regards financial matters, the cost of the GCHQ facility was mentioned.

All those issues quite properly can be debated, with care that the mark into dangerous territory is not overstepped. I have confidence that that would be possible and that those debating the issues would be very alert to that. However, it also would be proper that issues of that sort—I am sure that there are others—should be heard and dealt with in public to add to the credibility of the committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, commenting on what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said at the end of her remarks, perhaps I may say that it was not today that the Intelligence and Security Committee considered amendments. The committee has not had the opportunity to consider the amendments she has put down. Therefore, in offering a comment, it will be personal rather than on behalf of the committee.

I have no objection to Amendment 9 because it is a permissive amendment. However, Amendment 11 states:

“The ISC shall each year call the heads of the Agencies and the Secretary of State to give evidence before them in a session open to the public”.

In principle, there is no objection to that. Indeed, the chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee says that it is the committee’s intention to have a public hearing. The arrangements for that are being considered at the moment. However, one would not want this to be a public hearing that is too staged, which would be worse than useless. I would counsel against passing an amendment which makes it compulsory for the Intelligence and Security Committee to have a public meeting each year. That may well be the outcome but there may be times when the work programme simply is not consistent with it. That is my only cavil against that.

I would not be in favour of Amendment 12, which states that the committee,

“shall conduct its proceedings in public, save when it determines that members of the public shall be excluded”.

There would be so many meetings for which that resolution would have to be moved that it would be a matter of public comment and derision, which would reduce confidence in the ISC rather than increase it.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I have made a mental note never to tut tut silently in future, especially since that silent tut tutting can be observed by noble Baronesses even about 10 yards away. So I will be careful. The reason why I asked whether the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, had been able to attend the debates that we have had in the Moses Room is because, when I served, as I did for four years, on the Intelligence and Security Committee, I had the privilege of introducing and replying to those debates. We had great difficulty in encouraging people to attend and participate. If more Members of the House had attended and participated, it might have added to the information available in the debates that we have had at different stages.

A few years ago, when we had a Labour Government, before the Conservative Government came in, the Intelligence and Security Committee reported to the House on almost all, if not all, the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has raised—on diversity and all the other points that she raised. We had indications and reports about it, and people raised it during the course of the debate. Even all those years ago, we discussed holding hearings in public; we discussed that in the debate in the Moses Room, along with the problems and opportunities that might be available if we held them in public. I hope that I am not giving any secrets away in saying this, but I was in favour of moving towards holding a meeting or two in public if we could do that. It is the right thing to do.

It would help and inform the debates that we have on legislation if Members came along to the annual debate. I presume that either the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and the noble Lord, Lord Butler, will introduce the report and reply to the debate. Noble Lords would find it a very interesting and educational experience.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

My Lords, there are two issues covered in this group of amendments. The first is the process of appointment of the heads of the intelligence services and agencies and, secondly, the degree to which their proceedings are held in public. Amendment 9 refers to the possibility of the ISC—enshrined in the word “may”—considering,

“the proposed appointment of the following, including … the Head of the Security Service … the Head of the Secret Intelligence Service”,

and so on. I find that an attractive idea; I see no reason why it should impede, and many reasons why it might enhance, the appointment. It would be useful for the Prime Minister, before final ratification, to know the views of the ISC. It would be useful for Parliament to know that the proposed appointee had the endorsement, as it were, of the ISC, given that it will be elected on a wider franchise than Parliament and it contributes towards the ownership by Parliament itself.

The vagueness as to what happens with regard to the committee’s deliberations when such a discussion or questioning of the prospective appointee has taken place is an advantage and a serious disadvantage. I am not quite sure whether the proposal is permissive of communicating negative views on any appointment to the Prime Minister. Does it amount in effect to a de facto veto? It is delightfully vague on those issues.

There is another issue to consider. At the moment there is a relative independence of the heads of the security service and the ISC. If the ISC is being sought as an endorser of the appointment of a particular head of a particular service, in future it may feel more inclined to defend the action of the person that it has appointed. That is not a major concern; it would certainly not undermine the perceived benefits of such a system, which is used elsewhere in the democratic world to no apparent disadvantage—and to advantage with regard to the solidity of the appointment.

18:15

On the public end of the process of inquiries, investigations and meetings of the ISC, Amendment 11 places a burden each year on the committee by the use of the word “shall”. That would be at least three or four further meetings that would have to be held in public. If that was slightly less compulsive and determinist it would be a useful thing to place on the record. My noble friend Lady Smith has made a very sensible suggestion, but I wish that there was slightly more leeway about it, because precisely at the time when you might want to conduct a whole series of inquiries, at a time of heightened tension and so on, you might find that the provision would overburden you. Amendment 12 insists that the committee,

“shall conduct its proceedings in public, save when it determines that members of the public shall be excluded”.

That would either be hugely burdensome or hugely problematic politically, as has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Butler.

In general, this group of amendments has much to commend it, provided that there is a sensible application of the public process. Certainly, as regards the questioning of appointees to high positions in the intelligence services, and the heads of intelligence service, it has a great deal to commend it.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

I very much share many of the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Reid. I am not quite sure where the United States stands on advise and consent now, with the well established practice over there, or whether a strong lobby is still in favour, or whether there are the problems that the noble Lord has identified—I think that he is absolutely correct—in that deciding to consent and back people inhibits in some way the critical faculty that might otherwise apply.

I am pretty sympathetic to the noble Baroness’s amendment. In a permissive sense they have great merit—and, as has been indicated, public hearings certainly could be done. It is something that we have talked about for some time. It might be pretty disappointing for a public expecting some startling revelations to emerge. Also, I assume that if they were public they would probably be televised as well. While I am very grateful to the tribute paid by my noble friend to our former colleague, Lord St John of Fawsley, there is one great problem about Select Committees when they are televised, which I certainly appreciated not having to bother about when I chaired the ISC. Every member of the committee wishes to appear on television; they are only allowed to ask two or three questions before it is the next chap’s turn, but other members of the committee do not follow their line of argument because they have worked out exactly what they want to say to catch their headline. When I was chairing the ISC, with the absence of television and all that, we were able to have consistent follow-up arguments, and people could follow up with reasonably penetrating questioning at times—as I believe that the noble Baroness may have experienced. We did not have that problem.

One therefore has to recognise the apparent attractiveness of public hearings but I certainly agree that the bulk of the work will have to be done overwhelmingly in secret, as it is at the moment. I would not wish this proposal for public hearings to be put in legislation as a compulsion, but I hope that there will be an opportunity for them. Without embarrassing the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, she was very willing during her time in office to appear in public, make speeches and stand up and talk as widely as she could about the activities of the Security Service. The more that that can be done and the more publicity they receive, whereby they are not seen as rather sinister secret undertakings, the more it would be in the interests of the agencies themselves. These amendments are good ideas but compulsion needs to be avoided in the Bill.

[Lord Gilbert]

My Lords, the situation is considerably more complex than your Lordships have heard this afternoon. One has the impression from the debate that the only intelligence-gathering agencies are MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, and that is far from the case. We have the Defence Intelligence Agency and the intelligence work of the individual services, and a lot of other people in this country handle high-security intelligence by acquiring, analysing and distributing it. If we think that we have covered the waterfront just by approving the heads of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, we are deluding ourselves.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, we have had an interesting debate, and Amendments 9 and 11, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser, seem to have gained a significant degree of support from around your Lordships’ House. In response to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord King, about the televising of proceedings, I suspect that if this debate were being televised at 4.30 am it would not get a great deal of viewership. Having said that, we will probably now receive letters from those who watch TV at 4.30 am.

Amendment 9 would provide the committee with a remit to hold pre-appointment hearings for the heads of agencies. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spotted my tabling of her amendment from Committee, when she convinced me that having a permissive amendment was a good way forward. She has now tabled a further amendment that would make the proposed hearings compulsory, but I do not think that that has found favour with your Lordships. We are very much in favour of pre-appointment hearings by Select Committees; indeed, the Labour Government in 2007 pioneered them. This Government have suggested that they are equally keen on pre-appointment hearings. The coalition agreement contains a specific plan to strengthen the powers of Select Committees to scrutinise major public appointments as part of improving government transparency. This seems to be one of those areas that would benefit from such hearings.

I take on board the wisdom, as usual, of the noble Lord, Lord Reid, on these matters and the concerns he raised. However, as to what he said about there being a veto on information, the committee would use its customary wisdom in passing on advice or information to the Prime Minister as it saw fit.

As regards Amendment 11 on annual public hearings, I must admit that I had not envisaged many separate hearings but perhaps one or two hearings a year at which heads of agencies could be questioned. There is an issue of public confidence, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller did a huge amount during her time as head of MI6 to open up the so-called secret services and increase public understanding of and trust in what the agency and other agencies do. She, more than anyone, understood how important it was that the public needs to have confidence in those at the head of organisations that have to, by necessity, operate outside the public view.

I also do not disagree with those who said in Committee or in this debate that the credibility of the ISC would be undermined by farcical staged hearings, as we have seen on TV elsewhere when the only answer to questions has been, “I’m sorry I can’t answer that or provide that information”. Obviously, we would want any hearings to be genuine, give confidence to the public and not have a block that would provide a lack of confidence.

As has been pointed out in Committee, the ISC already has the power to sit in public if it so chooses. Amendment 12, which proposes that there be a presumption that the ISC would meet in public unless it were to meet in private, could create the kind of difficulties that have already been outlined. A presumption that the ISC would meet in public would be difficult for that committee to manage, but hearings taking place in public from time to time are useful and have a large part to play. We have to recognise the sensitive nature of the committee’s work and information that cannot be made public.

When considering the amendments and the support for them, I hope that the Minister will accept Amendment 9. He has heard that it has significant support from around the House. If he is unable to accept that amendment, I will consider testing the view of the House.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, we have an opportunity to consider this group of five amendments. Although Amendments 9 and 10 are similar, the noble Baroness has pointed out the difference between them. Under Amendment 9, the ISC “may” consider the proposed appointment of individuals to the posts of director-general of the Security Service, the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, the director of GCHQ and other such persons as the Prime Minister may direct. The committee would do this by questioning the prospective appointee at one of its meetings. Under Amendment 10, the ISC “must” consider the proposed appointments.

Pre-appointment hearings are a relatively new phenomenon in the United Kingdom. Since 2008, Select Committees have conducted pre-appointment hearings for a list of posts. There is guidance published by the Cabinet Office on the process followed for such pre-appointment hearings, which includes the list of posts. In general, this process has been a welcome development and gives departmental Select Committees a role in questioning proposed appointees. However, the important thing to note about the list of pre-appointment posts is that the posts concern public bodies—for example, the chairs of Ofcom and the Social Security Advisory Committee. The pre-appointments process has never been used concerning the appointment of civil servants. The heads of the intelligence and security agencies are civil servants at Permanent-Secretary level, and the recruitment process is therefore expected to follow the process for the appointment of civil servants of such seniority.

Noble Lords may find it helpful if I provide some detail on the present process for appointing the agency heads and their status. The agencies are excluded from the provisions of Part 1 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned. That legislation places the management of most of the Civil Service of the state on a statutory footing. Exclusion from the provisions of that Act merely reflects the specific nature of the agencies’ operations. The agencies’ staff, including their heads, are and always have been part of the Civil Service of the state. This is clear from the Act. If it were not so, the specific exemption for the agencies in Section 1(2) of that Act would not be necessary. Staff of the agencies are not, however, part of what is generally referred to as “the Civil Service”, with a capital C and a capital S—that is, the Home Civil Service—nor are they part of Her Majesty’s Diplomatic Service. They form a separate category of civil servants, but civil servants they are. They are also “Crown servants”, but that is a wider term, covering, for example, members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces and non-civilians in the service of the Crown.

While the agencies are not bound by the Civil Service recruitment principles, I can reassure noble Lords that they do, in practice, follow the spirit of the principles, and the Civil Service Commission is expected to be involved in the process. Pre-appointment scrutiny by Parliament is not appropriate given that these roles are Permanent-Secretary level roles, and in practice those who fill them will be recruited by a process involving a Civil Service commissioner to ensure that the appointment is made on merit. In particular, I see no reason why agency heads should be treated differently from any other Permanent Secretary appointment.

Certainly, the roles that the agency heads play are very important and the appointments must be the right ones, but all Permanent Secretaries in the UK Government play very important roles. There is thus no reason for singling out this particular group for special treatment. The fact that all these posts are posts within the Civil Service of the state, serving successive Administrations, means that the pre-appointment process is not appropriate.

I hope I have given the noble Lord and the noble Baroness reassurance that the process which presently exists—

18:30

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

Unfortunately, the noble Lord has given me anything but reassurance. To argue partly on bureaucratic grounds, partly on the grounds of process and partly on the one substantive contention that there is no difference between a Permanent Secretary and the head of MI5, MI6 or GCHQ, is to me entirely unpersuasive. I have known, I think, 14 Permanent Secretaries in my relatively brief ministerial career, all of whom were excellent and very able Permanent Secretaries. They fulfilled a role, had a function and an importance in the life of this nation which was not the same as that of the heads of MI5, MI6 or GCHQ, on whom the very security of the nation depends. I hope that the Government will at least say that they will go away and reflect on this matter because, if there is a political will, all the apparent obstacles to procedure can be overcome. However, if the Government are saying that there are insurmountable bureaucratic obstacles to the ISC carrying out pre-appointment interviews, which are carried out in many countries of the world, I am afraid that they will be seen to be hiding behind process and lacking a real understanding of how substantial these positions are.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention but, as I have explained, the reality is that these posts are special and important. They are exactly as a Permanent Secretary’s post is in terms of the continuity of Government over changes of Government. There is nothing bureaucratic about this. This is the way in which public servants are appointed. I hope that what I am describing is clarifying the Government’s argument—namely, that these posts, important though they are, are Civil Service posts occupied by servants of the Crown performing the duties of particular posts. Procedures are in place for making sure that those appointments are made on merit. They are not political appointments subject to political scrutiny. I hope noble Lords will accept that argument.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My noble friend has set out admirably and very clearly what the position is as seen from the Civil Service point of view. However, there is a serious point here. I think that a number of newly appointed heads of the agencies would have welcomed the opportunity to have this sort of a hearing, possibly even in public, given the importance of credibility for the Intelligence and Security Committee, as we discussed earlier. Given the importance of gaining public credibility and confidence for those who have been appointed to lead these critical national security agencies, this would be a very important opportunity. Therefore, although there may be technical reasons why such a procedure does not square with the Civil Service code, or whatever, I hope that my noble friend, who has manfully explained the current position, will consider whether there is an argument for establishing such a permissive arrangement in this area.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I note my noble friend’s guidance and assistance. However, I do not flinch from presenting the Government’s position in this respect. These are not conventional public appointments. They are Civil Service appointments which provide for political impartiality and, indeed, are outside the scope of Parliament. Once we start to argue for public scrutiny of an appointment, we argue for a political process. However, we have always sought to avoid such a political process in Civil Service appointments.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He devoted almost all his argument against my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, to stressing the uniqueness of these particular positions and organisations and explaining why, because of that uniqueness, you could not involve a Select Committee, as was being suggested, and that his argument had many benefits. Now, in order to defend the status quo, he is stressing not the uniqueness of these posts but their similarity with other departments and departmental heads. However, this is not a matter of what we have done in the past but of what we might do in the future. If the Government had the will to see the benefits in the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord King, and in what I have said, a way could be found in the future to allow the ISC, at least in a permissive sense, to interview appointees prior to final ratification. That would have enormous benefits for everyone involved in the process. The uniqueness of these positions has been recognised in a previous debate. However, that is now apparently being put aside and they are being compared with other appointments in the Civil Service.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not wish to prevent the noble Lord intervening but we are on Report. Therefore, I remind noble Lords—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I agree with the Minister, who I think has made a good case, and disagree with my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan. Members of the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy have already had a report that the line management of the heads of the various intelligence and security services is the responsibility of the Permanent Secretary. That has been made absolutely clear to us. We raised some concerns about that point and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, will comment on it. If the Permanent Secretary has that line management responsibility, it would seem strange if these post holders were considered for appointment by a committee rather than by the procedure that the Minister has described. I know that my noble friend on the Front Bench is a bit irritated at what I have said, but I am glad to say that on this side of the House we have the freedom to say what we think.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Although I am encouraged by what the noble Lord had to say, I should remind noble Lords that we are on Report and it would probably be as well if I was allowed to finish what I was saying. The key thing is that the coalition agreement expressly says that we want to strengthen the role of committees in scrutinising public appointments. The Government are committed to doing that. However, the coalition agreement does not refer to Civil Service appointments. The pre-appointment scrutiny process, which we have in place for public appointments, is not the same as appointments to the Civil Service. Therefore, although the Government have made important progress in meeting the commitment on public appointments, that is not relevant to these appointments if they are Civil Service appointments.

I know that the roles that the agency heads play are very important and the appointments must be right. That is why I hope that I have given the noble Baroness and the noble Lord the reassurance that the process that presently exists for appointing the heads of these agencies is appropriate to the nature of the posts. It would not be appropriate to adopt the pre-appointment process that exists for posts in public bodies. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Marks will respectively see fit to withdraw their amendments.

I now address Amendments 11 and 12 which concern the ISC holding an annual hearing with the agency heads and the Secretary of State giving evidence before the committee in public. I can appreciate the intention behind the amendment but I have a number of concerns about the idea of creating a duty to hold annual public hearings. As noble Lords will know, The Governance of Britain Green Paper in 2007 made a series of reform proposals aimed at bringing the ISC as far as possible into line with other Select Committees. One of those proposals was for some hearings of the ISC to be structured to allow unclassified evidence to be heard in open session. Those sessions did not subsequently happen. Building on this, the Justice and Security Green Paper noted that while the ISC’s meetings will still have to take place, as a rule, in private, both the Government and the committee were committed to the concept of public evidence sessions where they can be held without compromising national security or the safety of individuals.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, spoke powerfully in Committee on the issue of public hearings and she has done so again today. We fully agree that they can be valuable but she noted that public hearings should never be automatic for the ISC but argued that they should become more routine as public confidence is taken into account. We fully agree that public hearings may improve public confidence in the ISC and its work.

The Bill does not need a specific provision for this; the existing ISC, created by the Intelligence Services Act 1994, has power enough to determine its own procedures and that is sufficient for its purposes—the ISC is provided for in the Bill. In that way, there is actually very little difference between the position that we take on the Bill and the position proposed by the noble Baroness. However, there are significant practical issues that have to be addressed before public evidence sessions can take place. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate introducing public evidence sessions for a committee whose work is mostly concerned with sensitive and highly classified information. That will be challenging.

The Government remain committed to making public hearings work better in practice, and are currently in discussions with the committee about how to do so—for instance, on issues such as appropriate subject matter, timing and having appropriate safeguards against unauthorised disclosure of sensitive information. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Lothian, a current member of the ISC, made the valuable point that public hearings would be counter-productive so far as public confidence in the committee is concerned. If either the majority of the questions posed are met with a response, “I cannot answer that”, or the subject matter for the hearing is anodyne and the process completely rehearsed, I am sure that noble Lords will feel that the process has not been worth while. The ISC will already have the power to hold public hearings with agency heads and with relevant Secretaries of State without any of these amendments. Leaving it to the ISC’s discretion to determine when and how frequently to hold such meetings will enable it to make the best use of its available resources. I hope that I have convinced noble Lords that that is the right approach. I hope, on the basis of this information, that my noble friend Lady Hamwee will withdraw her amendment, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friend Lord Marks will not move theirs.

18:45

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I do not want to take too long in responding to this. I shall make a couple of comments on the amendments on hearings and access to meetings. On access to meetings, I always envisaged that the committee would be able to take a decision that would cover a number of meetings, and not have the embarrassing situation, on a weekly basis, of the public trooping in and being sent out immediately.

On the annual hearings, it was only when the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked me whether I had attended the debate in the Moses Room that it began to come back into my mind that I had read the previous one in Hansard. However, a debate of a committee is, I think, very different from what is envisaged here and very different from parliamentarians undertaking that sort of debate, important as it is.

The point about the agencies, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, was covered. Sub-paragraph (d) in Amendment 9 refers to persons other than the three heads of the services and Clause 2 of the Bill envisages the extension of the work to other parts of government.

Much of this debate has centred on pre-appointment hearings and whether they might be televised. A couple of weeks ago I was sitting reading my Blackberry, which possibly I should not have been doing during a debate, but an email came in which said, “Just seen you on live television”. I thought there was a complaint coming about what I had said. The Commons had gone home so we were on prime time. The email went on to say, “How do you fit into the Hamwee family? I was once very good friends with someone called Hamwee”. One never knows what people will take from what they see.

We have been told that this will become a political exercise and that it should not be political. Throughout the debates on the ISC, I have been hearing that there is huge resistance to it becoming a political and a party-political exercise. I would envisage that continuing with pre-appointment hearings. I would like to hear the ISC debating whether it should have pre-appointment hearings.

I am encouraged by what the Minister has said about discussions continuing on how to make the work more open, but the way it is, is not the way it has to be. I can tell that the mood of the House is not to provide for mandatory requirements, but there is considerable support for a permissive clause. So I shall not move my Amendment 10 but I hope that the noble Baroness will pursue the matter of permissive arrangements which are encompassed in Amendment 9. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 8.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

Amendment 9

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

9: Schedule 1, page 14, line 3, at end insert—
“Pre-appointment hearings( ) The ISC may consider the proposed appointment of the following, including by questioning the prospective appointee at a meeting of the ISC—
(a) the Head of the Security Service;(b) the Head of the Secret Intelligence Service; (c) the Head of the Government Communication Headquarters; and(d) such other persons as the Prime Minister may direct.”

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I had hoped that the Minister would at least consider taking this away for reflection. However, the mood of the House is clear. I beg to move.

Amendment 10, as an amendment to Amendment 9, not moved.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 9.

18:50

Division 2

Ayes: 170

---

Labour: 131
Crossbench: 18
Liberal Democrat: 7
Bishops: 2
Conservative: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Independent: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 200

---

Conservative: 126
Liberal Democrat: 52
Crossbench: 13
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Independent: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

19:00

Amendments 11 and 12 not moved.

Amendment 13

Moved by

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

13: Schedule 1, page 14, line 31, leave out paragraph (b)

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, Amendment 13 stands in my name and in the name of my colleague, the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian. I move it only to give the Minister the opportunity to move government Amendment 14. Amendment 13 seeks to leave out paragraph 3(3)(b) of the schedule which states that a Minister may decide that information should not be disclosed if,

“it is information of such a nature that, if the Minister were requested to produce it before a Departmental Select Committee of the House of Commons, the Minister would consider (on grounds which were not limited to national security) it proper not to do so”.

This was rather a wide power for the Government to withhold information from the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Since that amendment was tabled, the Government have tabled an amendment making it clear that, in exercising this power, the Minister must be guided by regard to what are known as the Osmotherly rules—that is, the normal rules about what a civil servant can disclose to a Select Committee. My colleagues on the Intelligence and Security Committee and I are content with that limitation of this power. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes)]

I believe that the noble Lord will now want to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

Amendment 14

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

14: Schedule 1, page 14, line 34, at end insert—
“( ) In deciding for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(b) whether it would be proper not to disclose information, the Minister must have regard to any guidance issued by a Minister of the Crown or a government department concerning the provision of evidence by civil servants to Select Committees.”

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, it may be useful if I start by explaining why paragraph 3(3)(b) of Schedule 1 is necessary. There are a number of long-standing conventions that have developed in the relationship between Parliament—in the form of its Select Committees—and successive Governments. These conventions recognise that there are categories of information that in certain circumstances may be withheld from Select Committees on grounds of public policy. Noble Lords may know a good deal about this. Examples of this type of information are given in the Cabinet Office guide, Departmental Evidence and Response to Select Committees. Some noble Lords will know this by another name: the Osmotherly rules. The categories of information set out in the guide include information about matters that are sub judice, information that could be supplied only after carrying out substantial research or research that would incur excessive costs, and papers of a previous Administration.

The provision in the Bill is necessary to safeguard the long-standing conventions that are reflected in the Osmotherly rules in the context of the relationship between government and the ISC. It provides a basis for withholding from the ISC the sorts of categories of information described in the rules. As I explained, we intend the ISC created by the Bill to be a committee of Parliament and not simply a committee of parliamentarians, so there is all the more reason for the ISC that the Bill would create to be subject to these conventions.

The provision gives only a Minister of the Crown the discretion to withhold material. In exercising that discretion, the Minister would of course have regard to the provision that the ISC has for keeping material confidential. The Osmotherley rules state:

“If the problem lies with disclosing information in open evidence sessions or in memoranda submitted for publication, Departments will wish to consider whether the information requested could be provided on a confidential basis”.

For this reason, we would expect these powers to be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. As I said, the powers to withhold information from the ISC have been used only sparingly in the past, and we expect this to continue. However, it is important that the safeguards are retained.

In Committee, the debate focused in particular on the word “proper”. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who is not in his place, queried the use and meaning of the word. In addition, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, was concerned that paragraph 3(3)(b) lowered the threshold for information being withheld from the committee compared with that which currently applies under the Intelligence Services Act. I assure the noble Baroness that that is not the case. The Intelligence Services Act contains a provision equivalent to paragraph 3(3)(b). In fact, the categories of information that can be withheld from the ISC, and the thresholds for withholding information, will be the same under the Bill’s provisions as they are currently under the 1994 Act.

The noble Lord withdrew his amendment. I hope that Amendment 14 clarifies the situation and addresses his anxieties in this respect. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for seeking to clarify the matter. As he said, I raised my concern on this in Committee. Perhaps I may ask one question. If he is unable to answer today, perhaps he would write to me. I am not 100% convinced that Amendment 14 is sufficient to prevent paragraph 3(3)(b) being used as a justification, as the Minister claimed. Amendment 14 stipulates merely that the Minister “must have regard to” the Osmotherly guidance, as set out in sub-paragraph (3)(b). Will the Minister tell us whether, after considering the guidance he referred to, the Government could still use the conditions set out in sub-paragraph (3)(b) to refuse disclosure of information to the ISC even if the guidance was not relevant to the material in question?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am not in a position to answer that directly, but if the noble Baroness permits, I will write to her and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

Amendment 14 agreed.

Amendment 15

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

15: Schedule 1, page 14, line 42, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) the Secretary of State for that Department, or(b) in the case of a Department without a Secretary of State, a Minister of the equivalent level, identified in a memorandum of understanding.”

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, the amendment concerns the power to withhold information from the ISC and at what level the decision should be taken. The Bill states that the decision should be taken by a “Minister of the Crown”. The amendment proposes that it should be at the level of Secretary of State in the relevant department and not just a Minister of the Crown. The response I was given in Committee was that the Cabinet Office does not have a Secretary of State and therefore it would be the Minister of State. As somebody who was the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office, that did not seem appropriate. Every department has a Minister who sits in the Cabinet. The reason for putting the amendment before the House today is to propose that, as a minimum, it should be a Minister who is at the equivalent level of Secretary of State. That would be justified because the explanation given by the Minister in Committee for lowering the threshold was not adequate given such a change in power.

We have sought to tighten up the drafting to make it clear in the Bill that in all but exceptional circumstances the power to withhold information from the ISC should be exercised only by a Secretary of State unless there is no Secretary of State in that department. In that case, it should be exercised by a Minister of comparable rank such as the current Paymaster-General who is a member of the Cabinet as well as the most senior member in the Cabinet Office. The amendment is simply to specify that a reference to a Minister of the Crown should be interpreted as a Secretary of State for that department except where there is no Secretary of State where it should be someone of the equivalent rank.

I hope that that is clear and I hope that the Minister can accept or at least reflect on this because it would be a significant change if it was not the Secretary of State seeking to withhold information. I beg to move.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I hope in responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, that I can give her some assurance so that she feels able to withdraw her amendment.

The Bill provides that Ministers may decide that information should be withheld from the ISC on two grounds. First, the Minister may consider that it is “sensitive information” as defined in the Bill, which in the interests of national security should not be disclosed to the ISC, and secondly for the reasons that we just discussed.

Currently, under the provisions of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, information can be withheld from the ISC on the same grounds, but the decisions to withhold are taken, in part, by agency heads rather than Ministers. These powers to withhold information from the ISC have been used very rarely in the past, and we would expect the equivalent powers in the Bill to continue to be used sparingly, only in exceptional circumstances; however it is important that these safeguards are retained as there will continue to be material the nature of which is so sensitive that access to it must be very narrowly restricted in the interests of national security.

Where agencies’ material is concerned, the Bill provides that decisions to withhold information from the ISC must be taken by the Secretary of State. However, where the ISC requests information from another government department, a decision to withhold is taken by the,

“relevant Minister of the Crown”.

That means, for these purposes, such a Minister as is identified in the memorandum of understanding between the Prime Minister and the ISC or, where no Minister is so identified, any Minister of the Crown.

The effect of the noble Baroness’s amendment would be that in circumstances where the Bill enables a Minister of the Crown to withhold information from the ISC, that power would rest with the Secretary of State for the department whose information is to be withheld, or for departments without a Secretary of State, a Minister of the equivalent level, identified in the memorandum of understanding.

The reason that we have included provision for the exercise of the power by a Minister of the Crown rather than a Secretary of State in respect of material held by government departments is that there may be some departments where there is no Secretary of State. The noble Baroness referred to this. For example, the post of Minister for the Cabinet Office is a Minister of State position rather than a Secretary of State position.

The current ISC has, over its history, taken evidence on, and made recommendations relating to, the Joint Intelligence Organisation and the central intelligence functions of the Cabinet Office. The Bill formalises the ISC’s oversight role for bodies such as the Joint Intelligence Organisation so the Cabinet Office can expect more requests from the ISC for disclosure of information in future. It is therefore important that a Minister of the Crown should be able to make decisions about when and what information should be withheld from the ISC. This may not just be about the Cabinet Office. It may be that, in the future, other government departments involved in security and intelligence functions will not have a Secretary of State. This provision would also cover those circumstances.

I appreciate the intention of the amendment, which is to ensure that the Minister of the Crown making the decision to withhold information from the ISC is of appropriate seniority. I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness that that is also the Government’s intention. We hope to publish, before Third Reading, a document which sets out the areas that the Government expect the memorandum of understanding to cover, premised on the assumption that the ISC-related provisions in the Bill are enacted, substantially, in their current form.

In that document, we will state that it is the Government’s intention that the Minister making such decisions should be of appropriate seniority and should have sufficient knowledge of the work of the department in question. The document will state that it is the Government’s intention that, for the Home Office, the Minister making such decisions should be the Home Secretary, for the Foreign Office the Foreign Secretary, for the Ministry of Defence the Defence Secretary and for the Cabinet Office a Minister of State. As I said, I hope that that gives the noble Baroness enough assurance for her to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Gilbert]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but surely the more important question is whether or not the Minister is required to let the committee know that he is not telling them something. If he does not tell them that he is not telling them something they will not know that they have not been told something. Anyone with any experience of ministerial office at all knows perfectly well that that is the principal work of civil servants when they want to undermine Ministers and they do not like government policy. They do not tell Ministers things. We are entering an opaque area and I cannot see any answer to those questions in what the noble Baroness said.

19:15

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The point of this debate and the amendment that we are discussing right now is the authority of the relevant Minister to decide whether or not to withhold information from the committee. It is not about whether the committee has the right to request information. The committee has under its wider remit the ability to request information from government departments, but it is for the relevant Minister to have the authority to be able to decide whether to agree to that request. This is about the authority of the Minister.

[Lord Gilbert]

On the same point, is there an obligation on the Minister anywhere in the legislation to inform the committee that he is withholding information from it?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That is not the issue that we are debating right now. If I may, I will have to come back to the noble Lord. I would think that that detail will be covered.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Can I help the Minister? Surely, if the committee has asked a department for information, it will know if it does not get it back that it has been refused. The issue is whether it will know which Minister refused the information.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his assistance. That is absolutely right. If the committee requests the information, because the MoU will make it clear which Minister within a department is responsible for responding or deciding whether or not the department should provide that information, obviously the Minister has an obligation to respond to that request.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Baroness has understood the central point that I am making and if she has, she has not answered it to my satisfaction. The query that I have with this amendment is the level of the Minister who can exercise a veto. I entirely agree that it is an exceptional measure that will be used only in exceptional circumstances. It takes the power from the agency’s head so that it rests with the elected representatives of the Government who are ultimately accountable to Parliament. But I have not heard from the noble Baroness an adequate justification from the Government as to why they have chosen to downgrade the level at which the veto is held from a Secretary of State to a Minister of State.

I mentioned the Cabinet Office because that was the department mentioned by the Minister previously. The noble Baroness responded and said that it could be another department that does not have a Secretary of State. The point being made is the level of Minister who can withhold information and exercise a veto against the ISC. It is entirely reasonable that it should be the Secretary of State or a Minister at the same level, not downgraded to a Minister of State level.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

The answer my noble friend gave was extremely encouraging and recognised the importance of the seniority of the person. The only thing I do not understand is whether paragraph 3(5)(b) of Schedule 1, which reads,

“if no Minister of the Crown is so identified, any Minister of the Crown”,

will survive.

The noble Baroness appeared to be saying that if a particular Secretary of State is for some reason not available—which is perfectly possible, particularly if you are dealing with the Foreign Office—any other Secretary of State will do. Would it not be much better to have a Minister of State in the same department who is familiar with the matter to deal with it, rather than some other Secretary of State? Have I got the noble Baroness wrong?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

No. The noble Lord is absolutely right. At the moment it is a Secretary of State but the Bill proposes to downgrade that to any Minister of the Crown. I know the noble Baroness says that there will be a MoU that will identify certain Ministers of the Crown but these decisions should be taken at Cabinet level.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

I understand what the noble Baroness is saying but if the information concerns the Foreign Secretary, who is responsible for SIS and GCHQ, or the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the Security Service, or, in certain circumstances, the Secretary of State for Defence, who is responsible for the DIS and so on, and if by chance that Secretary of State is not available to deal with an urgent matter on which a reply is requested, it would be much better that the Minister of State in that department deals with it and that we do not have the Secretary of State from Defra or from some other department shifted in merely because he is of equal seniority and that meets the requirement.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

Perhaps I may help. This is not a new problem—it happens with intercepts. The only people allowed to authorise an intercept are Secretaries of State and, if the Secretary of State is not available or is not in London, his officials will get it to him—and these are far more urgent than anything envisaged here. The point that is being made is that the refusal to supply information to the ISC is such an important decision, given the confidence we are placing in the ISC, that the level at which that decision should be taken is Secretary of State level or equivalent. The Government are envisaging extending not only to a Minister inside the Home Office when the Secretary of State is not available but to any Minister of the Crown, on any refusal, the power so to refuse. My noble friend is saying that this is such an important decision that it ought to be taken only at the level of Secretary of State or equivalent. That is an entirely reasonable suggestion and is looser than the intercept provision which applies to only four Secretaries of State.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, as ever, my noble friend Lord Reid has summed up the point I was making. The Minister did not refer to an emergency situation but to departments that would not have a Secretary of State and therefore it would be downgraded. It is entirely appropriate to ask that a decision as serious as to withhold information from the ISC should be taken only at the highest levels in government, and that means the level of Secretary of State.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, I also support the amendment. It is no answer to say that if the information is held by the Cabinet Office, where there is not a Secretary of State, it should be at some other level. Any intelligence information held by the Cabinet Office will belong either to the Home Office, the Foreign Office or some other department where a Secretary of State is responsible. It is not the case that provision ought to be made for an exception where the Cabinet Office is involved. I support the amendment moved by the Opposition.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I should like to test the opinion of the House.

19:24

Division 3

Ayes: 134

---

Labour: 108
Crossbench: 14
Bishops: 2
Independent: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 182

---

Conservative: 109
Liberal Democrat: 52
Crossbench: 12
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Bishops: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.35 pm.

Church of England Marriage (Amendment) Measure

Monday 19th November 2012 Lords Chamber

Motion to Present for Royal Assent

19:35

Moved By

[The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells]

That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Church of England Marriage (Amendment) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.

[The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells]

My Lords, the Measure is somewhat technical, so it may assist noble Lords if, instead of getting into the minutiae, I give something by way of background which explains that under the Marriage Act 1949, a marriage according to the rites of the Church of England normally had to take place in the parish where at least one of the parties currently lived or where one of the parties was on the church electoral roll. That was the position until 2008, but it was thought to be too limiting in modern conditions. Legislation was brought forward to extend the range of places where people could marry in church. The Church of England Marriage Measure 2008 gave people the additional right to marry in any parish with which they had a “qualifying connection”.

There are various qualifying connections. For example, a couple now have the right to marry either in a parish where the parents of one of the couple live or used to live; or in a parish where one of them was baptised; or in a parish where a parent or grandparent was married. There are a number of other qualifying connections and, without delaying your Lordships unduly, they can very helpfully be found on the Church of England’s weddings website. The website shows couples how to find churches where they can get married and provides a whole variety of information. It has proved to be very popular, and since these new arrangements have been in place, the number of weddings in church has increased.

The Measure is in two parts. Clause 1 makes a few tweaks to the 2008 Measure, which has been effectively in force for some four years. Experience has shown that there are ways in which its detailed operation can be improved. Particular practical situations sometimes arise when people want to marry, for example, where a parish does not have a parish church; where the parish church is closed for repairs; or where a number of different parishes are joined together in a single benefice. In those situations, the 1949 Marriage Act confers rights to marry in the parish churches of adjoining parishes. Clause 1 brings the 2008 Measure into line with the special provisions of the 1949 Act by applying the bundle of rights contained in the 1949 Act to those couples who wish to marry on the basis that they now have a qualifying connection with a particular place.

A helpful way of showing how the changes will be of practical help to couples might be by way of an example. A couple may want to get married near the bride’s parents’ home, but her parents’ parish church is temporarily closed for repairs and will not be available during the summer that the couple want to get married. The new measure will allow them to get married in the parish church of any of the parishes that border her parents’ parish. The other provisions in Clause 1 make similar arrangements possible in the other situations with which they are concerned. That is, if I may say so, the rather more complicated bit.

Clause 2 is rather more straightforward and concerns the publication of banns. Banns are, of course, the normal legal preliminary to marriage in church. The Marriage Act 1949 requires the form of words contained in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer to be used when publishing banns. There is nothing in Clause 2 that will prevent the continued use of the Book of Common Prayer form, but a slightly modernised form of words, as an optional alternative to the traditional form, was considered a useful addition.

Common Worship, the current prayer book, so to speak, of the Church of England, like the Alternative Service Book before it, offers the modernised form. In terms of its legal substance, it is not any different from the traditional form; but instead of asking whether anyone knows “cause or just impediment” why the persons who are named may not marry, it asks simply whether anyone knows,

“any reason in law why they may not marry each other”.

Clause 2 will put the alternative, modernised formula on a statutory footing.

Clause 2 also alters the procedure for publishing banns to make it a little more flexible than at present. As things stand, the default position is that banns have to be published at morning service on Sundays. However, the experience of the clergy is that many couples are more likely to come to an evening service. The Measure addresses that by requiring the banns to be published at the “principal service” on Sundays, to ensure maximum publicity, but allows them additionally to be published at any other service on the same day, allowing the necessary degree of flexibility to meet the pastoral needs of the couple.

The amendments made by the Measure are all minor, common-sense improvements to existing legislation. The Measure was passed entirely without dissent in the General Synod—something one would wish for more often—and the Ecclesiastical Committee has reported and finds the Measure expedient. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

19:42

Sitting suspended.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Monday 19th November 2012 Lords Chamber

Report (1st Day) (Continued)

20:35

Clause 2 : Main functions of the ISC

Amendment 16

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

16: Clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out “such”

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 16, 17, 20 and 21 in this group, of which the substantive amendment is Amendment 21. Taken together, these four amendments would ensure that although the Secretary of State may, through a memorandum of understanding, alter the provisions concerning the ISC, a memorandum of understanding could not limit the functions of the ISC.

I hope that the Minister can give me an assurance that Clause 2 does not intend that the ISC’s functions could be limited in this way and that the Government are not seeking the opportunity to restrict its functions. If that is not wholly clear, perhaps the Government can look at it, but the Minister may well be able to persuade me that it is wholly clear. In any event, I am sure that he understands the short but important point that I am making. I beg to move.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I wonder if we might be told when we can expect to see this memorandum of understanding.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, we have tabled Amendment 22, which replicates the one tabled in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and is very similar to one tabled by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours.

This amendment requires a memorandum of understanding that will further define the remit of the ISC and other elements of its functioning. We consider that this should be approved by Parliament. Throughout the debate we have been arguing for greater ties between the ISC and Parliament in order to underline its accountability to Parliament rather than the Executive. This is an important example of how we can assist in effecting such change.

If the ISC is ultimately accountable to Parliament, it seems right that Parliament should approve the MoU that governs the ISC’s relationship with the Government over and above that which is set out in the Bill. I am sure that we will replicate this debate next week in the Crime and Courts Bill about the framework document for the National Crime Agency. If something is outside the remit of what is in the legislation, it is very helpful to have sight of that and Parliament should have the opportunity to debate and approve it.

The Government have argued against the establishment of the ISC as a full Select Committee of Parliament. One of the arguments is that it is necessary to circumscribe in statute the rules under which the committee may operate. It seems justified and very reasonable that the MoU should be subject to greater scrutiny and formalisation by coming before the House and having formal parliamentary scrutiny and approval before it can be acted upon.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, legislation is often a process of distillation and this evening the House has distilled itself down to this particularly rich mixture.

The Government intend to use the memorandum of understanding to make a substantial contribution to central government’s intelligence and security activities. It will be subject to ISC oversight. It is our intention that the activities should include certain activities within the Ministry of Defence, the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism in the Home Office and the central government intelligence machinery in the Cabinet Office, including the Joint Intelligence Organisation. The scope of the memorandum, therefore, is wider than the three core agencies.

As my noble friend Lord Henley said in response to an amendment from the Opposition on this same subject in Committee, it is right that the memorandum of understanding should spell out the precise remit of the ISC in relation to bodies other than the agencies, because the memorandum of understanding can make provision at a level of detail which is not appropriate in primary legislation. This is particularly important because parts of government departments engaged in intelligence and security activities may be engaged in other activities which would not properly fall within the remit of the ISC.

The House will know that things change over time—departments reorganise. Functions done in one department one year may be done in another the following year. The intelligence world is no different from any other part of government. A memorandum of understanding is flexible. It can be changed much more easily than primary legislation. It will enable the intention of the Government to be realised now and in the future.

The effect of the amendment spoken to by my noble friend Lady Hamwee would be that, instead of the ISC’s widened remit beyond the three agencies being defined precisely in a memorandum of understanding, it would be defined in primary legislation, which is not in the interests of a good definition of the ISC’s role and is less flexible as I have said.

The Government’s intention is that the memorandum of understanding will enable the ISC to oversee certain activities; for example, within the Ministry of Defence as I have described. A memorandum of understanding is the best place to make provision at this level of detail.

The effect of Amendment 22, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, would be that a memorandum of understanding agreed between the Prime Minister and the ISC for the purposes of Clause 2 would need to be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before it could take effect. The memorandum of understanding is an important document. It will define the activities of government in relation to intelligence or security matters, other than the activities of the agencies, which the ISC may oversee. It will also specify additional principles and provisions, other than the criteria specified in the Bill, with which the ISC’s consideration of operational matters must be consistent. It will also specify the arrangements by which the agencies and other government departments make information available to the ISC.

The Bill also provides that the memorandum of understanding may include other provisions about the ISC or its functions. It must be agreed between the Prime Minister and the ISC and can be altered or replaced at any time by agreement. It is therefore different from a parliamentary document.

While the ISC is dissolved on Dissolution of Parliament, the memorandum of understanding will continue in place during a succession of government until a new memorandum of understanding is agreed with the Prime Minister.

As is usual with a memorandum of understanding, there is no parliamentary approval procedure. While the memorandum of understanding will be an unclassified document which is published and laid before Parliament, its precise terms are very likely to be shaped by matters which are sensitive in terms of national security and cannot therefore be made public. However, there is no restriction on the document laid before Parliament being debated in Parliament, and, indeed, one might expect on occasions for it to be so debated. Of course, the terms of the memorandum of understanding must be agreed with the ISC itself: a committee composed of parliamentarians that, as a result of the changes that we have been talking about, will be a committee of Parliament appointed by and accountable to Parliament. Requiring these parliamentarians to seek the approval of their parliamentary colleagues would be quite a restriction on the independence of that body.

20:45

In answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, the Government expect before Third Reading to publish a document setting out the areas that the Government expect the memorandum of understanding to cover. In other words, it will be a framework document premised on the assumption that the ISC-related provisions in the Bill are enacted, substantially, in their current form. I should make it clear that the document which we will publish can at this stage record only the Government’s intention, as the memorandum of understanding itself needs to be agreed between the Prime Minister and the ISC and we cannot presume on the ISC’s reaction to that document. However, it is our intention to publish that document before Third Reading.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

First, on this preliminary document, which will not be the final document, will there be anything more in front of the Commons when they consider this in Committee than what is provided to us before Third Reading? Secondly, why should not preliminary drafting work, which I presume is going on now, be made available to the House—or certainly to the Commons—at an earlier stage?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think I can reassure the noble Lord that I am doing my best to make sure that this House is informed before Third Reading of the nature of the document and the context in which it is being presented. I hope that the same document would indeed be available to the House of Commons. Until the Bill is enacted, the document cannot of course be laid before the House other than in a framework format. I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord that he and his colleagues in another place will have the information on which to see how this aspect of the Bill—the memorandum of understanding—is designed to bring flexibility into the procedures of the ISC.

Indeed, we wish to ensure that the memorandum of understanding is not used to restrict in any way the ISC’s remit or its functions as set out in the Bill. As we explained in our memorandum to the Delegated Powers Committee—another memorandum—the purpose of this clause is to enable provisions to be included in the memorandum of understanding to ensure that the ISC’s oversight of operational matters does not: interfere with the statutory accountability of the intelligence services to their Ministers; overlap with the roles of other independent oversight bodies, such as the Intelligence Services Commissioner; or lessen the effectiveness of the intelligence services and other intelligence and security bodies, or place any undue resource burden upon them. We believe that a clear understanding between the Government and the ISC as to how the ISC can most effectively oversee operational matters without compromising these imperatives is best achieved in a flexible instrument agreed between them. These amendments would, I fear, seem to preclude that. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I got the assurance that I wanted almost at the end there, in the response to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I was certainly not seeking to reduce the oversight of the parts of Her Majesty’s Government that relate to intelligence and security matters and which are beyond the three agencies. Quite the contrary; I want to make it clear that I do not think my amendments would have done that.

Having heard the Minister tell the House that it is intended to protect the scope of the work of the ISC and, like others, looking forward to seeing some form of document within the next few days because I think Third Reading is next week, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

Amendment 17 not moved.

Amendment 18

Moved by

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

18: Clause 2, page 2, line 12, leave out from “as” to end of line 13

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, this amendment is in my name and that of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian. I shall couple with it Amendment 23. I am grateful to the Opposition, who have given their support to these amendments. They relate to circumstances in which the ISC may consider operational matters. At the moment, these are defined in Clause 2(3), which states:

“The ISC may … consider any particular operational matter but only so far as the ISC and the Prime Minister are satisfied that

(a) the matter—

(i) is not part of any ongoing intelligence or security operation, and

(ii) is of significant national interest, and

(b) the consideration of the matter is consistent with any principles set out in, or other provision made by, a memorandum of understanding”.

The problem is that that is too restrictive, but I want to make clear at the outset that the ISC does not aspire to consider current operational matters unless the Government have some particular reason for asking it to.

The reason why the wording is too restrictive is that at present there are three tests that have to be passed by an operational matter for the ISC to continue to consider it. The first is that it,

“is not part of any ongoing intelligence or security operation”.

The second is that it,

“is of significant national interest”.

The third test is that,

“the consideration of the matter is consistent with any principles set out in, or other provision made by, a memorandum of understanding”.

However, the preface to that is that the ISC and the Prime Minister must be satisfied that those conditions are met. That would curtail the present operations of the ISC considerably.

I shall cite one example. When the SIS operation in Libya went so badly wrong and it got into the newspapers, the first thing that happened, quite rightly, was that the chief of SIS wrote a letter to the committee to explain what had gone wrong. If the words of this provision were taken literally, he could have done that only if he had first cleared his lines with the Prime Minister. I could repeat lots of examples of matters where something appears in the press and the heads of the intelligence agencies then report to the ISC. However, the provision says that before any operational matter can be considered, the Prime Minister has to be satisfied that the three tests are passed. My first amendment would omit the words,

“the ISC and the Prime Minister are satisfied that”,

so that the provision would read, “The ISC may consider any particular operational matter but only so far as” the three tests were passed. In other words, it would remove the hurdle of satisfying the Prime Minister, which certainly does not apply at the moment. To have to satisfy the Prime Minister in each case would add a new and cumbersome bureaucratic procedure, which I doubt very much that the Prime Minister would welcome, let alone the ISC.

Doing that alone, however, is not sufficient, and that is where Amendment 23 comes in. That amendment says that the three tests would have to be passed before the ISC could consider an operational matter, and one of those tests would be that it was not part of any ongoing intelligence or security operation.

As I said, the ISC has no aspiration to consider an ongoing operation, unless the Government ask it to. It normally looks at operations retrospectively, but there are circumstances in which it suits the Government to ask the ISC to look at an ongoing operation, so Amendment 23, which my noble friend and I have tabled, states:

“The ISC may, notwithstanding subsection (3), consider any particular operational matter if the relevant Minister of the Crown agrees to consideration of the matter or it is consistent with the memorandum of understanding”.

An example of where this was necessary was cited by the noble Lord, Lord King. When he was chairman of the committee, it was asked by the Home Secretary of the day to consider the Mitrokhin case. That was a circumstance in which it suited the Government to ask the ISC to consider that operational matter. It would be very quixotic if the ISC had to say to the Government, “Sorry, you may have asked us to look at this matter because it would help you, but I am afraid we’re not allowed to because there is an absolute ban on it in the Bill”.

The purpose of these two amendments is to give more flexibility to the Government about the circumstances in which the ISC may look at an operational matter. It is not the ISC’s wish, in normal circumstances, unless the Government want it to, to look at matters retrospectively. The purpose of this amendment is to increase the flexibility which has been removed by the current drafting of the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

As noble Lords will see from the Marshalled List, we have added our names to Amendments 18 and 23, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, noted, and we have also tabled Amendment 24 in this group.

The noble Lord, Lord Butler, has proved a worthy proponent of his Amendment 18, which would return the procedure for determining whether a matter should be considered by the committee back to the status quo by removing the requirement for the committee to seek the approval of the Prime Minister before making any such decision. It seems absolutely clear that the committee is bound in statute to abide by the remit set out in Clause 2 and it should not have to seek the approval of the Prime Minister to determine that it had done so. I agree with the members of the ISC and the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, who have argued that not only is this overly bureaucratic but it is a step backwards from the current position where the committee itself determines, on the basis of given criteria, whether a matter falls within its remit.

Amendment 23, to which we added our name, and Amendment 19, which was tabled by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, address the same point, but in a slightly different way. The Bill reflects the status quo by incorporating operational matters, which the committee has been de facto undertaking for some time, into the formal remit of the ISC. However, it seems overly prescriptive for the Bill expressly to prohibit the committee from reviewing ongoing operational matters. All Members of your Lordships’ House fully accept that there are security issues to do with reviewing operations that are current and may risk compromising individuals involved. However, there may be rare cases where an operation carries on for a long time and, despite the risk being minimal, it is still considered current by the standards of the Bill. It seems much more reasonable to make a general stipulation against the review of ongoing operations but to allow the committee to review such matters in special circumstances if it has the express consent of the relevant Minister.

Opposition Amendment 24 is a repeat of that tabled by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours in Committee. It would require the ISC to consider a request by a Select Committee to review a certain matter related to the ISC’s remit as well as any request to provide the Select Committee with information. It should be clarified that under no circumstances would the amendment require the ISC to act on any such request from a Select Committee, for instance, to disclose sensitive information or that simply would prove to be unmanageable for the committee’s workload. It would be a request. However, fostering greater communication and collaboration of Select Committees in Parliament could be only a positive development for the ISC.

21:00

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

When I originally read this wording in the Bill prior to the Committee stage, alarm bells immediately rang. When I saw the reference to ongoing operations, I tabled the original amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, in his contribution, really set out the case very much in the way that I would wish to argue it and I do not wish to repeat what he said.

However, he referred to one operation, which perhaps illustrates where the problem might arise. I refer to the issue of what happened in Libya. I did not know the detail of what happened there but I presume, from what the noble Lord said, that it was reported to a committee. I should have thought that that is a typical example of something which fell under the description of these matters given by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, in Committee when she referred to operations being—if I recall correctly—finite and coded. Am I right in saying finite and coded?

[Baroness Manningham-Buller]

Yes.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I should have thought that that operation in Libya was a typical example of something that was finite and coded but which, as we know, was referred to the committee prior to the operation being completed. One wonders whether that operation would have fallen foul of what is in the Bill as it stands. I have no doubt that the Minister has in his brief, in very large red letters, “resist at all costs”—perhaps more than many of the other amendments that we have considered today. I would imagine that the services are particularly worried about this area. However, I would say to them that they must go away and reconsider this issue.

This is classic House of Commons debating material. I should have thought that the House of Commons will latch on to this wording and really drive it in Committee very hard. The Government should get a better line in dealing with these matters than we have heard hitherto.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Campbell-Savours, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for introducing these amendments, three of which concern the ISC’s ability to oversee operational matters and the fourth concerns the relationship between the ISC and Select Committees. It is worth reminding ourselves that one of the purposes of the Bill is to extend the ISC’s statutory remit. It makes clear its ability to oversee the operational work of the security and intelligence agencies and of other parts of the Government’s intelligence machinery.

With this formalisation, we certainly expect that the ISC will provide such an oversight on a more regular basis. The provisions of the Bill allow the ISC to consider,

“any particular operational matter but”—

as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, quite properly indicated by quoting from the Bill—

“only so far as the ISC and the Prime Minister are satisfied that … the matter … is not part of any ongoing intelligence or security operation, and … is of significant national interest”.

The starting point is that the ISC’s oversight in this area ought to be retrospective and, so as not to cut across the role of Ministers, should not involve, for instance, prior knowledge of approval of agency activity. It is important that when there is an ongoing operation, or indeed a future operation, the responsibility for national security lies with Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, made it clear that the ISC is not seeking to intervene in that and accepts that the primary and principal responsibility lies with Ministers.

The ISC’s consideration of an operational matter must also,

“be consistent with any principles set out in, or other provision made by, a memorandum of understanding”.

The first amendment would have the effect of leaving it solely to the judgment of the ISC to decide when the criteria for considering a particular operational matter are met. It is our intention that the memorandum of understanding will set out the factors that should be taken into account in assessing whether a particular operation is still ongoing or is of significant national interest. None the less, while fully accepting that the committee does not have ambition or aspiration to extend beyond what is said, I am sure that even reasonable people could come to a different view about whether those particular criteria are met or not in a particular instance.

I hope that noble Lords will agree that the judgment as to whether an operational matter meets the criteria is one that should properly be for both the ISC and the Government and not just for one or the other. It is important that the judgment is got right; I do not think that anyone is suggesting in any way whatever that there will be any deliberate attempt to intrude in circumstances where it has not previously been anticipated that the ISC should, but the last thing that anyone wants is for a different judgment to be struck that could lead to impeding the operational effectiveness of the intelligence agencies.

The noble Lord, Lord Butler, indicated what was perhaps at the crux of his concern. He mentioned the case of Libya. I understand that there may be a concern that the requirement that both the ISC and the Prime Minister should be satisfied that the criteria are met will slow down responses to more routine requests from the ISC for information about operational matters. The noble Lord used the word “cumbersome”. I assure your Lordships’ House that that is not the Government’s intention, nor do we believe that it will be the effect of the clause. However, I further assure your Lordships that we are looking very closely at this and it may well be that a memorandum of understanding to be agreed by the Government and the ISC is the right vehicle for agreeing a process that will allow the information that the noble Lord indicated to be provided to the committee, and in an appropriately prompt manner. Alternatively, it may be that there are other approaches that might make the position clearer, and I suspect that as this Bill progresses through Parliament we may return to it. But I indicate that it is a matter to which we will give further consideration. It may be that the memorandum of understanding is a better way to address it—and I hope that, on that basis, the noble Baroness will not press that amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said that he would wish to remove one of the key restrictions on the ISC’s new power to oversee agency operations—namely, the requirement that its oversight of operations should be retrospective. There is nothing in red in my briefing, but there is an indication that the amendment should be resisted. We have worked with the current committee to develop the new arrangements, and it is the committee’s view, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, made clear in his speech to his amendment, that the committee agrees with the Government that it should not oversee ongoing operations.

There are clear lines of ministerial responsibility for authorising agency operations, and we believe that they could be undermined by the ISC having prior, even contemporaneous, knowledge of particular operations. Secondly, once a particular operation has commenced, it may well be that things move very quickly, and it is essential that the agencies can focus fully on the task on hand. It is better to bring the committee in and have retrospective oversight of a particular operation. Indeed, some operations will be so sensitive, with perhaps highly sensitive sources in play, that the details are kept within a very small, need-to-know circle, even within the agencies. The committee fully understands this; it is part and parcel of the work that it does, and which it recognises that the agencies do on our behalf. Once an operation has concluded, the ISC will then be well placed to carry out its work, which will no doubt include making strategic and policy recommendations, and giving views on any lessons learnt. The noble Lord’s concern expressed in Committee, which he has reflected this evening, on how operations might be defined, particularly if there is a long-running set of activities, was whether that could be defined by the Government as a single operation. I certainly understand where the noble Lord is coming from, but that is not an appropriate or proper interpretation of the clause. The nature of operations varies, and this is one of the reasons why we have provided in the Bill detailed consideration as to how the ISC’s operational oversight remit should operate and should be set out in a memorandum of understanding, which the Government will agree with the ISC.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Would it not be better simply to remove the whole section on ongoing operations and deal with the whole thing in the memorandum of understanding?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

No, my Lords. One of our purposes is to ensure that this is put on a statutory basis. That has not been the case hitherto and this is a step forward. I can reassure the noble Lord that it is not the Government’s intention that a long-running operation be outside the scope of the ISC’s oversight for its entire duration. As the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, explained in Committee, a long-running operation could, for instance, be broken down into discrete phases of operational activity, parts of which could be judged to be no longer ongoing and, on that basis, could be subject to the oversight of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I very much hope that on that basis the noble Lord will see fit not to press his amendment.

The third amendment in the group, Amendment 23, would allow the ISC to oversee an operational matter that does not meet the criteria in Clause 2(3) if the relevant Minister of the Crown agrees to the consideration of the matter. It is difficult to see the circumstances in which the provisions of that amendment would need to be used, although I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said. His concern was that there may be a circumstance whereby both the Government and the committee agreed that it was proper that there should be an investigation, but that it would be statutorily barred from that. The concern is that that amendment is aimed at allowing both to agree on what the ISC could consider. I am sympathetic to the kind of situation that the noble Lord described. The Government are not convinced that there is a need for this amendment, but we appreciate the intention behind it, which is to introduce a degree of flexibility that might prove useful in the future. It is certainly a matter that we would want to keep under review as work continues on drafting the memorandum. We would be willing to look at that again because, as the noble Lord indicated, it would relate to an issue on which there was agreement between the Government and the committee. It is just a question of how we can get that right without opening up to some unintended consequences.

Finally, I turn to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which raises some important points relating to the relationship between the ISC and Select Committees. The first part of that amendment would mean that Select Committees could ask the ISC to consider any request to review any particular issue related to national security. The second part would mean that a Select Committee could request that the ISC transfer information to it that the Select Committee,

“has stated it needs to carry out its function”.

The third part states:

“The terms of any consideration … are to be set out in a memorandum of understanding between the ISC and the Select Committee in question”.

Again, I recognise and appreciate the intentions underlying that amendment—an intention expressed by the noble Baroness to create a stronger link between the ISC and other committees. It certainly would be our intention that the new ISC should be closer to Parliament than its predecessor and that it should be a strong and effective committee. Equally, an important feature is that the ISC operates within a framework that enables its members safely to be party to highly sensitive material and that it can scrutinise matters that are secret and of which the rest of Parliament and the public, for good reason, do not have sight. Of course, at the moment it is open to Select Committees to write to the ISC requesting it to review a particular matter. There is nothing in the new arrangements that will stop that. I am sure that any such requests will be treated seriously by the committee.

However, I have a number of concerns about the idea of creating a formal statutory mechanism for making and considering the requests. First, I am concerned that the ISC could become overwhelmed with requests to report on particular matters. If it acceded to all requests, the programme of work could be overtaken with matters that are of interest to other committees, which would take the focus away from the core work of the ISC. Secondly, there is the question of what the ISC would be able to say in response, given the highly sensitive nature of the agency’s work. Members of the ISC are of course bound by the obligations of the Official Secrets Act. Thirdly, if the ISC regularly refuses to action requests from Select Committees, an inevitable tension could arise between the ISC and those committees. I fear that that might undermine the perceived effectiveness of the new ISC and its closeness to Parliament.

On the requesting of information to help Select Committees with their work, it will be clear that there will be real limitations on what the ISC could provide, given that much of the material that is provided to the ISC is, by necessity, extremely sensitive.

21:15

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Have civil servants and the Minister considered the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, when he intervened in Committee on these matters? If they have not, why do they not meet him prior to Third Reading so that he can discuss with them his concerns arising from his experience as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I recall having read, in the past 24 hours, a particular phrase from the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, refers. I could take the Joint Committee on Human Rights in isolation but numerous other Select Committees could start making requests and the point I am trying to make is that if the ISC started to receive requests—indeed, it is possible at the moment and no doubt the committee considers them—but on a statutory basis, the concern would be that if the committee decided to respond positively to those requests, that would detract from its core function and purpose. Equally, the point I was making was that if it regularly refused action, that could lead to tension and detract from what we are trying to achieve by way of a greater closeness between the new committee and Parliament.

There is also the point that I was making about the information. By its very nature, some of that information will be extremely sensitive and will be classified as secret or top secret, according to the government system of protective markings, but the ISC, in its accommodation, staffing and procedures is set up to handle sensitive information. The ISC secretariat is vetted and its accommodation is secure. However, other committees are not set up to deal with such information, nor are they, we believe, in a proper position to assess the damage that disclosure could cause. If the ISC refuses to provide information, again, that could lead to tensions between committees.

The new ISC will need to consider how it works with Select Committees and with Parliament more broadly, but I am concerned that the provision suggested in this amendment might serve to skew or disrupt the ISC’s work programme and its reputation could be damaged by refusals to take forward work or pass on information. It is important that the ISC can direct its own work programme as far as possible and focus its efforts on issues that it, with its unique perspective, thinks are most important. I appreciate the intention behind the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, but I hope that they will reflect on the concerns that have been expressed and feel able to withdraw it.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s sympathetic reaction to Amendments 18 and 23. I will make two glosses on it. If I heard him right, he said that Amendment 18 would leave solely to the judgment of the ISC the test for considering an operational matter. I think he is thinking of the amendment that was moved in Committee because this amendment removes both the ISC and the Prime Minister. The Bill says:

“The ISC may … consider any particular operational matter but only so far”,

and it goes on to say that the matter,

“is not part of any ongoing intelligence”.

In other words, it means that it is a matter of fact and not something that the ISC could decide by itself.

The second point is that the Minister spoke about it as if these were matters where the committee asked for information from the agencies. However, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, will confirm, that is not usually the case. The circumstances are that the agencies themselves take the initiative in reporting to the committee. They give the information—I should think that that is the case nine times out of 10. It would be a great pity if that closeness that exists between the ISC and the agencies were to be inhibited by a requirement that the agencies clear their lines with the Prime Minister before they can report such a matter.

[Baroness Manningham-Buller]

I have not intervened in this debate because I have really just been listening with interest and support most of things that have been suggested. If there were a great story in the press—with some truth in it or not, about the operations of the service—I would certainly regard it as my duty to report to the ISC as soon as I reasonably could. It would be reassuring to believe that there is nothing in this drafting to prevent that. It is part of the ongoing confidence-building between the two that the ISC does not have to demand a report on something like that, but gets an early report of the facts from the agencies.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, who makes the point from her direct experience.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I hope that I gave reassurance that we recognise some of the issues that the noble Lord raised and that there is certainly a willingness to work through this. There is certainly no intention to retreat from the things which have normally been part and parcel of the ISC’s operations and deliberations up until now.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

I am very grateful to the Minister. On the basis on those assurances, I am very happy to withdraw Amendment 18.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

Amendments 19 to 25 not moved.

Clause 3 : Reports of the ISC

Amendment 26

Moved by

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

26: Clause 3, page 2, line 32, leave out “a draft of”

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, this may be the last amendment that we consider this evening. I can move it very briefly indeed because I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for putting his name to it and therefore take it that we are pushing at an open door. This amendment would remove the words “a draft of” in relation to the report submitted to the Prime Minister. The committee does not and never has submitted a draft of the report; it submits its report. The Prime Minister can then ask for certain redactions to be made before it is published. However, it is by no means provisional. I take it from the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, has put his name to this amendment that the Government will accept the removal of the words “a draft of”.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, since we are considering the last group of the evening, I confess to being envious of the noble Lord, Lord Butler. I have been in your Lordships’ House a relatively short time in comparison with him, but I have never had an amendment signed by both the Official Opposition and the Government. I congratulate him on that achievement.

There is not very much that I can say on this amendment that will not be said even better by others. However, I will say something regarding our Amendment 27. This is a revised version of an amendment which I tabled in Committee. This amendment would amend the grounds on which the Prime Minister may exclude matters from the annual reports. These are currently broadly defined in the Bill as that which the Prime Minister considers,

“would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Security Service”.

It goes on in that vein. We have argued that the primary reason for the Prime Minister to request the redaction of material contained within the annual report should be on the basis of national security, or that it risks a disclosure of sensitive information as defined in the Bill. Again, we have reservations that the reason given in Clause 3(4) is a bit of a catch-all provision which allows the Prime Minister to prohibit the publication of material perhaps considered too critical and which may damage the reputation of government agencies.

Of course, we acknowledge that there may be circumstances in which the Government will need to prevent the publication of material. That may not be only on the basis of national security or the sensitivity of information. It could also be where the information might threaten the UK’s economic interests. However, it would be better to make such additional criteria transparent and accountable, in order to prevent any misrepresentation of the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Amendment 27 allows the Prime Minister to prohibit publication on grounds in addition to national security and the sensitivity of information, along the lines defined in the Bill, but also requires that the scope of the information must be set out in the MoU with the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is a moderate and reasonable amendment and I hope that the Minister will give it his consideration.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, moved his amendment. It received support from around the House and I am pleased to say that the Government are in a position to accept it. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and my noble friend Lord Lothian made the important point that the committee should be independent. I agree wholeheartedly. It will submit its report, not a draft of its report, to the Prime Minister, who may insist on redactions to the document but may not insist on any other changes. Again, I agree with this, so we are happy to accept the amendment.

Amendment 27 would have the effect of changing the grounds on which the Prime Minister might exclude any matter from a report to Parliament. It would add to the grounds for exclusion already described so that material might be excluded if it were of such a nature that it would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the security service, the Secret Intelligence Service, the Government Communications Headquarters or any person carrying out activities that fall within Section 2(2); if it were sensitive information as defined in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1; or if it were information that, in the interests of national security, should not be disclosed. For convenience, I will refer to the three possible grounds for excluding material as the prejudice to functions ground, the sensitive information ground and the national security ground. The amendment would also require that matters considered to fall under the prejudice to functions ground—currently the only ground for excluding information from the Bill—should be set out in a memorandum of understanding.

The ISC must be able to report candidly to the Prime Minister on sensitive matters. Inevitably, it will not always be possible to publish the full content of its reports because of the nature of the material contained in them. I do not think that there is any dissent in the House from that position. It follows that there must be an ability to redact information before ISC reports are published or laid before Parliament. In Committee, and amendment was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—to which she referred—which would have made the criteria for excluding material from the published report just the grounds of sensitive information and national security. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who is not in this place, explained that it was a probing amendment to try to find out why it was necessary to use the definition that was in the Bill rather than that in the amendment, which presented grounds similar to those in Schedule 1 for withholding information from the ISC. In the case of withholding material from the ISC, both grounds had to be fulfilled, whereas for these purposes material could be excluded from a report if either ground were fulfilled.

The sensitivity of information and national security grounds add nothing in substance. Material that falls within those grounds will necessarily also fall within the prejudice to functions grounds—unless in the case of sensitive information that is so historical or so widely known publicly that it is no longer sensitive, in which case there would be no real justification for excluding it from an ISC report to Parliament anyway.

21:30

The test in the Bill is modelled on the one contained in the Intelligence Services Act 1994. It has worked well and is well understood by the committee and the Government. It has allowed material to be excluded where it should be excluded, but it has also allowed the Government and the ISC to ensure that as much of the ISC's reports that can be published are published. It is also not appropriate to require that matters considered to fall within the prejudice to functions ground should be set out in a memorandum of understanding. It would be impossible to describe the sorts of matters that would meet that test in an exhaustive way.

As previously noted, this criterion has worked well throughout the history of the committee. One reason for that, no doubt, is its inherent flexibility. The nature of the material that might need to be excluded from the published reports of the ISC will vary over time, and the precise consequence of the disclosure of such material may also vary.

I hope in the context of my explanation that the noble Baroness will understand why I ask her not to press her amendment.

Amendment 26 agreed.

Amendments 27 and 28 not moved.

Clause 4 : Sections 1 to 3: interpretation

Amendment 29 not moved.

Clause 5 : Additional review functions of the Commissioner

Amendment 30 not moved.

House adjourned at 9.32 pm.