House of Commons

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 13 March 2013

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Business before Questions

Electoral Commission

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported to the House, That the address of 4th March, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Gareth John Halliwell to be an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 13 March 2013 for the period ending on 12 March 2017, was presented to Her Majesty, who was graciously pleased to comply with the request.

[Mr Speaker]

I must advise the House that a deferred Division was omitted in error from the pink ballot paper distributed with the vote bundle today: four Divisions rather than three should have been shown. A corrected version has been issued and is available from the Vote Office and in the No Lobby. Members should use the corrected version to cast their votes. Votes cast using the incomplete version will be counted for the three Divisions included on that paper. Votes cast using the corrected paper will be accepted by the Clerks to replace any earlier votes cast using the incomplete paper, up to the close of the Divisions. I trust that is clear.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

1. What recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Mali.

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

More than 430,000 people have been displaced by the conflict in Mali. Access is improving to conflict-affected areas, but the humanitarian response remains challenged by insecurity and sporadic violence. UK humanitarian aid is supporting more than 400,000 Malians with food, medicine and support to refugees in neighbouring countries.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I thank the Secretary of State for her response. More than 250,000 people have been displaced inside Mali and 170,000 Malians have fled to neighbouring countries. What additional assistance will her Department be providing to internally displaced people and refugees?

[Justine Greening]

To date, we have provided about £13 million of overall assistance and we will work with agencies such as the UN, the Red Cross and the World Food Programme to ensure that we have a balanced approach to dealing not just with people in Mali who need our support but, as the hon. Gentleman points out, with the refugees who have fled to neighbouring countries.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

Given that the humanitarian situation is likely to get worse until there is a framework of peace, does the Secretary of State support steps towards a UN peacekeeping mission? If so, what does she make of its mandate and the proposed time scale?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right that discussions are under way on whether a UN peacekeeping mission can be put in place. Ultimately, if it can sit alongside a political process of reconciliation, that might be one way of starting to create the space not only to get security back into Mali but to provide the conditions for the country to develop in the longer term.

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

The Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimates that 4.3 million people in Mali are in need of humanitarian assistance. Will the Secretary of State update the House on what her Department is doing to ensure access for humanitarian agencies in Mali and in neighbouring countries?

[Justine Greening]

The best thing we can do is work through independent, impartial humanitarian organisations and, through the UN, continue our lobbying work to ensure we have access. Access is a real challenge in places such as Mali and is also, of course, a particular challenge in places such as Syria. Without access, we cannot get humanitarian support to people, and that is why we focus on it.

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

2. What support her Department provides to WaterAid.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)]

The total funding provided by the Department for International Development to WaterAid for the financial year 2011-2012 was £5.8 million. The figure for the funding allocated to WaterAid in 2012-13 will be available at the end of this financial year.

[Miss McIntosh]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will she join me in preparing for world water day on 22 March? Will she also recognise the massive contributions from individuals and others, including water companies, who contribute to WaterAid, and from projects such as EcoLink, applied by Nestlé in South Africa, as that all benefits developing countries?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I thank my hon. Friend. I know of her interest in water as chair of the all-party parliamentary water group and I congratulate all those who make a contribution on the key issue of water in developing countries. My hon. Friend mentioned world water day. The Department for International Development will host events on that day, particularly on how water impacts on girls and women.

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

It is good that there has been progress on access to safe water and sanitation, but there has been much less progress in much of Africa, in both urban and rural areas. What are the Government doing to address that inequality?

[Lynne Featherstone]

The Government are taking a great many measures on water, sanitation and hygiene—WASH. We have so far enabled 1.9 million to gain access to clean drinking water and 2 million to gain access to improved sanitation, and 6.6 million have been reached through DFID support for hygiene promotion. We know more has to be done, particularly in urban areas as those areas increase.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I welcome the Minister’s positive comments on WaterAid and her commitments in respect of world water day, but does she recognise that, currently, UN statistics on the millennium development goals measure only who has improved water, not how many people actually have safe and sufficient water? Will she ensure that a more robust standard is used and is at the centre of DFID’s work?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I will certainly take up the hon. Gentleman’s point on how we measure such things, but the Government have doubled their commitment to reaching 60 million people with WASH funding. We are looking to scale up WASH, because we simply are not reaching enough people at the moment and the millennium goal is off track.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

3. What recent assessment she has made of the financial stability of the Palestinian Authority.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

We estimate that the Palestinian Authority’s funding gap in 2013 is likely to be at least $500 million, which will continue to make it hard for it to pay salaries and deliver essential public services. The PA must of course show financial discipline itself, but for it to become stable it is essential that international donors support it in a consistent manner, and that Israel eases its restrictions and meets its legal obligations to transfer tax revenues.

[Mike Freer]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but is he aware that British aid donations to the Palestinian Authority general budget are being used to pay salaries of up to £2,000 a month to convicted Palestinian terrorists, many of whom have been properly convicted? What assurances can the Government provide that no further UK aid donations will be spent in that way?

[Mr Duncan]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we have a system in place under which DFID’s support to the Palestinian Authority is used specifically to pay for the salaries of civil servants. The list of approved recipients is subject both to vetting processes and to independent audit.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the best way to improve the financial stability of the Palestinian Authority would be to lift the blockade of Gaza and movement and access restrictions on the west bank? Does he also think that the EU should be trading with the Palestinians and not with the illegal Israeli settlements?

[Mr Duncan]

A 2011 International Monetary Fund report estimated that without movement and access restrictions the Palestinian economy would be 78% larger in terms of GDP a year, amounting to about $6.3 billion. That would remove its dependence on aid.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Is there not a more general question about international donor money being used to support Palestinian institutions that have taken violence against Israel? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that that money genuinely contributes to financial stability and is not used in a way that undermines the peace process?

[Mr Duncan]

We rigorously monitor any danger there might be that the Palestinian Authority in any way incites violence, but it is committed to doing exactly the opposite, and it is right that we support it, the potential Government of a Palestinian state. We wish to see further progress towards the peace process over the months ahead.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

We all support the creation of a viable two-state solution in the middle east, but that will come about only if the Palestinians are able to run an effective country. What assessment have the Government made of the structures available in the Palestinian Authority to make that happen?

[Mr Duncan]

The structures are sorely stretched, which is why we continue to support the Palestinian Authority, and of course we also urge other donors, particularly the Arab states, to carry their fair share of commitment, because if the Palestinian Authority were to collapse there is a serious danger that all prospects of proper peace negotiations would collapse as well.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

4. What discussions she has had with her counterparts in the UN on reinstating bilateral aid to Mali.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)]

The UK Government do not have a bilateral aid programme in Mali, but we are the second-largest humanitarian donor, providing £13 million in 2013. We have had discussions with our EU and multilateral partners, including the UN, on the importance of co-ordinated resumption of aid.

[Chris Evans]

Bilateral aid from the EU and the World Bank provides a key step in protecting people in Mali from drought and violence. What steps have the Government taken to ensure that that aid is reinstated as soon as possible?

[Lynne Featherstone]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are encouraging the resumption of aid by bilateral partners. In May, there will be a donor conference on Mali, which is an important step, not just as a pledging conference. There is a political crisis in Mali, and the solution is political, which is why we welcome the recent announcement by the Malian authorities to initiate a commission on dialogue and reconciliation.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her encouraging answer, but may I ask her to go further and consider whether the UK Government could work with France and the EU to address the fragility across the region and deliver co-ordinated and sustained development assistance to the Sahel and the whole region?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I thank my right hon. Friend. This very issue was discussed at the recent Development Ministers meeting. Stability in the Sahel—the wider region—is of absolute importance. The UK has committed £78 million in humanitarian support to the Sahel through various United Nations agencies, and we continue to work right across the region to create stability and peace.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

5. What recent assessment she has made of the refugee situation in Syria.

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

Last week saw the terrible landmark of 1 million Syrian refugees registered or awaiting registration in the region. A further 2 million people are displaced within Syria. Last week, I raised with the UN the issue of preventing violence against women and girls in this and indeed other humanitarian situations and ensuring that funding supports this.

[Martin Horwood]

I welcome the reply from the Secretary of State and the UK’s commitment, but World Vision tells me that counting those unregistered as well as registered there could be as many as 1 million refugees in Lebanon alone. Does she agree that if catastrophe is to be prevented for those people and their host countries we need to make sure that donor countries such as the Gulf states play their part and that assistance reaches unregistered as well as registered refugees?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I visited Jordan earlier this year, I saw for myself how many refugees were not in the camp. Indeed, the majority are in communities outside the camp, which is one reason why we have earmarked specific funding to support, both in Jordan and Lebanon, those refugees who are not in camps. Clearly, as the crisis continues, the pressures on neighbouring countries will grow. The Government are deeply concerned about that, which is why we have urged members of the international community to work together to take action.

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

Keeping in mind the fact that more than half the refugees in Syria are children, will the Secretary of State tell the House exactly what the Department is doing to support child health, protection and education in this humanitarian disaster?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that issue. About 75% of the refugees are women and children. As I said in my opening answer, we are formally pressing the UN to make sure that the most vulnerable refugees are taken into particular consideration in the construction of plans to support them. We have worked with UNICEF, for example, to provide not just medical assistance but care and counselling for many families, including children who have been through utterly traumatic events.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend outline what steps we can take to protect refugees trying to get from Syria into Turkey? At present, they face fire from Syrian forces.

[Justine Greening]

As my hon. Friend points out, the journeys that many people make en route to refugee camps are fatal in some cases or near fatal in others. It is extremely worrying that, for example, the Syrian Government continue to refuse humanitarian access from Turkey into Syria. We have to work through political and diplomatic routes, but I can assure him that the Government are playing a leading role in making sure that when refugees get out of that country we support them and that, through impartial, independent humanitarian organisations we are still getting support to people who remain in Syria too.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Secretary of State outline what aid has already been granted by her Government to help the refugee crisis in Syria? Is it her intention to increase that aid to alleviate this human tragedy?

[Justine Greening]

We have so far earmarked £140 million of aid overall. That is split partly as support for refugees outside Syria but, as the hon. Gentleman points out, a substantial portion is aimed at supporting people within Syria. It provides support in the form not just of food and shelter but of medical assistance.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

6. What plans the Government have to increase the proportion of the aid budget that is spent on peacekeeping and defence operations; and if she will make a statement.

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

The Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence are working together within existing international rules on official development assistance spending to consider how we can better use Government resources in dealing with the humanitarian and development aspects of conflict and instability around the world.

[John Robertson]

The National Audit Office and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact have both been critical of the effectiveness of the conflict pool. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to reform and strengthen these mechanisms in the cross-departmental work?

[Justine Greening]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the conflict pool is a relatively new mechanism to ensure that the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and my own Department work more closely together in fragile and conflict-ridden situations where we know that partnering up can make a difference. We look with interest at the reports from ICAI and the National Audit Office, and we are looking in the next spending review to see how we can strengthen the process and the effectiveness of the way in which the conflict pool works.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State welcome the comments by the Prime Minister that ODA funding can, in some dangerous environments, be used by the military to provide overseas humanitarian aid and development assistance and begin the process of stabilisation?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. The Prime Minister is right to say that we should be open to new ideas about how my Department and the MOD can work more closely together. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the existing ODA guidelines clearly set out what spend can be counted as ODA and what cannot be, but things such as peacekeeping fall within the ODA definition and we should look at how we can work more closely with the Ministry of Defence.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

13. Will that policy not simply take us back to the trade for aid days of the 1990s, when predatory western Governments behaved like payday loan companies and developing countries spent more on servicing debt than on helping people?

[Justine Greening]

I think the hon. Lady might have asked a supplementary question that related to a different question on the Order Paper, but we should be looking at trade as well as aid. That is the route to sustained poverty reduction.

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

7. What processes are in place to ensure that non-governmental organisations in the Palestinian Authority that are funded by the UK, the EU and the UN do not promote incitement of hate.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

We deplore incitement on either side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including any comments that could stir up hatred and prejudice. UK, EU and UN-funded NGOs in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are subject to rigorous due diligence assessments designed to ensure that funds are used only for legitimate development purposes.

[Gordon Henderson]

I welcome the Minister’s answer, but in East Jerusalem last year a UN-funded Palestinian NGO performed a puppet show promoting non-smoking. This well-intentioned educational message was corrupted somewhat when the children were urged to replace cigarettes with machine guns. Will the Minister assure me that no British financial aid donations, direct or indirect, are being used to fund such propaganda?

[Mr Duncan]

I am aware of that puppet show, put on in a funded community centre, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it. It was an utterly stupid and irresponsible way of corrupting an otherwise sensible no-smoking message. It was performed not by an NGO, but by a visiting organisation. No UK or UN funds had anything whatever to do with sanctioning this performance, and the community centre itself was angered by the content and made its own disapproval very clear.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I agree with the Minister that it is very important that we oppose all those who promote hate in the middle east. May I invite him to say that we must also stand with those human rights organisations in Israel and in Palestine that stand out against hate crimes such as the so-called price tag attacks?

[Mr Duncan]

It is essential that we make a stand against the incitement of hate from either side in any way. I share the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to doing so in his great understanding of this issue.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

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

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

Since the last oral questions, I have updated the House on the Syrian humanitarian conference in Kuwait and on the Department’s work to support girls and women. This week I made a speech to the London stock exchange and answered in the House on how my Department will up its game on driving economic development in new and emerging markets. I attended the informal meeting of Development Ministers in Dublin in February and the high-level panel meeting on the millennium development goals after 2015 in Monrovia at the end of January, and I look forward to attending the next high-level panel and global partnership steering committee meetings in Indonesia at the end of this month.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Will the Secretary of State make a statement on what her Department’s new relationship with India will be once all financial aid is withdrawn in 2015?

[Justine Greening]

It will feature technical assistance to help the Indian Government get the most out of their own £50 billion investment in health and education. It will involve returnable capital projects, which will help to drive economic growth in India. I will also work across Government to ensure that our trade relationship develops.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

T4. As the Secretary of State knows, I am hugely encouraged by the Government’s commitment to fighting female genital mutilation, a commitment that has been warmly welcomed by the Inter-African Committee and other grass-roots campaigners. I urge her to continue to be guided by their evidence on what works best in combating this deeply harmful practice.

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is critical that efforts to end FGM are evidence-based, which is why we are investing in research to build the evidence base on what is the most effective approach to ending FGM. FGM is unacceptable wherever it happens in the world, including the UK, and we should never turn a blind eye.

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

On Monday I asked the Secretary of State whether private companies receiving DFID support will have to demonstrate transparency on their tax arrangements and good practice with regard to employment practices, including pay, throughout their supply chain. She did not give me an answer. Will she now put that right?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman seems to have failed to listen to the speech I made and the answers I gave to his urgent question earlier this week. The bottom line is that we know that economic development is ultimately the way to end aid dependency. We want to see an end to aid dependency through jobs. He is writing off the contribution our companies are making, which I think is wrong. Ultimately, he sees only the risks of business, which of course we want to work to mitigate, but we also have to see the opportunities.

[Mr Lewis]

No answer, yet again. Turning to another private sector issue, the Secretary of State has refused to publish the findings of the report she commissioned into the use of private consultants. Can she explain why in October last year, three months after the £90 million Growth and Employment in States project in Nigeria was assessed as having produced virtually no results at all, Ministers authorised the payments of an additional £7 million for GEMS 3 to the consultant responsible? How many other consultants have received further funding despite extremely poor performance?

[Justine Greening]

I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman on how we use consultants. He never signed off a single consultancy contract when he was a Minister in the Department. The reality is that I have brought forward clear expectations and guidelines on how we work with suppliers. Ultimately, I sign off on the contracts. I will take no lectures from someone who spent £7,000 in his constituency using consultants to help organise public meetings. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are far too many very noisy private conversations. It is difficult to hear the questions, let alone the answers. Let us have a bit of order for Mr Dan Rogerson.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

T6. In considering future development in Mali, will the Secretary of State—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have asked Members to stop doing that. It is rude to the Member on his or her feet. It had stopped for several years. It had better stop in future.

[Dan Rogerson]

I took it as personal support, Mr Speaker, and was very grateful for it.

Will the Department ensure that it considers the position of the Berber people in Mali and the surrounding countries, because those who feel that their culture and language are secure are far more likely to want to be part of a lasting peace and development for the region?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that reconciliation will ultimately come from all the parties around the table having a clear understanding of one another. Mali is an incredibly large country, which is one of the reasons we need to work hard on the process. Ultimately, we need to seek a political resolution; a military one is only a short-term option.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

T2. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with her G8 counterparts to galvanise international support for action on tax avoidance in developing countries?

[Justine Greening]

We have had many, many discussions. The hon. Lady will be delighted to hear, I hope, that tax avoidance and tax evasion will be one of the agenda items that this country will put on the table when we host the G8 this year as part of our presidency. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will lead on that effort.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

T7. Representatives of the IF campaign whom I met at Lancaster university last week expressed their gratitude for this Government’s continued commitment towards a 0.7% spend, but they also wondered about our progress with the international voluntary guidelines on the good governance of land, fisheries and forestry.

[Justine Greening]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The UK welcomes the successful global negotiation of the voluntary guidelines on land tenure and is now pushing for their national implementation, including through the G8, so that we can help share best practice and improve land governance.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

T3. According to figures from Amnesty International a staggering 87% of women in Afghanistan will experience violence in their lives. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to prioritise and adequately focus efforts to combat violence against women and girls in Afghanistan?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady will know that this is an issue about which I am particularly concerned. It is vital that we do not lose the gains that have been made in women’s rights in Afghanistan as we see troop draw-down. That is one of the reasons why I have made the issue of women and girls and, in particular, violence a country-strategic priority for our work in Afghanistan.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

T8. Will the Government put the use of food for fuel on the agenda of the G8 food summit this June?

[Justine Greening]

A range of things will be discussed at the G8. I assure my hon. Friend that I have no doubt that our food and nutrition work, which we are carrying out alongside the G8 efforts, will be one of the topics for discussion.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 13 March.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and, in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

We all know that the Prime Minister believes there is no alternative to his double-dip, his double-debt or his loss of the triple A credit rating, but is he aware that his Back Benchers and some of his Cabinet believe there is an alternative to him?

[The Prime Minister]

What this Government are delivering are 1 million private sector jobs and the fastest rate of new business creation in this country’s history. We have paid down the deficit by 25% and have cut immigration by a third. We have a long, hard road to travel, but we are going in the right direction.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

I am sure that the Prime Minister will wish to add his condolences to the family and friends of Christina Edkins, who was murdered on a bus to school in my constituency last Thursday morning.

The Government have rightly introduced minimum custodial sentences for people convicted of threatening someone with a knife, but does the Prime Minister agree that it is time to introduce a legal assumption that people carrying a knife intend to use it and should attract a prison sentence, so that we can redouble our efforts to rid our communities of the scourge of knives?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that my hon. Friend speaks for the whole House and, indeed, the whole country on the absolute revulsion at this horrific crime. I know that the whole House will wish to join me in sending our sincere condolences to Christina Edkins’s family.

We take knife crime extremely seriously, which is why, as my hon. Friend has said, we changed the law so that any adult who commits a crime with a knife can expect to be sent to prison, and for a serious offence they should expect a very log sentence. I will happily look at what my hon. Friend suggests. My right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary is currently reviewing the powers available to the courts to deal with knife possession and will bring forward proposals in due course.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

In the light of his U-turn on alcohol pricing, is there anything the Prime Minister could organise in a brewery?

[The Prime Minister]

I would like to organise a party in the brewery in my constituency, to which the right hon. Gentleman would be very welcome, to celebrate that the shadow Chancellor should stay for a very long time on the Front Bench.

[Edward Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman obviously could not tell us about his policy on minimum unit pricing for alcohol. The reality is that he has been overruled by the Home Secretary on that one.

Let us turn to another thing that the Prime Minister has said that we cannot trust. In his speech last Thursday, he said that the independent Office for Budget Responsibility is

“absolutely clear that the deficit reduction plan is not responsible”

for low growth. That is not what the OBR says. Will he acknowledge that today?

[The Prime Minister]

Just returning to the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier question, the interesting thing—[Interruption.] I will answer his question. The interesting thing about British politics right now is that I have the top team that I want and he has the top team that I want too. Long may they continue.

The point of the Office for Budget Responsibility is that it is independent. Everyone should accept everything that it says, and I do. We should look at what it says about why growth has turned out to be lower than it forecast. It said that

“we concluded from an examination of the…data that the impact of external inflation shocks, deteriorating export markets, and financial sector and eurozone difficulties were more likely explanations.”

To be fair to the shadow Chancellor, his own press release says:

“The OBR says they are yet to be persuaded”

by the case that he makes. Given that his plans are more spending, more borrowing and more debt, the country will never be persuaded.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister is clearly living in a fantasy land. He wants us to believe that the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility wrote him an open letter the day after his speech because he enjoyed it so much and agreed with it so much. Actually, what he said in the letter was:

“we believe that fiscal consolidation measures have reduced economic growth over the past couple of years”.

Yesterday, we learned that industrial production is at its lowest level for 20 years. That sets alarm bells ringing for everyone else in this country; why does it not for the Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

The first point is that manufacturing declined as a share of our GDP faster under the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member than at any time since the industrial revolution. That is what happened: the decimation of manufacturing industry under 10 years of a Labour Government. He quotes from the Office for Budget Responsibility and I accept everything that it says, but let me quote from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It says that borrowing under Labour would be £200 billion higher. Does he accept that forecast?

[Edward Miliband]

It is good to see, for a second week running, that the right hon. Gentleman is getting into practice for Opposition. He had nothing to say about industrial production, but his own Business Secretary—the guy who is supposed to be in charge of these issues—is going around telling anyone who will listen that the plan is not working. He says that

“we are now in a position where the economy is not growing in the way it had been expected.”

He goes on:

“We don’t want to be Japan with a decade of no growth.”

When the Prime Minister’s own Business Secretary calls for him to change course, is he speaking for the Government?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what is happening in industrial production. We are now producing more motor cars in this country than at any time in our history. Exports of goods to all the key markets, such as India, China, Russia and Brazil, are increasing very rapidly. None of those things happened under a Labour Government when they trashed our economy, racked up debts and nearly bankrupted the country.

On capital spending, I think that we should spend more money on capital. That is why we are spending £10 billion more than was in the plans of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. We should be using the strength of the Government balance sheet to encourage private sector capital. That is why, for the first time in its history, the Treasury is providing those guarantees. The fact is that he wrecked the economy and put in place plans for capital cuts, and we are investing in the country’s infrastructure.

[Edward Miliband]

Never mind more car production, it is “Taxi for Cameron” after that answer.

Things are so bad that the Government sent out Baroness Warsi at the weekend to say that she had “full confidence” in the Prime Minister and that he had support from

“large parts of his party.”

Maybe he even has the support of large parts of his Cabinet, I am not sure. Just a week from the Budget, the Home Secretary goes out making speeches about the economy—I think the part-time Chancellor should concentrate on the Budget—then she gets told off by the Children’s Secretary, who is hiding down there by the Chair, for jockeying for position. Is not the truth that it is not just the country that has lost confidence in the Chancellor and his economic plan but the whole Cabinet?

[The Prime Minister]

The weakness in the right hon. Gentleman’s argument is that my party has unanimous support for his leadership, as long as he keeps the shadow Chancellor there. I have to say—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is very discourteous for Members to gesticulate so aggressively at the Prime Minister. Let us hear his answer.

[The Prime Minister]

What is remarkable, yet again, is this—where is the argument on welfare? He has got no argument on welfare. Where is the argument on the deficit? He has got nothing to say about the deficit. Where are his plans for getting the economy moving? He has got nothing to say. That is what is happening under his leadership—absolutely nothing apart from debt, debt and more debt.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister is absolutely hopeless, and today’s exchanges have shown it. A week out from the Budget, they have an economic policy that is failing, a Prime Minister who makes it up as he goes along and a Government who are falling apart, and all the time it is the country that is paying the price.

[The Prime Minister]

Six questions, and not a single positive suggestion for how to get on top of the deficit that the right hon. Gentleman left, not a single suggestion for how to deal with the massive welfare bills that we were left, and not a single suggestion for how to improve standards in our schools. But I do know what he has been doing over these last months, because I have been passed—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This answer must be heard.

[The Prime Minister]

And it is a particularly interesting one, because I have here a copy of the right hon. Gentleman’s diary and I know what he has been up to. These are the dinners that he has held to raise money from the trade unions in the last few weeks: the GMB, USDAW, ASLEF, the TSSA, UCATT—£2.7 million, dinosaur after dinosaur, dinner after dinner. They pay the money, they get the policies, but the country would end up paying the price.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Q2. It is national apprenticeship week. More than 1,500 businesses in Kirklees are now offering apprenticeships, and we are becoming an official apprenticeship hub. Will the Prime Minister join me in praising all the businesses in my area that are taking on apprentices, Kirklees college under the leadership of Peter McCann, which is offering vocational training, and all the great young people who are going to see a positive future for our great nation?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly join my hon. Friend in what he says about national apprenticeship week. It is an important moment for our country, because over the past two and a half years we have seen 1 million people start apprenticeships, and the run rate is at more than half a million a year. That is very important for our country, and what I want to see is a new norm where we recognise that people who leave school should either be going to university or taking part in an apprenticeship. That is the agenda and the ambition that we should set for young people and our country.

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

Q3. Is it not the case that a couple who have separated could still live in the same home without bedroom tax rules applying? Given that glaring loophole discouraging marriage, should not the Prime Minister’s next U-turn be axing this cruel and shambolic tax altogether?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, let me say once again that only the Labour party could call welfare reform a tax. A tax is when you earn money and the Government take away some of your money. This is a basic issue of fairness. There is not a spare room subsidy for people in private rented accommodation in receipt of housing benefit, so we should ask why there is a spare room subsidy for people living in council houses and getting housing benefit. It is a basic issue of fairness and this Government are putting it right.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

Q4. Glossop Cartons in my constituency has just invested significantly in placing the world’s first order for the Euclid digital cutting and creasing machine. Tomorrow, Nestlé opens its brand new, state-of-the-art bottling plant for the famous Buxton water, also in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those significant investments show that this Government are making Britain well equipped to win the global race?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do see investment by large multinational companies, such as Nestlé, which now recognise that we have one of the most competitive tax systems anywhere in the world. KPMG recently reported that in just two years we have gone from having one of the least competitive corporate tax systems in the world, to having one of the most competitive. What has changed is the arrival of this Chancellor and this Government who have put right the mess made by the Labour party.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

Q5. What progress has been made by the high-level panel on the development of priorities for the millennium development goals after 2015.

[The Prime Minister]

I am proud to be leading the United Nations high-level panel on what should replace the millennium development goals when they expire in 2015. In my view, we should put the strongest possible emphasis on attempting to banish extreme poverty from the world, and that focus on extreme poverty should come first and foremost. I also hope that, in replacing and enhancing the millennium development goals, we can for the first time look at what I call the golden thread of things that help people and countries out of poverty, which includes good government, lack of corruption, the presence of law and order, justice and the rule of law. Those things can make a real difference.

[Mr Blunkett]

In view of proceedings so far I did not expect to hear myself saying this, but I commend the Prime Minister on the work he is doing on that panel and in seeking to hold to the international development budget. At a moment when we are asking people to give generously through Comic Relief this weekend, will he identify one group of people who were not included in the millennium development goals and who are often excluded from society and education—those severely disabled young people who face grinding poverty, ill health and the disadvantage of those disabilities? Will the Prime Minister give priority to them in developments over the next two years?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about helping disabled people across the world, and we should make sure that the framework we look at properly includes those people. On the wider issue of our aid budget, I know it is contentious and I know it is difficult, but I believe we should not break a promise that we made to the poorest people in our world. To those who have their doubts I say that of course there is a strong moral case for our aid budget, but there is also a national security case. It is remarkable that the broken countries—countries affected by conflict—have not met one single millennium development goal among them. By helping to mend those countries, often through security work as well as aid work, we can help the poorest in our world.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

Q6. In 1997 there were no excess deaths in the mortality data at Mid Staffordshire hospital, but as early as 2002 there were 120 excess deaths. That figure rose year on year, yet Labour Health Secretary after Labour Health Secretary did nothing apart from award the trust foundation status in 2009. In total, 1,197 excess deaths occurred, some of which were patients who died in their own faeces. Does the Prime Minister believe that the Mid Staffordshire scandal underlines the fact that Labour’s supposed claim to be the party of the NHS is the greatest lie in British politics—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] Order. Members may cheer, but first I am afraid the question was too long, and secondly I ask the Prime Minister to bear in mind what is his responsibility and what is not, in a very brief answer, and then we can move on.

[The Prime Minister]

My responsibility is to respond properly to the Francis report, and I commend Francis for what he did. It is important to remember that it is this Government who set up a proper, independent inquiry into the disgraces that happened at Mid Staffs. Everyone has to learn their lessons from what went wrong, including Ministers in the previous Government, but I think we should listen to Francis when he says that we should not seek scapegoats. What we need to do, right across politics, the House and our country, is end any culture of complacency. I love our NHS; there are some fantastic parts to our NHS, but in too many parts we do see—as my hon. Friend said—very bad figures and we need to deal with them.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

Q7. In a few weeks we will be 15 years on since the signing of the Good Friday agreement, and although devolution is in place, significant challenges remain in delivering on the agreement’s full potential and the commitments contained within it to build reconciliation, unequivocal support for the rule of law, and to deal comprehensively with the past and its legacy. Does the Prime Minister agree that there must be renewed urgency in progressing those outstanding issues, and will he outline, in the light of this week’s positive engagement with the Irish Taoiseach, the rule he sees for both Governments as joint custodians of the agreement in moving that forward?

[Mr Speaker]

The question was, again, too long.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for her very constructive work in Northern Ireland. I know that the whole House wants to wish her well with the difficulties that she and her office have faced in recent weeks.

I think there is of course a responsibility for the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister to work together, and we had a very good set of meetings this week; but the greatest possible responsibility lies with the devolved institutions. It is great that they are working and that the agreement has bedded down, but I would appeal to the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and all those involved in the Assembly to put away the conflicts of the past, work on a shared future for the people of Northern Ireland, start to take down the segregation, the peace walls and the things that take people apart in Northern Ireland, find the savings from those things and invest in a better future for everyone in Northern Ireland.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Q8. When he next expects to visit Mid Derbyshire constituency.

[The Prime Minister]

I have no immediate—sorry. I look forward to visiting Mid Derbyshire soon. I very much enjoyed my recent visit to Derbyshire, when I went to the Toyota factory, in which many of my hon. Friend’s constituents work, and I am sure I will be back there soon.

[Pauline Latham]

I know that my right hon. Friend is quite rightly taking a proactive role in leading trade missions to India and other countries. Does he agree that small manufacturing companies such as those based in Mid Derbyshire should also be given the chance to play their part in driving Britain’s exports to emerging markets such as India, China and the rest?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have improved our performance in terms of exports and goods, as I said earlier, to these key emerging markets, but the real challenge is to get SMEs exporting. If we could increase the figure from what I think is one in five to one in four, we would wipe out our trade deficit and create many jobs and a lot of investment at the same time. I have led trade missions to every single G20 country, apart from Argentina, and I look forward to doing more in the future. I will certainly include SMEs, and perhaps some from my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Q9. If the Prime Minister’s Government succeed in closing four A and E departments in west London, those departments will be replaced by privately owned clinics and out-of-hours services. Some of those leading the closure programme have already profited by up to £2.6 million each from their ownership of those primary care services. Does he think that personal financial gain should debar GPs and others from taking part in decisions on hospital closures?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right in any part of his question. The first point I would make is that the NHS in north-west London is going to be getting £3.6 billion this year. That is £100 million more than the year before. Under this Government, we are increasing the investment. As for the changes he talks about, if they are referred to the Health Secretary, he will of course consider whether they are in the best interests of patients, and that is the right process to follow.

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The Prime Minister will, I am sure, be aware of the strong contribution made to the British economy by the inbound tourism industry. Does he therefore share my concern, as expressed by the Tourism Alliance, that changes to visas are likely to suppress the number of visitors coming, particularly from Brazil? What can we do to ensure that the Border Agency does not become a growth suppressant to the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to say to my hon. Friend that the National Security Council met recently to consider some of these border issues and has decided not to put visas on to Brazilian nationals. We want to work with the Brazilians and ensure that we enhance border security; but, in defence of the Home Office and the UKBA, there have been great improvements in the time spent processing visas and we are looking at a number of steps to ensure that we attract tourists from the fastest-growing markets, including China and elsewhere.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q10. Does the Prime Minister accept that families face a triple whammy in meeting the costs of child care? Places are plummeting, costs are going up and the average family has lost more than £1,500 a year in support. Therefore, does he also accept that any measure he may announce next week to help with the costs of child care will be small remedy for a crisis of his own making?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not accept what the hon. Lady says, because it is this Government who extended the number of hours to three and four-year-olds and introduced, for the first time, child care payments for vulnerable two-year-olds. We have also lifted 2 million people out of tax altogether. Someone on a minimum wage working full time has seen their income tax bill cut in half. I know that the hon. Lady wants to try to put people off a very major step forward—when we will be helping people who work hard, who want to do the right thing and who want child care for their children—but that is what we will be announcing, and I think it will be welcome.

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

Q11. Britain is in a global race not just with our traditional competitor economies but with countries such as Brazil, Russia, India and China. Ahead of the Budget next week, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what assessment he has made of where we would be likely to finish in that race if we abandoned our deficit reduction programme and relied on some magical faraway tree of money, as the Opposition recommend?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. One of the most important reasons for continuing to get our deficit down is that it is absolutely essential to have the low interest rates that are essential for home owners and for businesses. If we listened to the Labour party and abandoned those plans, we would have more spending, more borrowing and more debt—exactly the things that got us into this mess in the first place.

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

The price of petrol and diesel at the pumps is set to rise to near record levels in the near future, and the resulting rise in the cost of living is causing real problems for our constituents. We know what the Government have already done, but will the Prime Minister reassure the House today that further action will be taken to cut the toxic fuel duty tax and bring petrol and diesel prices down, to help hard-pressed motorists, families and industry?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course I will listen carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman says, but petrol and diesel prices are 10p a litre lower than they would have been had we stuck to the absolutely toxic plans that were put in place by the Labour party. We have taken action, and we are doing everything we can with the cost of living. That is why we are legislating to get people on to the lowest gas or electricity tariff, why we have taken 2 million out of tax and why we have frozen the council tax; and I hope that we can do more to help people.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

Q12. The Prime Minister is right: this Government do have a good record on fuel duty. We are paying 10p a litre less on the mainland and 15p a litre less on islands than under Labour, but the rising price of fuel in a widespread area such as Argyll and Bute is causing real problems, and I hope that there will be good news in the Budget. For a start, will the Chancellor be able to announce that the September fuel duty increase inherited from Labour will be cancelled?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says about what the Government have already done on fuel duty. He omitted to say that we had also taken the step to help far-flung and island communities such as the one he represents with special conditions, to try to help with this major aspect. In many cases, people who live in his constituency do not have a choice but to use a car, and we have to respect that.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Q13. Will the Prime Minister benefit personally from the millionaires’ tax cut?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that I will pay all of the taxes that I am meant to. [Interruption.] Let me just point out one small point. I had a letter this week which I thought people might enjoy. It is from Ed who lives in Camden. It says this: “I am a millionaire. I live in a house worth £2 million which I got through a combination of inheritance and property speculation. I am worried that if I sell my house and buy another one, I will have to pay the 7% stamp duty that the wicked Tories have introduced. Under Labour, we talked about fairness but we never made the rich pay more. What should a champagne socialist like me do?”

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Q14. I know that the Prime Minister recently visited the ACE Centre in Oxford, and I am sure that he shares my view that it does a fantastic job helping young and disabled people to communicate more effectively using technical aids. What guarantees can he give that augmentative and assistive communication aids will be made available to more young people than is currently the case, so that everyone who could benefit from them is able to do so?

[The Prime Minister]

I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. The ACE centre, which was previously in Oxford and is now located in my constituency, has done incredible work for people with disabilities over many years. It is making the most of the extraordinary changes in technology. When I visited it recently, we looked at a whole raft of ways in which we could make sure that the NHS is making these things available to more people, and I am very committed to working with my hon. Friend and the ACE centre to make sure that that happens.

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

Q15. Prime Minister, you gave a promise to protect the defence budget in its entirety, but you did not. The Defence Secretary, who has left the Chamber, promised to balance the budget, but the National Audit Office said he failed. Prime Minister, will you now guarantee that there will be no—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here 16 years. He should not use the word “you” in the Chamber. I am sorry, but he knows the rules. Come on, quickly, finish the question.

[Mr Brown]

Will a commitment be given to protect the defence budget further in this Parliament?

[The Prime Minister]

The commitment I can give is that the £38 billion black hole that we inherited has been got rid of. Freezing the budget across this Parliament at £33 billion gives us the fourth largest defence budget in the world, and we are determined to use that money to ensure that we equip our forces with what they need for the future. That is in massive contrast to the record of the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported.

[Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury) (Con)]

Given the appalling nursing care standards revealed at Stafford and the Government’s welcome boost to apprenticeships across the professions, does the Prime Minister agree that now is the time to re-examine whether the nursing profession should remain all-degree or whether we should get back to training at patients’ bedsides?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not think we want a de-professionalisation of nursing—huge improvements have been made in the professional skills and training of nurses—but we have to get back to ensuring that patient care is at the heart of nursing. No one can be a good nurse without those things, so we need to return to such values.

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

Prime Minister. I do not expect you to know the full details—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must get out of this bad habit of Members using the word “you” in the Chamber. “You” refers to the Chair. Please address the House through the Chair.

[Jim Sheridan]

Mr Speaker, I do not expect the Prime Minister to know the full details, or indeed to be directly responsible, but against the background of “We’re all in this together”, does he think it fair that the lowest-paid workers in this place have been offered a 1% increase, while senior managers have been offered 5%?

[The Prime Minister]

That is a matter for the House authorities, not for me. The point I would make, however, is that we have frozen public sector pay at 1%, which we think is fair. The extraordinary thing about Labour’s position is that it supports that 1% increase for public sector workers, but thinks that people on welfare should be getting more than 1%. That seems to be an extraordinary set of priorities.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Whenever alcohol is too cheap, more people die. I know the Prime Minister wants to reduce avoidable early mortality and cut violent crime. Will he meet me so that I can explain to him the evidence base behind minimum pricing and how abandoning this policy would critically undermine the future efforts of those who want to do something about this?

[The Prime Minister]

I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend. We have had many discussions about this issue over the past two and a half years. There is a problem with deeply discounted alcohol in supermarkets and other stores, and I am determined to deal with it. We have published proposals, and are considering the results of the consultation on them, but we must be in no doubt that we must deal with the problem of 20p or 25p cans of lager being available in supermarkets. It has got to change.

[Mrs Siân C. James (Swansea East) (Lab)]

I am sure the Prime Minister is aware of the Visteon pension action group, whose members we are meeting outside at 12.30 today. We would like to invite him to join a cross-party group of MPs who will be meeting them on this important date—the fourth anniversary of their campaign.

[The Prime Minister]

I shall consider the hon. Lady’s remarks carefully. I have a meeting almost straight after Prime Minister’s questions with the leader of her party to discuss the Leveson proposals, and it might not be possible to rearrange my diary, but may I say how important it is that we support pensioners and achieve proper dignity for people in old age?

[Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that the results in Eastleigh, where Labour failed to gain anything at all, show that the Leader of the Opposition’s policies are completely without support in the country?

[The Prime Minister]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House of Commons, and if he asks questions like that, I think he will get along just fine.

Point of Order

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

12:34

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you inform the House about whether you have been notified of any problems with the Government’s online petition system? There have been a number of what No. 10 has described as “glitches” in the registration of signatures relating to the Shrewsbury 24 e-petition. Will you advise us about how people using their democratic right to secure a debate in this House can register their support for the campaign spearheaded by Ricky Tomlinson who, along with five of his colleagues, was jailed and who has long campaigned for the clearance of all the names of the 24?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his attempted point of order. The short answer is that I have been informed of problems only by the hon. Gentleman through his point of order. The matter is a responsibility not for the Chair, but for Ministers. If there are glitches, it is for Ministers to answer the hon. Gentleman. I trust that he will pursue the matter through them.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Some months ago, a number of Members joined the Shrewsbury pickets to submit their application for an investigation into their case by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. That review commission’s work can be completed only with full access to Government documents. Within weeks, the Government took a decision to extend the 30-year rule on these documents, thus taking it beyond the lifetime of most of the pickets. I am writing to the Prime Minister to get him to intervene to secure justice by releasing those papers. If we do not receive a positive response from the Prime Minister—this is an urgent matter because of the old age of many of the pickets—would you consider a request for an urgent question in the coming weeks?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is an ingenious as well as an extremely assiduous Member. I note what he says, but I hope he will understand and not take it in any sense as a put down if I say that I am not going to entertain a hypothetical question. As the late Lord Whitelaw was wont to say, I am inclined to say that on the whole it is advisable to cross bridges only when we come to them. I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman will use the resources of the Order Paper and other mechanisms of debate to pursue his concerns.

Bishops (Consecration of Women)

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

12:37

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

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable women to be consecrated as bishops in the Church of England; and for connected purposes.

This is a straightforward one-clause Bill, allowing women to become bishops in the Church of England. I am introducing it today because of what happened in General Synod last November. During the lead-up to that vote, 42 out of the 44 diocesan synods voted for women bishops, and at the November meeting of General Synod, the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy voted in favour and it was only because the House of Laity did not reach the two-thirds threshold that it narrowly failed to pass.

In 1992, the Church voted to ordain women into the priesthood. This happened 150 years after the start of the deaconess movement and after many decades of debate on women’s ordination in the Church. It was expected that, in time, we would see women becoming bishops. In fact, in 2006 the Synod started to look at admitting women to the episcopate. The theological argument had been won.

In 1992, however, provision was also made for those who could not accept the ordination of women—and the so-called “flying bishops” were created. In an excellent booklet “Like the Wideness of the Sea: Women Bishops and the Church of England”, the author Maggi Dawn described examples of the treatment she received from some within the Church who were unwilling or unable to accept her as a woman priest. On her first day at college, for example, she received a leaflet, saying “A woman’s place is not at the altar but in the kitchen; put on an apron and get back to where you belong.” She also hoped in the booklet that when the final piece of the jigsaw was completed with women becoming bishops, this would finally confirm the Church’s full acceptance of women’s ministry once and for all.

Twenty years on from those first women being ordained, we have some highly experienced women who should be considered for appointment as bishops. We now need to break that stained-glass ceiling. It is the next logical step, and it is needed to give credibility to the Church on the role of women’s ministry and to ensure that we have the very best individuals leading our church.

Last week, on 8 March, international women’s day, I had a meeting with women clergy in Hull, East Yorkshire, which had been arranged by the Bishop of Hull. What an amazing group of ordained women that was—intelligent, compassionate, witty, warm and very, very wise. They are a huge asset to the Church. They told me of their roles: working with young people on tough inner-city estates, working in small rural communities, visiting the terminally ill in their own homes, and providing support for young families in their parishes.

Many of those women talked of their feelings about the Synod’s decision, which they believed undermined their work in the Church, in their communities and in their role as priests. Tellingly, they mentioned the number of members of the general public who had spoken to them after the decision, saying how shocked and sorry they were, and, most important, saying that people thought the Church was out of step with the modern world, and looked ridiculous and eccentric.

We know that many of the people whom a Church of England priest will meet each day are not regular churchgoers, but ordinary members of the public who look to the Church to be there at important times in their lives—to baptise babies, to marry people, and to comfort the bereaved. Ordinary people want to see the Church of England in action through the women and men who serve their local communities. They certainly do not understand why it has taken such a backward decision, given that women constitute a third of the clergy and half the membership of the Church. Those women have kept the Church going in communities all over the country, and their voluntary work was the “big society” decades before the term was invented.

The Church has caused an enormous amount of hurt to women who have a calling to be ordained and serve the Church, but who have found that, as a result of the decision of the General Synod, their calling has been sidelined. We are asked to believe, explicitly or implicitly, that women are not quite as good as men. That would be news to Emmeline Pankhurst, Rosa Parks, Marie Curie and hundreds of other women who have changed history for the better.

Some people, even those who claim to support the idea of women bishops, say that this is a matter solely for the Church, and that it must be left to sort itself out. The Church, however, is our national established Church, headed by our Head of State, Queen Elizabeth, the Defender of the Faith and the Supreme Governor: a woman of some note. We have 26 bishops sitting in the other place in recognition of the Church of England’s important role in lawmaking in this country. We have prayers every day in this place, led by a Church of England chaplain, and we are fortunate to have an excellent woman in that role.

We have an Ecclesiastical Committee in Parliament, whose job is to examine draft Measures presented to it by the Legislative Committee of the General Synod. It reports to Parliament on whether it considers the Measures to be expedient and to be supported, and it will generally ask members of the Synod to assist it in its deliberations. In some circumstances, a conference of the Ecclesiastical Committee and the Legislative Committee may be convened. So Parliament has a big role to play in the Church of England, and the Church has a big role in Parliament. I certainly do not seek to enable Parliament to intervene in Church affairs lightly, but matters of discrimination are very serious, and we must speak up.

As Parliamentarians, we should be particularly concerned about the fact that, with any reform of the House of Lords now several years away and given the vote of the General Synod last November, we are entrenching sex discrimination in our Parliament by reserving 26 places in the House of Lords for men only. The Lords is the only part of Parliament where women are not allowed to take their place. I think that that is wholly wrong, and that we must make it clear that such discrimination is no longer acceptable in our Parliament. Many in the Christian faith see waiting as a good thing—and, my goodness, we waited an enormous amount of time to get women priests—but waiting is not good if it just leads to repeated deferrals, and it is not good in terms of the lost years before a final decision is made.

Agreeing to allow women bishops in the Church of England is very much about valuing women priests. It is also about respecting the equality laws and norms that we have established in this country. I am shocked to learn that men and women properly ordained by women bishops in other provinces of the Anglican communion are not recognised here. That has to be wrong as well. It is often said that women should not ask or demand, but should just “play nicely”. However, I think it absolutely right for us to become angry about injustice, and about the incoherent muddle that we have now. The Church’s document “Women in the episcopate: a new way forward” lacks a sense of urgency for change. The two sides in the current “conversations” are further apart than ever. It appears that opponents of women bishops will never compromise. The rest of society has moved on, and the Church now just looks very odd as a result of having taken this decision. A great deal of attention is often paid to those opposed to women bishops, but we know that many men and women have already left the Church because of the treatment of women. Our established Church risks going down the path to becoming a sect—a movement becoming a monument.

It has become clear that the Church needs to act much more quickly to sort out the problem, and I believe Parliament must be very clear about its view in order to assist the Church. In the words of Elvis Presley, we now need

“A little less conversation, a little more action”.

Those of us in this House who wish to see this change cannot pass by on the other side. We need to value the work that thousands of women do in the Church, and recognise their potential in terms of the work they wish to do.

12:44

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I rise with some trepidation to speak on this subject, first because I am not sure it is any of my business as I am not a member of the Church of England, but I do think it is only fair that somebody—without necessarily forcing a vote or being controversial—just mentions one or two points that are important for this House. Personally, I am completely agnostic on this issue, and I think I should be, because it is not for me to—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about not necessarily forcing a Division, but in order to comply with the procedures that apply to ten-minute rule motions, if he wishes to speak it is necessary for him to make it clear that he is opposing the Bill.

[Mr Leigh]

I oppose the Bill for the following reasons. I am completely agnostic on this issue. The Church of England is not my Church and I think it is for the Church of England to decide on it. That is important. In previous centuries when there were matters of controversy within the Church of England, this House of Commons was very closely involved. Indeed, in the 1920s there were great debates about the nature of the Prayer Book. The Church of England wanted to move forward in a liberal direction and to allow alternative versions of the Bible to be read in their churches. There were debates in this House, and the House was more reactionary on the issue and opposed the reform. After those fierce debates, it was decided to move forward and in effect to give the Church of England independence. That is why from the 1920s we created the current modern governance system in the Church of England whereby although it is in theory an established Church—something I strongly approve of, because it is important that we give an impression that we are still a Christian country— it should also be independent of Parliament in terms of doctrine and structure.

I believe that is the modern, progressive and right thing to do. I do not think it is right that Members of Parliament, who are politicians, should decide how the Church of England runs its own affairs, whether in terms of the shape of the Prayer Book, who can become priests, or whether it can have women priests or women bishops. It is not for us, as politicians, to make that choice.

There was a further advance. As you will know, Mr Speaker, until quite recently Prime Ministers had a very wide degree of latitude in the appointment of bishops. The last Labour Prime Minister withdrew from that process altogether, however, and there is now a very careful procedure in the Church of England, with senior people in the Church deciding who will be bishops and names then going to the Queen. Effectively, therefore, the Church of England appoints its own bishops. That is entirely right. The Prime Minister is in no shape involved.

For all those reasons, I think it would be extraordinarily dangerous, and a retrograde step, if Parliament were now to get involved, however strongly we feel about this issue, and even though everybody realises that there is enormous interest in it and many people believe it is absolutely right that women should become bishops. I ask the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) to accept, however, that many people also believe that the Church of England should be independent.

There is another reason that we must bear in mind, which the hon. Lady mentioned when she said, “Surely when matters of discrimination are involved, Parliament should get involved.” That is a dangerous state of affairs. Have we not been assured all through the debates about same-sex marriage that the Church of England was absolutely secure and nobody could take it to court for discrimination because all sorts of checks and balances were being put in place to protect it? Many people feel passionately about same-sex marriage. They believe it is entirely wrong that the Church of England should refuse to conduct weddings for same-sex couples, and they are perfectly entitled to that view. They believe that to be discrimination on the part of the Church of England, but Parliament has decided that in that matter the Church of England should be entirely independent. That is an entirely right point of view, so this Bill would embark on a dangerous course of action.

I understand from conversations I have had, particularly those with our Second Church Estates Commissioner, that progress is being made on this subject, even though strong beliefs are held in the House of Laity. Careful discussions are being held. The people who oppose this measure may not be right, but they are honourable people. They have sincere religious beliefs that should surely be discussed in their own Church and not in Parliament. They believe—I am not commenting on whether this is right or wrong—that the Church of England is the catholic church; although it is an established Church and an Anglican Church, it is a catholic church. It is based on the traditions of the Catholic Church that the apostles were all men. I am not going to get involved in all these arguments, but these people have strong beliefs about that. I understand that progress is being made and some compromise will be worked out whereby people who feel sincerely that their religious principles are threatened will have some sort of process to ensure that their bishops are of a traditional kind—men, not women—and so on. That is the discussion taking place at the moment. Let us be calm, cool and collected about this. Let us recognise that the Church of England will move at its own pace and let us not interfere, as politicians, in how the Church of England is run.

Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Diana Johnson, Mr Ben Bradshaw, Barbara Keeley, Roberta Blackman-Woods, Andrew Gwynne, Helen Goodman, Barry Gardiner, Mr David Winnick, Mr Frank Field, Chris Bryant, Mrs Sharon Hodgson and Lyn Brown present the Bill.

Diana Johnson accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 May 2013 and to be printed (Bill 148).

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme No. 2)

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

12:53

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

I beg to move,

That the Order of 14 January 2013 (Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows:

1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in two days.

3. Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken on each of those days as shown in the following Table and in the order so shown.

4. Each part of the proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in relation to it in the second column of the Table.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is trying get a balance on the scrutiny issue. Is the simple way of doing that not by trying to guess where the knives come but by simply not having a programme motion and letting this House debate things, as it should do, until it has scrutinised everything? That is what we used to say in opposition, so why are we not saying it in government?

[Mr Browne]

If we were to do that in this specific case, we would default to having the one day of debate that has been allowed for by this House; the Government are expanding the opportunities for the hon. Gentleman by introducing this programme motion to allow two days’ debate. On his more general point, I think it is fair to say that there is general agreement across the House that legislation that is not timetabled at all is not the collective will of the House, if I can put it that way.

[Mr Bone]

rose—

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

rose—

[Mr Browne]

I will give way in a moment. I do not want to get too far off the beaten track, but I think that under the previous Government and under this one there has been a presumption that scheduling business—with a few provisions made for financial legislation, for example—is a sensible way to conduct our deliberations in this House. This is not a debate about whether the procedures of the House have changed; it is about the programme motion for this Bill.

[Mr Bone]

We are seeing new Government policy here. This was never in the coalition agreement and, until now, it has not been the view of the coalition. The coalition wants to have a business of the House Committee, so that the Government would be taken completely out of these programme motions. Is this another Liberal Democrat U-turn?

[Mr Browne]

As the last bit of that intervention was so trite, I will give way to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and then deal with both interventions together.

[Mr Llwyd]

I just wish to make the point that there is no unanimity across the House that every piece of legislation should be programmed. I was a Member in the early ’90s, before the hon. Gentleman was elected to this House, and under the Conservative Government of that time programming was used rarely indeed and things seemed to work out all right.

[Mr Browne]

I was not wishing to get off the beaten track, and I did not say that there was unanimity in the House. There may be Members who want to debate the motions and business before the House until 5 or 6 o’clock every morning, and they are perfectly entitled to take that view. All I am saying is that we have come to a reasonably settled collective agreement that some sort of timetabling of legislation gives clarity. The balance we are trying to obtain is between ensuring that clarity and providing sufficient scope for all the different points of view to be aired. That is why, as I say, we are making generous provision in this programme motion for this stage of the deliberations on this Bill. I am sure that the wider points that have been made have been heard by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and, indeed, by the shadow Leader of the House. They no doubt spend a lot of time deliberating these matters and can now spend more time considering the issues raised this afternoon.

I have an important and specific extra announcement to make, which relates to the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment. The Government will also introduce a supplementary programme motion if the cross-party talks have concluded—either with or without agreement—to allow debate of Leveson-related amendments on the second day of business on this Bill. On that basis, both coalition parties will support the programme motion, having had the assurances that I have just delivered at the Dispatch Box, and will support the supplementary motion. I hope that we will now get on and debate the many important issues addressed in this Bill and in the amendments already tabled by right hon. and hon. Members.

12:59

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment (a), from “Second day”, leave out from beginning to paragraph 5 and insert—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I understand that new information has just been disclosed to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), but may I ask for the purposes of clarification whether he is moving the amendment or whether he is just speaking about the motion? I think he had fully intended not just to move his amendment but to press it to a vote, since when the Minister of State has offered new information. If the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to speak in support of his amendment, so be it. He can speak about the motion, but he needs to make that clear.

[Mr Hanson]

I am supporting the amendment as well as speaking about the motion, Mr Speaker. I wish to get some assurances from the Minister before the conclusion of the debate. We will then reflect on the Minister’s response and decide whether to press the amendment to a vote.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman is moving the amendment and will decide on whether to push it to a vote depending on any assurances he does or does not receive.

[Mr Hanson]

If I may, Mr Speaker, I want to seek a few assurances from the Minister before I resume my seat.

I am particularly keen for the Minister to consider what assurances he can give the House that there will be a guaranteed debate on the Leveson amendments and new clauses and that there will be an opportunity for the House to vote on them.

I also seek clarification—perhaps the Leader of the House could assist on this point—about whether the second day of consideration will be confirmed for Monday 18 March—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if the Minister of State could listen to what I am saying, because these are important matters that affect whether we will support the motion. I have asked the Minister, as the Leader of the House is in the Chamber, whether he can confirm that the second day of our consideration will be next Monday, as announced last Thursday by the Leader of the House. We seek assurances that there will be an opportunity to debate and vote on Leveson or press regulation-related clauses tabled by the Government or by the Opposition. I want to hear from the Minister—the Leader of the House can help him—whether the debate will happen on 18 March.

The Minister said that he intends to table a supplementary programme motion and he has a duty to tell the House when he intends to do that. Between you and me, Mr Speaker—dare I say it—our amendment would deliver what the Government want on Monday. If it were pressed to a vote, it might do what the Government seek to do, but I am willing, as I am that sort of a guy, to give the Minister the chance to reflect. If he can assure me that the supplementary programme motion will be tabled within living experience, rather than at some future date of which we are as yet unsure, that would reassure me and my right hon. Friends that the Government’s intentions should be supported by the official Opposition.

[Mr Bone]

Let me clarify. Has the right hon. Gentleman moved the amendment and might he seek the leave of the House to withdraw it later?

[Mr Hanson]

That is indeed the situation. I hope I have made that clear, but if I have not, so be it.

I seek three things from the Minister: a guarantee that there will be a debate; a guarantee that there will be a vote; a guarantee that there will be a second day of debate; some indication of when that will be; whether it will be on a day other than that which was previously announced; and when the supplementary motion will be tabled. I reserve the right to withdraw my amendment, but I wanted to move it so that we could get some clarity from the Minister on the key issues about which the Opposition remain concerned and want assurances.

13:06

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for how he introduced the programme motion and for the substantive change it makes. It gives us two days for debate on the Bill, which is important and merits that length of discussion. I also thank him for the information he conveyed about the Government’s view on how they propose to respond to the wish of Members on the Opposition, Liberal Democrat and Conservative Benches that we should have adequate time to deal with press conduct matters on the second day.

The Opposition amendment effectively seeks to change the order of discussion on that day, so that press conduct comes at the beginning and is not lost due to any lack of time. I hope that the Minister will confirm that I understood the import of his speech, that the Government accept that desire and that, if there is a wish across the parties for the reversal of the order on the second day—if that is to be Monday, then on Monday—that can be accommodated. I thank the Minister and his colleagues in the Home Office, the Office of the Leader of the House and the Whips Offices of the two coalition parties for facilitating that change as well as the discussions that I know have taken place with the Labour Front-Bench team.

There is a great wish to ensure that Leveson’s recommendations are implemented in the next few days in one form or another and I am clear that we need to do that as a Parliament in agreement with the Government. There might need to be some legislative changes after the all-party talks today and we might need to make legislative provision in this Bill.

Let me make two last points. First, there is wisdom in programme motions if they mean that we do not sit through the night—we are meant to be a family-friendly House and that is not a good way of being family-friendly—but they should always be based on agreement. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) mentioned the House business committee and I look forward to its coming into operation, as anticipated in the coalition agreement.

Finally, as the Leader of the House is in his seat, let me say that, whenever time is taken out of the allocated time for Government Bills by statements or urgent questions—of course, that does not apply today—I hope that we can have injury time. The one flaw of the present system seems to be that we agree a timetable and then lose half the time. That is nobody’s fault, but it means that we do not implement the will of the House. I hope that the Leader of the House will consider that helpfully and accommodate the time we planned to have so that we do not lose time to other business.

13:10

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

This has been a complete and utter shambles. It is outrageous that the programme motion was only tabled at the very last moment last night. Indeed, there was a Government Whip wandering around the corridors, saying that the Whips were about to call for the House to sit in private so that they could get an extra 20 minutes, because they still had not decided what the programme motion should be. That makes it very difficult for ordinary Members of the House to know whether they support the business for the following day, and whether they want to amend it

This is a Christmas tree Bill, and Christmas tree Bills have a terrible habit of gaining not only an awful lot of baubles and tinsel but a fairy on the top as well. There are 29 pages of Government amendments—29—covering very substantial issues, let alone all the other specific issues that ordinary Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House would like to debate. So it is good that we are getting an extra day, but it is therefore incumbent on the Government to make sure that there is an opportunity for key issues in relation to the Leveson inquiry—which have already been debated in the House of Lords—to be debated in the democratic Chamber, which is here.

I say to the Government that it felt very much yesterday—I am not entirely convinced that this has changed—as if the Government were doing everything in their power to rig the system so that there could be no debate at all on Leveson on Monday. That is basically what the programme motion before us does—it makes sure that that and, for that matter, other issues will not be debated on Monday.

I just think it is time we learned that there is a better way of doing politics. I fully accept that not everyone agrees with me about how we should implement Leveson; there is a perfectly legitimate debate to be had. But how on earth could we go back to our voters and say that, yes, we all wanted an inquiry to happen; we wanted millions of pounds of public money to be spent on an inquiry; we were gutted and we all poured out our soul when we heard the stories of Milly Dowler and all the rest, and the way they had been treated by the press; and we all stood up and made wonderful speeches about how there had to be change; and then we voted to make sure that we could not even debate it? That is essentially what the programme motion does.

The Minister is looking querulous, and I hope that does not mean that he is going to undermine what he said earlier, because I take very seriously what he said. As I understand it, he gave a complete guarantee that, for the second day of debate, there will be a new programme motion, whenever that second day is; and that that programme motion will expressly make provision for the House to be able to make up its mind on Leveson and associated matters to do with press conduct. To be honest, if we do not do that, we should be ashamed of ourselves as a House, because we will just have allowed the Executive—a small part of the Executive, I suggest—to prevent public debate, and I do not think our voters would thank us for it.

13:13

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great honour and privilege to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has put the case exceptionally well. I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes): it is not a problem for the House to sit late in the night if we are doing a proper job of scrutiny; and the idea that it is impossible to stop the House sitting late if there is no programme motion is wrong, because it is possible to bring in a guillotine. There has been a programming motion for every single Bill in this Parliament. The Library has confirmed to me that the present Government have guillotined more debates than were guillotined during the previous Parliament. So the idea that it is impossible to stop debate is unfounded—in fact, I was stopped in mid-flow the other day by a Whip moving a closure motion.

We will, of course, solve this problem entirely if we have an open and transparent business of the House committee. But at the moment what happens, behind closed doors, is that two sets of Whips decide whether they are happy with the amount of debate. If Members on the Back Benches do not happen to agree with either lot of Whips, bad luck you—you just do not get a chance to discuss the matter. I urge the Minister, who is a great democrat—or was, before he became a Minister—to try something different with the Bill. Let us abandon the programme motion, and the other programme motion, and see the self-discipline of the House. When we are talking about things as important as Leveson—although I am probably going to disagree in principle with the views of the hon. Member for Rhondda—we must have this debate. This is the mother of Parliaments and the debate should take place here.

We can spend hours and hours—[Interruption.] We can talk for hours about unimportant things, but when there are really important things to be discussed, the Executive—and, for that matter, the shadow Executive on occasion—get together to restrict debate. This is a great opportunity. I doubt very much whether the minority parties in the House have been involved in these discussions at all. Certainly, no one has asked anyone on the Back Benches what they think about the time allocated to the Bill.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Not me.

[Mr Bone]

Indeed. Let us just try. If I am wrong, Members can tell me so, but let the Government withdraw the original programme motion, let us have an open timetable on this, and see how we get on. If I am proved right, let us do that in the future, and let us bring the business of the House committee into being. Let us not go for this Stalinist central control.

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

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the exclusion of minority parties. Does he agree that, even if a business of the House committee were set up, there would still be problems if there was not proper representation of the smaller parties on that committee?

[Mr Bone]

In relation to the matter before us, that would be very important, of course, but I envisaged that committee not to have any members from either the Executive or the shadow Executive, and to be made up of independently minded Back Benchers who would not necessarily toe the party line. So it will be Parliament deciding, and I am absolutely sure that there would be members from the minority parties. That is actually a coalition priority. They seem to have slipped on the timetable. We were supposed to have it by May this year, and it does not look quite as though that will happen.

To return to the detail of the programme motion, if the shadow Minister does not stick to his amendment, there is a danger that, if the Government do not do what they promise, the opportunity will be gone and lost, and we will not debate Leveson. I urge the shadow Minister to test the will of the House on this. But of course I am hoping that before that happens the Minister will pop up and say, “We don’t need the original programme motion; we will have unlimited debate on the issue.”

13:17

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

The debate is quite important, because we all know the importance of getting the post-Leveson scene right. Mention has been made of the cost, the time involved, and the great care that Lord Justice Leveson took over the inquiry. We, as a minority party, were never part of the all-party talks, although the official Opposition have kept us in the loop, to their credit. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said, we should be kept in the loop, which would be perfectly fine.

On the programme motion, of course, we are not part of the foul waters of the usual channels.

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

Foul waters indeed.

[Mr Llwyd]

The foulest in Europe, apparently—and that is why we are not part of them, probably.

On a serious point, even with the amended timetable we are still pretty well limited in terms of discussing Leveson, and we know that there are many opinions within the House on the Front, Back and middle Benches, on what we should do next. One thing is certain: the people out there demand that we get this right and, if we do this in this piecemeal, last-minute, eleventh-hour way, it will be an ignominious start to any proceedings on getting Leveson right.

I echo what was said by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and I agree with many things that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said. We do need to have sufficient time to debate this issue. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) said that we could dispense with programming if we want to be in the Chamber until 5 am or 6 am on every Bill. That is patently nonsense, because in the 1992 Parliament that happened occasionally when the Maastricht treaty was debated, but not all the time. There are some Bills that require greater debate and scrutiny, but the flexibility to provide that is missing from all of this. That is extremely unfortunate because, with the best will in the world—with the benign Government we have now and any Government who may follow—the Executive are riding roughshod over us. This is not what Parliament is meant to be.

00:00

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

There are two parts to our deliberation: first, whether the House should programme business at all; and secondly, a specific set of points about provision for discussion of Leveson. On the first part, within about a minute, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) went from describing me as a great democrat, which is extremely flattering, to suggesting that I was an exponent of Stalinist central control. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), however, said that we had a benign Government, so we need to discuss whether Stalinism can be benign. I hope that we are on the benign end of the scale.

There was a vote only a few months ago not to reduce the number of hours, but to adjust Tuesday sitting hours and other provisions, so that we would finish, apart from in exceptional circumstances, at 7 o’clock on Tuesday evening, rather than at 10 o’clock. The majority of Members who voted in that Division favoured the earlier finish on Tuesday. I was not one of them, but the majority made that decision. I do not detect—but I am not responsible for these matters—a groundswell of support for the proposal routinely to sit late into the night to deliberate on Bills, as most Members find it helpful to timetable our business, as long as the Executive make reasonable provision for those deliberations. As I have tried to explain, we are doing precisely that with the Bill.

On the new dimension of Leveson and the points made by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), for the benefit of the House, may I underline the crucial point? The Government will bring forward a supplementary programme motion if the cross-party talks have concluded, whether that is with or without agreement. If those talks have concluded, we will introduce a supplementary programme motion. With that assurance, the Opposition amendment is not necessary. If those talks have not concluded, we can proceed as we are currently proceeding, and if they have concluded, the Government have given an undertaking—I have given that undertaking on behalf of the Government—that we would in those circumstances introduce a supplementary programme motion. As for the question of when we will introduce that motion, which was raised by the right hon. Member for Delyn, the answer is that we will do so when the cross-party talks have concluded, either with or without agreement.

[Chris Bryant]

There are two issues that the Minister has not addressed. First, we do not know what “concluded” means. It could mean “came to a conclusion with which everybody agreed”, which might not be the view of the whole House, or it could mean “came to an end” because those talks collapsed. I should be grateful if the Minister provided clarification. Secondly, he has not told us which day has been chosen for the second day. If it is still next Monday, it will be virtually impossible for Members to table amendments that could be selected for Monday, unless there is an announcement today.

[Mr Browne]

On the first point, on when something can be said to have concluded, I had not realised that that was something on which I would be called to judge. It is when it has finished, I suppose: when there is no more left to discuss, or when the cross-party talks have concluded—[Interruption]—as I said, with or without agreement. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) asked what would happen if they had come to an end but there was no agreement. In that case, they would conclude without agreement. When the process of cross-party talks has been exhausted, that is the point at which a supplementary programme motion will be—

[Ian Lucas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Browne]

Wait a second. Hon. Members keep making points that I am about to address in response to the contribution of the right hon. Member for Delyn. When the talks have concluded, whether with or without agreement, we will bring forward a supplementary programme motion: that is the first point. Secondly, on when that will take place—

[Ian Lucas]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

Okay. Given that I am trying to help the House by responding to questions in the debate, I shall give way, but then I shall get down to answering the core points.

[Ian Lucas]

Who makes the decision on whether the talks have concluded or not?

[Mr Browne]

The participants in the talks, I assume. It will be apparent to them whether they have finished talking. I do not want to make it sound like a papal exercise, but I am sure that the appropriate metaphorical smoke will come out of Government buildings and everyone will be able to recognise when talks are no longer taking place.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

I am fearful of running out of time before I have answered the substantive points, rather than the issue of whether a conclusion means something has finished or not, which is a point that we could debate at length, but not very productively. On the substantive points, to which I have substantive answers to give, the right hon. Member for Delyn asked whether there would be a debate. The answer is yes. On the question of whether there will be a vote if the House wishes to vote, the answer is yes. This will be an amendment to legislation. There is provision to vote on all aspects of legislation, subject to the usual caveats and the Speaker’s discretion. Given that everything is subject to those caveats, the answer to the question of whether there will be a debate is yes; and yes, there will be an opportunity to vote.

On the question of when that will take place, at the moment the second day of our deliberations on the Bill is scheduled for Monday. I am not the Leader of the House—a far more distinguished Member has that role—but there is a business statement tomorrow. If the Government wished to suggest to the House that the business should be altered, that would be the appropriate time to do so, not now.

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister has made the position clear to the House. The official Opposition have taken from that that there will be a debate, there will be a vote, and there will be an announcement about both the supplementary programming motion and the day of the debate in business questions. On that basis, I am content, if the House will allow me, to withdraw the amendment, allowing the Government to continue the discussions that have commenced. That is our position, to reassure the Minister on those points.

[Mr Browne]

On that extremely consensual and sensible point, the Opposition spokesman has come to my view after some initial wobbles, and everyone agrees that I have come up with a very sensible way to proceed. On that basis, I hope that the House endorses by popular acclaim the Government’s proposal, so there is no need to proceed to a vote.

[Mr Hanson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[1st Allocated Day]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee.

New Clause 3

Modification of NCA functions

‘(1) The Secretary of State may, by order, make—

(a) provision about NCA counter-terrorism functions (and, in particular, may make provision conferring, removing, or otherwise modifying such functions); and

(b) other provision which the Secretary of State considers necessary in consequence of provision made under paragraph (a) (and, in particular, may make provision about the functions of any person other than the NCA, including provision conferring or otherwise modifying, but not removing, such functions).

(2) If an order under this section confers an NCA counter-terrorism function, an NCA officer may only carry out activities in Northern Ireland for the purpose of the discharge of the function if the NCA officer does so with the agreement of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

(3) That includes cases where an order under this section confers an NCA counter-terrorism function by the modification of a function.

(4) An order under this section may amend or otherwise modify this Act or any other enactment.

(5) An order under this section is subject to the super-affirmative procedure (see section 43 and Schedule 22).

(6) In this section “NCA counter-terrorism function” means an NCA function relating to terrorism (and for this purpose “terrorism” has the same meaning as in the Terrorism Act 2000 — see section 1 of that Act).’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

13:30

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—National Crime Agency review—

‘A review shall be completed within 12 months of Royal Assent of the functions and operations of the National Crime Agency with particular regard to—

(a) the governance structures as set out in section 1, together with resources, training and inspection; and

(b) operational and governance arrangements between the UK Government, the Department of Justice, Northern Ireland and the Scottish Government with particular reference to asset recovery.’.

Government new schedule 1—‘The NCA: Northern Ireland.

Government amendment 4.

Amendment 3, in clause 7, page 6, line 37, at beginning insert

‘Subject to approval by the Secretary of State for the Home Department,’.

Amendment 95, in page 10, line 15, leave out clause 12.

Amendment 102, page 11, line 1, leave out clause 13.

Government amendments 5 to 9, 76, 72 to 74, 85 and 87.

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to the amendments and thus begin our deliberations on Report. The Government amendments in this group deal with two substantive issues: first, whether the Bill should include a mechanism to confer counter-terrorism functions on the National Crime Agency; and secondly, the extent to which the NCA should operate in Northern Ireland. I will deal with each issue in turn.

New clause 3 seeks to restore to the Bill the power to confer counter-terrorism functions on the NCA by means of an order, subject to the super-affirmative procedure. The House will be aware that on Report the other place removed from the Bill what was then clause 2. In explaining why we have brought back this clause, it is worth reiterating the comments of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Second Reading. She said:

“I have been clear that no decision on this issue has been taken and that none will be taken until after the NCA has been established and following a detailed review. However, the creation of a national crime agency with a national remit to combat serious, organised and complex crime invites the question whether it should take on national functions in respect of counter-terrorism policing.”

She continued:

“ I do not come to this question with any preconceived ideas about what the answer should be, but it was prudent, in my view, for the Bill as originally introduced to have included a future-proofing provision.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 635.]

Since then we have reflected further on concerns raised in the other place that this was not an appropriate matter to be left to secondary legislation. This theme was also a feature of the debates in this House, both on Second Reading and in Committee.

Having reflected carefully on the debates on this issue thus far, and on the reports by the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Government remain firmly of the view that this is an appropriate matter for secondary legislation and that the super-affirmative procedure provides a sufficient level of parliamentary scrutiny. Indeed, the conditions that are tied to it provide ample opportunity for this House and the other place to scrutinise any such order.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Browne]

Let me finish the point first.

There is a duty on the Home Secretary to consult persons affected before laying a draft order. There is then an opportunity for Committees of either House to scrutinise the draft order—I envisage that this task would fall to the Home Affairs Committee—and then the draft order must be approved by both Houses of Parliament. This is not a parliamentary process that we take lightly or that would be taken lightly by either House. For that reason we believe that it would entail the appropriate level of scrutiny to satisfy those who rightly take a close interest in these matters.

[Paul Goggins]

My question is a simple one. Why did the Minister not table new clause 3 in Committee and allow the Committee to scrutinise in detail and in depth the proposal that he is now making? He will remember the exchanges that he had with various Members in Committee. It is disingenuous to table the new clause on Report and not to have allowed the Committee to have a detailed debate. He has been doing a lot of reflecting. Why did he not reflect on the detail of the debate that we could have had in Committee?

[Mr Browne]

It seems to me that this is not a very substantive issue; it is a procedural issue. The Government have not taken a view as to whether counter-terrorism should be transferred into the NCA. The NCA is not even up and running yet. It requires the assent of the House before we get to that stage, and we have said that when the NCA is up and running, that is something that the Home Secretary may wish to consider.

If the Government recommend at a future date that counter-terrorism functions should be transferred to the NCA, there is, as I have just explained, a provision for that to be considered in great detail. I will repeat it briefly in case hon. Members did not latch on to the point—that is why I made it before giving way: there is a duty on the Home Secretary to consult persons affected before laying a draft order, then there is an opportunity for Committees of either House to scrutinise the draft order, and I said that I envisage that task falling to the Home Affairs Committee, a cross-party Committee chaired by a distinguished member of the Opposition, and then the draft order must explicitly be approved by both Houses.

When it comes to deliberating on the content of the proposal, as distinct from the parliamentary mechanisms—the merits or otherwise of counter-terrorism being exercised by the National Crime Agency—if that process of deliberation is necessary, because the Government regard that as a wise way to proceed, there will be the opportunity for Members to make their views clearly known. But the question we are considering is whether it is suitable and appropriate for that provision to be made in the Bill, using the super-affirmative procedure. I hope that the House is persuaded by what I have just said about there being ample opportunity to debate the substance of these matters and that it is therefore an appropriate way to proceed.

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

The Minister describes a substantive and exhaustive process of parliamentary scrutiny. Is he aware that the Home Affairs Committee has already considered the issue and that we recommended—unanimously, I believe—that the transfer of counter-terrorism powers from the Met to the National Crime Agency should take place once that agency is up and running and when the Government believe it is the right time to do it?

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s interest in the matter. I am cautious about getting ahead of ourselves. We envisage the National Crime Agency coming into operation fully on 1 October, but of course that is subject to the House giving its assent to that proposition during the two days of deliberation on Report and Third Reading, and we should not take the wishes of the House for granted. Then Royal Assent is necessary. The NCA will have considerable and wide-ranging powers, and I think everybody would accept that it is sensible for it to bed down and establish itself.

There is a perfectly legitimate debate to be had about where this extremely important function should be exercised. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend. He puts forward a point of view that many people agree with, but there are people who will take a contrary view. There will be a suitable time to deliberate on the matter. I want to assure the House that we believe that the super-affirmative procedure will allow more than adequate time for that debate and for those issues to be properly aired. Any decision to give the NCA a counter-terrorism role will be an important one; we have no wish to diminish, impede or lose those aspects of the current arrangements that work well.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

The Minister will be aware that there are particular arrangements in Northern Ireland for dealing with counter-terrorism, so it is important not only that that is debated, discussed and consulted on in this place, but that there is the opportunity for the Northern Ireland situation specifically to be considered. Can he give us an assurance today that that will be the case?

[Mr Browne]

By the time I get to the end of my speech, the hon. Lady will be in no doubt that all Northern Ireland aspects of the Bill and how we deal with serious crime and terrorism will be given a strong airing. If I can make progress, large parts of my speech deal with issues that relate directly to Northern Ireland.

Currently, counter-terrorism policing is a partnership endeavour among all UK police forces. Chief constables, each of whom retains full authority over policing in their force area, maintain a framework of agreements on how the various national counter-terrorism policing functions are distributed between forces, and how those national functions support forces in both proactive and reactive operations. However, with the creation of the National Crime Agency, it is reasonable, as I hope I explained satisfactorily to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), that the Government should want to consider afresh how the current counter-terrorism policing arrangements work and review whether the NCA could play a role to enhance our response to the terrorist threat. Those questions can be sensibly considered only after the NCA is up and running, and only then after a full review.

As I said at the outset, and as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear, the position remains that the Government have no preconceived notion—others will—as to the outcome of a review of counter-terrorism policing arrangements and any future role of the NCA in them. However, we continue to believe that it is right to build into the Bill the flexibility to implement the outcome of such a review in a timely fashion through secondary legislation, but subject to a high level of parliamentary scrutiny in the form of the super-affirmative procedure, as I hope I have explained, and that we should be able to proceed on that basis. The Government would rightly be criticised if we could not implement the findings of a review for a year or more for want of the necessary primary legislation. We believe that this is the best way to strike the right balance between being able to move quickly in this extremely important area, but without undue haste.

Let us not confuse the point at issue. It is not about whether or not the NCA should exercise counter-terrorism functions; that debate is for the future. The issue today is the mechanism by which such functions could be bestowed on the agency. The Committee tasked with examining such matters in the other place said that

“the idea of adding to a statutory body’s functions by subordinate legislation subject to a Parliamentary procedure is well established”.

Of course, it is for this House to come to its own view on the matter, but I put it to all Members present that this is a perfectly proper way of proceeding and invite them and the House to support the new clause.

On the NCA and Northern Ireland, and particularly new schedule 1, it is with great regret that I must inform the House that I will have to table amendments limiting the role of the NCA in Northern Ireland. As the House will be aware, we have been unable to secure the agreement of the Northern Ireland Executive to take forward a legislative consent motion for either the NCA or the amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. To say that that is a disappointing outcome does not do justice to the implications for the effectiveness of the NCA and, more importantly, the protection of the people of Northern Ireland. The Government are being up front about that. It is not the outcome we sought, but we are obviously required to deal with the situation as it is, rather than as we would wish it to be.

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

rose—

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

I will give way, but I am delivering a substantive passage of my speech, which will be of great interest to Members from Northern Ireland and elsewhere, so if I give way too often there is a danger that I might end up revealing the details of what I wish to say in a less structured way. Having said that, I know that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) wishes to speak.

[Mr Dodds]

I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to put on the record at the outset the fact that the Democratic Unionist party shares his disappointment that this has been unable to proceed in the way that was planned. It was certainly not for want of trying on the part of the DUP.

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and pleased that I gave way, because I share his anguish. I want all people in the United Kingdom, regardless of which part they live in, to be as protected as possible by the agencies of the state from the risks they might be exposed to from serious and organised crime. Clearly, the NCA is being brought into being because we regard it as an important institution for protecting the public from serious and organised crime. Many of its functions will apply in Northern Ireland, but they will not apply there as extensively as they will in England, which is a source of regret.

[Sammy Wilson]

The Minister is quite right that this is a very serious issue in Northern Ireland. We, too, wish to see the protections he has outlined. Given that Ministers hinted in Committee that if provisions in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill are not given legislative consent motions by the Northern Ireland Assembly, Ministers might well legislate anyway, will he apply the same rule and approach on the NCA?

13:45

[Mr Browne]

I do not have a speaking note on that point. I, like most Members, have received a number of representations on the merits or otherwise of same-sex marriage, and I do not wish to expand that debate by speaking from the Dispatch Box on the application of same-sex marriage provisions in Northern Ireland and how they might or might not impact on the National Crime Agency. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I think it will probably be most helpful if I do not take interventions for a short while, because there have been many discussions and negotiations on Northern Ireland and it is important to get on the record where we stand and what provisions will apply there, because clearly some will still apply, although they are less extensive than we would have wished them to be. Therefore, I will get to the detail of where we stand, because the amendments are required to put that into practice.

We will, of course, do our utmost to minimise the operational impact of the Northern Ireland Executive’s decision—that is what new schedule 1 seeks to do—while respecting the Sewel convention. However, the House should be under no illusion: the decision will have implications for the fight against serious and organised crime in Northern Ireland. Yet it was in full knowledge and recognition of those implications that the Executive came to their decision.

Let me be clear that the NCA will continue to operate on a UK-wide basis, including in Northern Ireland, but the Executive’s decision means that the NCA’s activities in Northern Ireland will be curtailed. For example, NCA officers in Northern Ireland can no longer be designated with the powers of a Northern Ireland constable. However, there is still much the NCA can do to tackle serious, organised and complex crime in Northern Ireland, both through its own investigations and by supporting the Police Service of Northern Ireland and other agencies. Importantly, the strong operational relationship that the Serious Organised Crime Agency has built up with the PSNI, both through the SOCA officers based in Northern Ireland and across SOCA as a whole, will continue with the NCA.

Furthermore, NCA officers will still be able to use customs and immigration powers to take action against serious, organised and complex customs and immigration crimes. Operational partners will continue to be able to access the wider national specialist capabilities that will reside in the NCA, such as the new national cybercrime unit and the NCA’s network of international liaison officers.

However, that is not the best outcome for the people of Northern Ireland. The NCA will be able to continue the fight against serious and organised crime and immigration crime, which I am pleased about. I know that Keith Bristow, who will run the NCA, is committed to ensuring that it will make a significant contribution to the overall law enforcement effort in Northern Ireland, but that is not the same as having a fully operational NCA working to support the efforts and important work of the PSNI.

Before getting into the detail of new schedule 1, I want to pay tribute to the tireless efforts of David Ford, the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, and his officials to drive forward the discussions in Northern Ireland, sometimes in the face of considerable difficulty and opposition. Indeed, the negotiations are continuing. His support for the NCA has been unswerving, as has his commitment to ensuring that it would work effectively with, and complement, the important post-devolution police accountability arrangements in Northern Ireland. Since the initial proposals for the National Crime Agency were published, the Government have been clear in their commitment to ensure that the need for an effective UK-wide response to serious and organised crime is balanced against the need to respect the devolution settlement.

The Bill as introduced included a number of new safeguards, above and beyond those provided for in respect of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, to ensure that the NCA reflected the devolution arrangements and the real sensitivities relating to accountability for policing in Northern Ireland. For example, in the initial Bill the directed tasking arrangements were limited to England and Wales, the directed assistance provisions included an additional consultative role for the Northern Ireland Policing Board, and we extended the remit of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland to cover complaints in relation to asset recovery. I maintain, therefore, that the Government were alert from the outset to the specific sensibilities in Northern Ireland. We have not sought to railroad through a rigid uniformity that is blind to those sensitivities.

Even with all those safeguards we were prepared to go further to address the Executive’s concerns and agreed in principle to provide further changes to the Bill provided that a legislative consent motion was forthcoming. However, even with that initial good will and those additional changes, the Executive could not agree. Despite the situation in which we find ourselves, we remain committed to the principle of a fully operational NCA in Northern Ireland. The amendments will provide flexibility so that, should the position in Northern Ireland change, we can make provision for the NCA to have a full operational role there beyond what is currently possible.

Our approach in new schedule 1 is to limit the extent of the “relevant NCA provisions” so that we do not legislate on transferred matters without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Sewel convention is an important part of the devolution settlement established by the previous Administration and it is one to which this Government are equally committed.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

Let me proceed a little and then I will give way.

The table in paragraph 9 sets out the “relevant NCA provisions” that do not extend to Northern Ireland. Notable among those provisions that will not apply are the ability to designate NCA officers with the powers of a Northern Ireland constable in schedule 5, the oversight of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland in schedule 6, and, importantly, the duty of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to co-operate with the NCA and other duties in schedule 3. Importantly, the new schedule also provides a series of order-making powers in paragraphs 1 to 5 so that, should the position of the Northern Ireland Executive change, the NCA provisions can be extended to Northern Ireland, subject, of course, to the agreement of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

As I have said, I regret that it has been necessary to table new schedule 1. This does not, however, mark the end of our negotiations on the role that the National Crime Agency should play in Northern Ireland. I fervently hope that the narrowing of the NCA’s remit in Northern Ireland will be a temporary measure. We will continue to strive for an equitable agreement between the parties in Northern Ireland and, once secured, this new schedule will ensure that we have the necessary order-making powers to give effect to such an arrangement. I hope that that has provided clarity on this important issue.

[Mark Reckless]

Will the Minister clarify whether the two strands of his speech interact? If powers were transferred from the Met to the NCA and the NCA was unable to conduct anti-terrorism work in Northern Ireland, would that provide a contrast with the current situation? If the transfer happened without the changes that the Minister hopes for, would the Met be able to pursue anti-terrorism work in Northern Ireland that the NCA could not?

[Mr Browne]

Although the Met takes the lead, each individual police force is responsible for its own activities. An important change is the NCA’s ability to task police forces—in other words, their sovereignty would no longer be absolute, because the NCA could, in extremis, require a police force to undertake certain actions. That is not the case with the Metropolitan police. It is conceivable that some in Northern Ireland will be unwilling to be tasked in that way, but a lot of collaborative work takes place in any case. Activities that fund terrorism, rather than terrorism itself, would come under the category of serious and organised crime, which could be dealt with.

[Mr Dodds]

As the Minister outlined the provisions and voiced regret at having to table new schedule 1, the disservice and disadvantage done to the people of Northern Ireland by Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labour party became more apparent. He also mentioned the Government’s commitment to the Sewel convention on the devolution settlement and my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) raised the issue of principle. Will the Minister confirm that, if the Sewel convention is to be respected in this case, it will also be respected in relation to all Government measures?

[Mr Browne]

I think it would be more proper for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to answer that question on behalf of the Government. I was answering the specific question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood about the function of the NCA. Were the NCA to be given a counter-terrorism function in the future, it would be able to exercise that function in Northern Ireland only with the prior agreement of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I am afraid that the question of how legislation that is not relevant to the Home Office or the NCA applies to Northern Ireland is not in my remit.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I will deal with the questions raised by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) about my party’s position if I catch your eye later, Mr Speaker.

The Minister has clarified the situation with regard to those NCA provisions that are precluded for now, but they do not include the criminal intelligence function in clause 1(5). Under that provision, will the NCA run its own informers and direct surveillance or similar in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Browne]

It would probably be better if I avoided talking about operational matters with regard to the prevention of serious and organised crime in the United Kingdom. I will reflect on whether I can assist the hon. Gentleman—without compromising operations, which none of us would want—before I conclude my speech.

I have been speaking for half an hour. This debate is mainly about the possibility of conferring powers on the NCA to deal with counter-terrorism and the changes we have to make with regard to Northern Ireland, but let me touch briefly on the remaining Government amendments in this group. Amendment 4 to clause 2 will convert the existing power on the Home Secretary to set strategic priorities for the NCA into a duty to do so. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) tabled a similar amendment in Committee and I undertook to consider it. As I am a collegiate Minister who is always impressed by the power of the right hon. Gentleman’s arguments, even when I do not agree with them, I was keen to accommodate his views. Members of the Committee will be familiar with the arguments for that change.

The Home Secretary’s role in setting the strategic direction of the NCA is obviously of central importance and the Government’s intention has always been that the Home Secretary would set the strategic priorities in accordance with the power granted by clause 2. On that basis, this reasonable amendment reflects what we had envisaged in any case.

The other Government amendments in the group are either consequential on new clause 3 and new schedule 1 or, in the case of amendments 5 to 7 and 9 to schedule 8, are of a technical or drafting nature and make further consequential amendments to other enactments as a result of the establishment of the National Crime Agency.

14:00

I have given a decent run-in to our deliberations, so will finish by coming back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). The criminal intelligence function relates to sharing information and is not about informants. The NCA will retain powers and techniques under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, but that is a separate matter and a reserved one.

I hope that I have addressed all the Government proposals to the satisfaction of the House.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

New clause 3 and the other amendments before the House concern important issues that are fundamentally to do with protecting our society from terrorist activity. We must get these matters right. We must consider the concerns of another place and those who are involved in these issues on a day-to-day basis. I continue to have key concerns about the new clause.

The Government have tabled new clause 3 on Report following the removal of the original clause 2 in another place earlier this year. The Home Secretary has said:

“I have been clear that no decision on this issue has been taken and that none will be taken until after the NCA has been established and following a detailed review.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 635.]

I welcome that no decision has been taken and that consideration is being given to whether it is best for terrorism functions to remain with the Metropolitan police as the co-ordinating body, whether they should be transferred to the National Crime Agency or whether there is a third model that the Government could consider.

I am concerned that new clause 3 will give the Government an order-making power to implement a major change. As we have heard from hon. Gentlemen from different parties in Northern Ireland, this change would have great import and ramifications in Northern Ireland, with respect not just to terrorism and policing but to confidence in communities. I cannot support the Government’s proposal of an order-making power that would receive limited debate in this place.

I accept that these are serious issues. I remind the Minister of the concerns that were raised in another place, not just by Labour Members such as my noble friend, Baroness Smith of Basildon, but by Cross-Bench Members, about the original clause 2, which was removed from the Bill and is effectively being reintroduced with new clause 3. I fear that if the Minister proceeds to insert new clause 3 into the Bill, there will be further discussion in another place about the merits of that proposal and the concerns that were expressed when the Bill was last considered will be revisited.

Lord Blair of Boughton, who is a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner and now sits as a Cross Bencher in another place, said that

“a number of noble Lords expressed the sentiment that national security is the first duty of government. I agree with that point of view. I put my name to this amendment because I believe that Clause 2 directly affects national security and so, in my view, is more important than any other clause in this section of the Bill.”

He went on to say that

“in my lifetime no change more significant than this in the policing arrangements to protect our nation has ever been contemplated. A change in the NCA's responsibility may be right, but it may not be…Such a decision deserves primary legislation, to allow the suggestion to be scrutinised, debated and amended by both Houses of Parliament.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2012; Vol. 741, c. 114-115.]

The Minister’s proposal in new clause 3 will deny the opportunity for primary legislation to be used to deal with this issue.

I have an open mind about where we should end up on this issue. This debate is not about making the final decision about where terrorism functions should lie. We can have a debate about that. However, it is important not only that the review that the Minister has talked about takes place, but that both Houses of Parliament have an opportunity to reflect on it in a measured and considered way.

The Minister said that we are going to have a busy programme. I remind him that we are likely to have a light legislative programme this year and that swathes of time are available because of changes such as what happened to reform of the House of Lords. The Minister knows that at any time he can negotiate and secure time in this House for speedy legislation on matters of great import. He also knows, without giving any secrets away, that there is bound to be a criminal justice Bill of some form in the forthcoming Gracious Speech, to which new clauses could be added. It is therefore disingenuous of him to say that it is not practical or possible to have primary legislation to effect these changes.

New clause 3 would provide for a limited debate in this House on massive changes and significant issues that relate to the safety of citizens across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. As the Minister has indicated, and as I will come on to when I speak to new schedule 1, he has not yet secured agreement for the National Crime Agency to operate in Northern Ireland. Given that the National Crime Agency will tackle big issues such as fuel smuggling and people trafficking, which are often linked to the funding of terrorism in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, it is not good enough for the Minister to propose an order-making power, super-affirmative though the procedure may be, to deliberate and agree on these proposals.

If the Minister does not accept what Lord Blair says, perhaps he will accept the view of the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Lord Condon, who said:

“This is a hugely important matter that deserves primary legislation rather than an affirmative order… History tells us that more than 80% of terrorist incidents in this country happen in London.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2012; Vol. 741, c. 116.]

Two former Metropolitan Police Commissioners say that this matter should be considered through primary legislation, but the Minister still wants to bring forward a super-affirmative order.

I hope that I am not doing him a disservice if I quote the views of the current Metropolitan Police Commissioner from an article in The Times:

“Bernard Hogan-Howe said he believed that the link between local policing and counter-terrorism police had been essential to the success of the anti-terror strategy in Britain.”

The article goes on:

“‘What is the problem we are trying to remedy here?’ he asked. ‘And if there is to be a change, there will be a cost—at a time of austerity that will have to be considered.’”

I do not believe that that matter can be considered in the time available under the super-affirmative procedure.

We need to support the concerns that were expressed in another place. Unless something miraculous happens, I will not recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends support new clause 3, because I do not think that it is the appropriate way forward. The other place will consider the matter and we will deliberate on the views expressed there in due course.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

As I have said, the Government have an open mind on this matter. We want to achieve the best possible protection for the public. However, the three people whom the right hon. Gentleman has cited as making the case for the Met police to continue to have the lead role on counter-terrorism are the commissioner of the Met police and two ex-commissioners of the Met police. One would expect those people to argue for the central role of the Met police. They are perhaps not such good authorities on the case for one form of parliamentary procedure and scrutiny over another. The Government will make their judgments and recommendations about where counter-terrorism should sit and people will want to contribute to that debate, but those three people have quite partial backgrounds. We will ensure that the House has the adequate opportunity to scrutinise whatever the Government propose.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the Minister. Perhaps between now and the super-affirmative order coming forward he will guarantee that he will make the order amendable. It currently would not be amendable; for another place and this House it would be a question of take it or leave it. Primary legislation would allow either House to examine the proposals and amend, refine or challenge them, but a super-affirmative order would not.

I say gently to the Minister that although three Metropolitan Police Commissioners may have an interest in the Metropolitan police, they have been responsible for co-ordinating counter-terrorism activities. If they raise concerns, he has a duty to allow them to be listened to. The concerns are not about the ultimate position but about whether it can be reached via primary legislation so that either House can make tweaks. The Minister is simply saying that the Government will review the matter and decide on it, and then table a take-it-or-leave-it order for both Houses to decide on. That is not an appropriate way forward.

[Paul Goggins]

My right hon. Friend is doing an excellent job of highlighting the Government’s inconsistency on the issue. Does he recall that earlier in this Parliament the Government insisted that provisions for enhanced terrorism prevention and investigation measures or the extension of pre-charge detention beyond 14 days could be made only through fresh primary legislation? Now they want to give the Home Secretary the power to transfer the lead responsibility for counter-terrorism to the National Crime Agency through secondary legislation. It is completely inconsistent.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who knows what he is talking about. He had to take executive decisions on important matters, particularly to do with Northern Ireland and terrorism, at a time when Northern Ireland was not as stable as it is now, even though there are challenges today.

I say gently to the Minister that he should listen to some of the experience that is out there. This is not about the end product, because we can debate that and the review will raise a number of issues about it. It is about how we get consent to that end product, which could be through amendments to legislation. I defy him to say that there is no time for legislation to be brought forward in the next 12 months, either as a new clause to another Bill or as a stand-alone Bill, to make the changes in question. I do not believe that is the case, and I think he is being disingenuous—dare I say that? Perhaps I should say that he is reflecting on the matter in a way that I would not wish him to reflect.

The situation with regard to Northern Ireland is a bit of a shambles. I fully understand why political parties in Northern Ireland have taken the view that they have, and why it is important that the Government do not legislate for Northern Ireland. However, I ask the Minister who is responsible for negotiating with the Northern Ireland Assembly to get some traction on the matter. I have tabled questions to the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office, and both have said that they are meeting David Ford, the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, on a regular basis. However, who is taking on the challenge of ensuring that the Northern Ireland Policing Board, the four or five political parties represented there and the people who have concerns about the proposal, as well as those from all sides who do not, are heard? What is the process, and how is it being taken forward?

The Bill has been trailed for perhaps 18 months, and it was produced in another place and has been debated in the Commons. The issue has arisen not this week but over many months. The National Crime Agency will not have input into key issues in Northern Ireland, including drug trafficking, fuel laundering, smuggling and a range of serious organised crime. Its relationship with the Police Service of Northern Ireland is still to be defined in a practical way. How has it come to that point?

14:15

[Sammy Wilson]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but does he accept that although the Government are to be faulted on many things, a lot of the issues that people wanted addressed in negotiations with the Northern Ireland Minister were addressed? However, two parties are still suspicious of any policing arrangements that are UK-wide rather than based purely in Northern Ireland. They will never be convinced, and that is one reason why the Minister’s job is so difficult.

[Mr Hanson]

I understand that point. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I did two years in Northern Ireland, and I accept and understand the difficulties of that position. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) also served in Northern Ireland, and my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will speak on his party’s views shortly. I always regret that Sinn Fein Members do not give their view to Members of Parliament in this House, but that is a separate issue.

I understand where the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) is coming from, but the issue is still open to negotiation, because even if we accept new schedule 1 today, the NCA will not operate in Northern Ireland and there will be only an affirmative order to put that arrangement in place at some point in future. There will therefore still have been no resolution of the difference of opinion. The Minister has a duty to tell the House how he intends to bridge that gap strategically.

[Naomi Long]

When the right hon. Gentleman said that he did two years in Northern Ireland, it sounded more like a sentence than a pleasure. I am sure that was not intentional. Does he agree that the problem is much more significant than simply leaving Northern Ireland at an operational disadvantage, which will clearly happen? There is currently a duty on the PSNI to co-operate with the Serious Organised Crime Agency, but that will go once the Bill comes in. Even the basic duty to co-operate will be removed from the NCA if there is not an agreement otherwise.

[Mr Hanson]

I reassure the hon. Lady that I loved every minute of my time in Northern Ireland and was sorry to be airlifted out on the day when, fortunately and for good purposes, devolved government was restored and my time there finished.

The hon. Lady will be aware that clause 14 will abolish SOCA, which currently operates with the PSNI to tackle issues such as we have discussed. After Royal Assent, there will be nothing in place. I do not want the Minister simply to say, “Well, we’ll have an affirmative order”. He needs to explain to the House what will happen after Royal Assent, when the NCA is not operating in Northern Ireland.

[Mark Durkan]

Does the shadow Minister recognise that when the Bill first emerged in draft, some of us pointed out in questions to both Northern Ireland Office and Home Office Ministers that there would be serious implications and sensitivities in Northern Ireland, which would need to be sorted out? However, the Bill was handled in such a way that it was left to privileged negotiations and discussions between Department of Justice officials in Belfast and the Home Office here. The parties in Northern Ireland were only latterly involved. That is why we now have the crazy situation that time has been added on at the end of the discussions on the Bill. There should have been proper discussion and consultation time at the beginning.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because that is the point that I am making. Where is the Northern Ireland Office in this? Are discussions taking place with the political parties in Northern Ireland to resolve the situation? A number of parties and their representatives have different views, such as the hon. Member for East Antrim, representatives of Sinn Fein and my hon. Friend himself.What discussions are taking place with those parties to resolve that situation? The situation is still in play, and when Royal Assent is achieved, the Serious Organised Crime Agency will not operate in Northern Ireland. That is of regret to the Minister and to me. More importantly, the Justice Minister, David Ford, said that blocking the new crime agency is a “mistake” that could have serious implications for the police. He stated:

“There is a real danger if it does not go ahead there will be very significant costs to the police both in terms of time and finances and that we will have an inferior response to the serious organised crime that we face”.

The police are understood to share the Justice Minister’s concerns, and the Minister needs to reflect on them. I will not oppose the new schedule, but I hope that he listens to what has been said and comes back to the House at an early opportunity to say how he will bring forward negotiations to conclude the matter.

New clause 2, which is in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, seeks a review, 12 months after Royal Assent, of the functions and operation of the National Crime Agency, particularly in relation to its governance structures. We had a full debate on that in Committee and I will not repeat those points today because of the limited time available. The Minister knows, however, that we think there is an alternative model to governance in which the NCA does not just report directly to the Home Secretary. Will the Minister consider whether in 12 months’ time, following Royal Assent, we could review how his model has operated? If it operates well and has been good and effective, fine; but if not, can we review it? A formal review is the purpose of new clause 2, including the

“operational and governance arrangements between the UK Government, the Department of Justice…and the Scottish Government with particular reference to asset recovery”.

I will not touch on asset recovery now as we will discuss it in a later debate, but there is a big hole in the Bill on that issue and how it fits into a UK structure. A review 12 months after Royal Assent, as demanded by new clause 2, would simply require the matter to be considered in detail.

Amendment 3, which is in my name, concerns giving political oversight to decisions made by the director general of the NCA in response to international requests for assistance, and for consideration of an international response to emergency situations. Under clause 7, the director general can decide to examine the provision of assistance to a country or territory outside the British Isles. Subsection (3) states:

“The Director General may provide assistance to…a government in a country or territory outside the British Islands…if the government, or the body, requests assistance”.

My amendment would simply mean that that should be with the support and agreement of the Home Secretary, and I tabled it for two reasons.

First, there may be countries that request or are looking for support from the National Crime Agency but about which the Government of the day might have concerns. Let us suppose, for example, that the Syrian Government or the Zimbabwean Government asked for help and support from the NCA, . Those are politically difficult issues that Ministers would want to have oversight of because Ministers are ultimately accountable to the House for the operation of the NCA. A system that allows the director of the NCA to agree that help and support can be given on request or by decision, but that ultimately the Minister, Home Secretary or a delegated Minister has oversight of and understands and agrees, would be helpful. When I was a Minister I agreed on many occasions to police forces sending people overseas to help with a range of activities. It is important that Ministers have such oversight, even if they do not ultimately have a veto.

I also tabled amendment 3 because I am concerned that officers may be in danger in certain countries and, again, Ministers are ultimately accountable to this House. In future, the National Crime Agency director may well have NCA officers in Afghanistan, Mali, Nigeria or Iraq—who knows? It could be any country in which the NCA is providing assistance or has been requested to do so on matters of serious organised crime. When officers go into areas of danger, political oversight is important as a Minister will ultimately be accountable in the Chamber if things go wrong.

I welcome amendment 4. I proposed it in Committee and it has been brought back by the Minister in a slightly amended form: the word “will” has been replaced with the word “must”—such is the Government’s wish to grab hold of the Bill and not let anybody amend it word by word, even though the principle is the same. However, I welcome the fact that I did not entirely waste my time in Committee, and that the measure was accepted by the Government.

I understand where my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is coming from with his amendments as we had a full debate in Committee. I will not, however, be able to support the amendments to remove clauses 12 and 13, but if he wishes to make his case I am sure the House will listen. I think we need clauses 12 and 13 to ensure that the police and the National Crime Agency police do not have the rights that the removal of those clauses would give them.

Since the Committee stage, I have heard concerns from police officers about the automatic transfer of officers from forces to the National Crime Agency without consultation. I would welcome the Minister considering those concerns in due course and reflecting on them as part of our deliberations.

I am not convinced that new clause 3 is the best way forward, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject it. That is not because we do not want the matter resolved; we are not rejecting the review or the idea of examining those issues, but rather the immediate solution given by the Minister for an affirmative order. If the Minister does not withdraw the new clause—I suspect he will not—he may face a vote in the House.

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

I am in the rather strange position of wanting to support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), but I will not steal his thunder and will be as brief as possible. In particular, I agree with amendments 95 and 102. As we know, clause 12 would prohibit unions from instigating a strike affecting any officers working for the National Crime Agency who have operational powers. That would include the director general of the NCA, and it would give power to the Home Secretary to take civil action against any person or persons who might call, or incite, such a strike.

The Government seem to regard the serious-minded people who will be working in this field as little less than children who might run off on a whim and call a strike for no reason at all. The quality of those people does not indicate that that is the kind of thing they would do, but I do not think they should be deprived of rights that most workers are accorded. It is only right and proper for the Government to take a respectful approach to those workers and allow them the negotiating rights and further rights that most people have. Clause 12(4) goes as far as allowing the Home Secretary to seek an injunction restraining a threatened strike by National Crime Agency officers holding operational powers. I believe that such provisions are retrograde and hope that hon. Members will support amendment 95 that would delete clause 12 in its entirety.

I am equally opposed to the provisions in clause 13, which would allow the Home Secretary to pass regulations determining the pay, allowances and other terms and conditions of National Crime Agency officers designated with operational powers, including the director general of the NCA. Amendment 102 would delete the clause in its entirety.

Clause 24(2) would allow for the contracting out of all functions of fines officers. The clause also makes provision for the costs of collecting compensation, fines and other financial penalties to be recovered from other offenders. I share the concern of groups such as the Public and Commercial Services Union that the Bill would allow a crucial element of enforcing sentences to be privatised. That would mean private companies being in charge of carrying out quasi-judicial functions, such as making deductions from benefit orders and making attachment of earnings orders. That is a privatisation too far.

14:30

Let me return to the question of deleting clauses 12 and 13. When read in conjunction, they look worse than when read by themselves. What they say is: “You will not have rights that other trade unions have. We will appoint a form of board to determine your pay. End of story.” If ever there was an invitation to truss up a turkey and put it in the oven, this is it. Read together, clauses 12 and 13 will stitch up these people in the worst possible sense. This kind of legislation might have been in vogue 10 or 20 years ago, but it has no place in any modern democracy. By proceeding with it, the Government are undermining trust in these people and making them look like people who should not be in the jobs they are in or who will not act responsibly, which clearly they are not. Amendments 95 and 102 are well worthy of support, and I fully support my friend the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.

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

Let me say to my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench that I am extremely shocked by what has been said—that they are not willing to support my amendments. This is the first time in the history of the labour movement—the first time ever in the history of the Labour party—that this party has supported in Parliament the removal of trade union rights from trade unionists. That is a significant step and marks a historic change in attitude. I urge those on the Front Bench to use these moments in this debate to think about what they are doing.

This is the party that campaigned to redress the disgraceful treatment of GCHQ workers—if people remember—all through the ’80s and ’90s, when a Conservative Government removed their trade union rights. This is the party that gave commitments to the Prison Officers Association that we would address its complaint that a Conservative Government had removed the right to take strike action from prison officers. I urge Labour MPs and others—anyone who is in the Chamber and anyone watching this debate outside—to understand what is happening here today, because this is significant. This is not a minor matter; this is about taking away a basic human right from a group of workers. It has never been done before in the history of our party.

I am grateful to my friend the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) for curtailing his speech—we were slightly out of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I chair the PCS parliamentary group. It is a large group—I think we have 70-odd members on a cross-party basis—that represents the workers we are talking about. The PCS represents members in the Home Office and its agencies. It currently has about 2,700 members in the Serious Organised Crime Agency and will have between 3,350 and 3,500 members in the NCA when it is established. The whole discussion up to now has proceeded on the basis that these are civil servants, who respect the right of Government to govern and will therefore do all they can when there is a restructuring of Departments or Government agencies to ensure that they support the Government in that restructuring and implement the policies effectively. However, what the PCS seeks to do as a trade union is to protect its members’ basic rights, wages and working conditions.

The process of negotiation on the restructuring and the new agencies has been going on apace for a number of months. That is what trade unions do: they engage in negotiations. We thought that there would be discussions about negotiation structures and thus the opportunity to reach agreement, which is what has been achieved on a number of issues in these sorts of restructurings right across the civil service. However, we now have proposals, almost out of the blue, to introduce a no-strike provision and remove the right of this group of workers to take industrial action, as my friend the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd said, and, in addition, to install a pay review body appointed by the Government, again without a negotiated agreement.

That is not the way to set up a new agency, lift people’s morale or secure their involvement and engagement in the implementation of policy; it is a rebuttal of all the negotiations that have taken place. It will mean that a large number of people will basically lose the right to take industrial action when they have a grievance. What we are talking about is some people who have the powers of a constable—the powers of arrest. I understand some of the concerns about that, but we are also talking about Revenue and Customs officers and immigration officers, who have been treated no differently in the past from any other civil servants. They have had the same rights of representation and the same trade union rights.

It is interesting that back in November the Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed its concerns about the plans for NCA officials with operational powers to be forbidden to take strike action. The Committee said:

“we question whether the Government has yet demonstrated by reference to actual evidence that there is a pressing need to restrict the right of NCA officers to take strike action, bearing in mind that SOCA has so far operated with no restrictions on its officers’ right to strike. In our view, NCA officers are closer to SOCA officers than police officers. Even if there were evidence of such a need, on the evidence currently available to us we do not consider it to be proportionate to apply the no-strike provision to NCA officers who hold some of the operational powers, including officers who only exercise the operational powers of a customs officer or immigration officer and not those of a constable.”

So this is a human rights issue: the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said so. It has expressed its concern while these discussions have been going on. To be frank, the industrial relations atmosphere has been good. There is no evidence of any demand from management for the new power. Quite the reverse: management have been proceeding in the normal way in the negotiations, to see what structures are required to ensure worker engagement.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

Given all the points the hon. Gentleman is making and that he started his speech by saying that this was a historic first for the Labour party, I am curious to know why he thinks those on the Labour Front Bench do not agree with his arguments.

[John McDonnell]

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but I am not playing party politics with this. I do not have a clue why not: this is the first time I knew of it. If this issue was dealt with in Committee and I missed it, I apologise, but I thought that the attitude was to listen and wait for this debate. I thought we would listen to the members themselves who are on the front line—some of them, just like police officers, risk their lives in the work they do—yet who have never caused a problem in industrial relations.

Management have not come forward with these proposals; they have been brought forward by the Government. This is a Government whim. Someone in Government decided it would be worth trying for a no-strike provision on this group of workers. It is the thin end of the wedge, because there are some Conservative Back Benchers who have been seeking to introduce a no-strike provision across whole sectors of industry. I think this is the start. This group of workers is the experiment, to see whether people will acquiesce, and I am amazed that those on the Labour Front Bench have rolled over. That sends a signal to this Government to come forward with proposals for the transport sector and many others, as some have been planning to do for many years. I am absolutely staggered. How can these measures be brought forward unopposed at this stage, when negotiations are continuing? There could have been a negotiated settlement on the new structures and we could have avoided this kind of imposition. I will not spend too long on this, because there is another debate in Westminster Hall on the privatisation of the probation service that I would like to get to. This just goes on and on, but at least my own side is putting up some opposition to those proposals.

Let us be clear what clauses 12 and 13 will do. They will take away from civil servants a fundamental right that they have at the moment: the right to take industrial action. This is the crossing of the Rubicon. The clauses will bring in a ban on industrial action that extends well beyond the police and prison officers, where it already exists, to civil servants, on whom such a ban has never been imposed before. This is an unnecessary and unwelcome political device that is being used by the Government to test the water around their future policies on trade union and employment rights in this country.

As I have said, I think this is the thin end of the wedge. If the clauses are accepted by the House—and certainly if they are accepted by my party—on this occasion, this will be used as an example in other areas. That is why I am urging people to vote against them, and I will seek to divide the House on the matter. If I have to walk through the Lobby on my own, I will do so, because this is a fundamental matter of principle.

The workers involved are dedicated civil servants, but they deserve the right to protection and to basic human and trade union rights if they feel that management or others are imposing something on them that is unacceptable. Most of them never go on strike or take industrial action, but they deserve to have the right to do so if necessary, because that is the only protection they have against oppressive management or employers.

I urge comrades on this side of the House—members of the parliamentary Labour party—to use whatever time we have left in the debate to think again. This is not a trivial matter. It is not a simple “tidying-up exercise” in employee-management relationships in the new body; it will undermine a fundamental human right. This Government have already been criticised for their refusal to give the right to industrial action back to prison officers. They were criticised by the International Labour Organisation for being in contravention of all the international conventions on employment rights, yet there are people here on the Labour Benches today who are rolling over without a whimper of opposition to extending that denial of human rights to this group of workers. That is unacceptable.

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope to call a Division on this matter when I have the opportunity to do so, and I urge Members to vote against the measures. This is a significant matter; it is absolutely critical. It is a matter of conscience, not a matter of administrative convenience for management and the Government. It is a basic human rights issue, and I urge Members to vote for our amendments.

[Sammy Wilson]

It is with regret that I see the references to Northern Ireland and the role of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland being removed from the Bill, and I want to put some questions to the Minister on this point. If any part of the United Kingdom needs the effective operation of a national crime agency, it is Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in this House has already identified the fact that hundreds of millions of pounds every year are lost to the Exchequer and go into the hands of criminal gangs, on many occasions to finance terrorist activities, as a result of fuel laundering alone. There are many other areas in which organised crime plays a big role in Northern Ireland. We need the National Crime Agency.

The role that the criminals play is not confined to Northern Ireland. Their tentacles spread well beyond Northern Ireland and dealing with them involves operational decisions that cannot be taken solely by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Indeed, the fact that they are now laundering their money across Europe and north America demonstrates the international dimension involved, and the PSNI cannot be expected to deal with them alone.

[Naomi Long]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a false interface is being created between terrorism and criminality, which is an extremely blurred area in Northern Ireland, in that the same people are often involved in both activities? Does he also agree that a false interface exists in the incorrect assumption that there is some kind of border beyond which the tentacles of those criminals cannot reach?

14:45

[Sammy Wilson]

Attempts have been made during the debate to make exactly that distinction, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that there is no such distinction.

It is surprising that the Northern Ireland Executive could not agree on having a legislative consent motion, which would have enabled the Bill to go through complete with its provisions for Northern Ireland. There has been some criticism of the Minister, and questions have been asked about what he has done for Northern Ireland. Extensive discussions have taken place between his Department and the Department of Justice and the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland. I know that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) is probably going to say that he wanted a more direct interface with his party and with Sinn Fein, but of course that is difficult, given that Sinn Fein refuses to take part in any of the activities of this House.

It is significant, however, that all the issues that the nationalist parties have raised in the past in relation to SOCA have been dealt with. Indeed, some of the arrangements went beyond that point when SOCA was being set up. As a former member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board, I can remember the discussions that took place at the time and the safeguards that were put in place as a result of concerns being raised by nationalist representatives.

The deliberations on this Bill went even further, and that makes this outcome even more surprising, given the assurances that were given about a role for the ombudsman, about the need to ensure that the activities of the National Crime Agency did not cross with any PSNI investigations, about the restrictions on the ability of the Justice Minister to direct the police service to co-operate with the NCA in investigations, and about the role of the surveillance commissioner. A range of issues have been dealt with and specifically tailored to the situation in Northern Ireland in response to the concerns expressed mostly by Sinn Fein and those in the nationalist community, yet there is still no agreement in the Executive.

I made a point to the Minister earlier about the chances of reaching such an agreement when the mindset is that any police or security activity that is based in the United Kingdom and not solely in Northern Ireland is unacceptable. It is extremely difficult to reach consensus on this matter. Suggestions have been made today as to what could be done. Perhaps we need more time. Would that provide the opportunity to iron out these issues? That is a reasonable suggestion, and it would be much better than pushing this Bill through the House without taking the opportunity to ensure that it covers the whole of the United Kingdom. I say all this with some reluctance, because I want the House to respect the devolution settlement, but I put it to the Minister that we need an explanation on why a different approach is being taken.

I do not want to go into the details of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, but I want to use it to illustrate a principle. In the Committee for that Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) put it to the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), that there were provisions in the Bill relating to Northern Ireland, even though it was accepted that those were devolved issues. The Minister replied:

“I…agree with the hon. Gentleman that marriages and civil partnerships are devolved matters in Scotland and Northern Ireland.”

He then commented, however, about what might happen if the Northern Ireland Assembly did not pass a legislative consent motion. I do not know whether it will—I will not comment on that—but the Minister said:

“The important thing here is that I, as a UK Minister, cannot leave people who undertake a same-sex marriage in this country in legal limbo in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world.”––[Official Report, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Public Bill Committee, 7 March 2013; c. 420.]

The implication is that the Government would legislate regardless of the Assembly’s views.

I do not make this point lightly, because I want the lines of demarcation between the devolved Administrations and the Westminster Government made clear, but if those lines can be crossed on that issue, why should they not be crossed in respect of the far more important matter of criminals siphoning off hundreds of millions of pounds from the Exchequer to fund criminal and terrorist organisations and to launder money across the world? Why does the Minister not regard that as equally important? Why have the Government not even contemplated doing that if they cannot reach an agreement in Northern Ireland? This affects not just a few individuals, but the very fabric of communities in Northern Ireland now controlled by these crime barons, especially in border areas.

That would not be my preferred option. I would rather get agreement before the Bill passes, even if that means delaying it, in order to ensure UK coverage for the NCA. I sat in on the discussions, and I can say that the SDLP is nervous about being outflanked by Sinn Fein, and Sinn Fein is worried about being outflanked by the SDLP. For political reasons, there is an unwillingness to come to an agreement and have the UK Government legislate on policing matters in Northern Ireland. I also suspect that some sympathise with the crime barons and so do not want effective policing. The PSNI cannot replicate the NCA’s role. It does not have the resources—even if it had the financial resources, it would not have the personnel expertise—which leaves a huge gap when it comes to fighting organised crime in Northern Ireland.

For all those reasons, I am disappointed that the Government have meekly walked away, rather than saying what could be done to ensure that Northern Ireland is given the same coverage as other parts of the UK.

[Mr Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making his argument so powerfully. Does he agree that this might be a matter of national security, which of course is not devolved—the Northern Ireland Secretary still has responsibility for it? Given that the Security Service operates in Northern Ireland, would he also agree, in respect of the NCA, that we should have some flexibility regarding the national position, as opposed to considering it purely in terms of the devolved situation?

[Sammy Wilson]

That is another way of looking at how to get coverage in Northern Ireland. The Minister cannot simply say, “Well, we haven’t got the agreement of the Executive.” I do not know whether we will ever get that agreement. Some reasonable and substantial changes have been made to the Bill as it affects the NCA’s operation in Northern Ireland, as a result of the efforts of Justice Ministers—who, incidentally, acted not in isolation, but as a result of representations from the very parties that have opposed the legislative consent motion.

I accept that, under the Bill, the Home Secretary may, at some future date—presumably after she has got a signal from the parties in Northern Ireland—introduce the necessary changes, but I do not know whether that will ever be possible. That is why the Government should keep open the option of considering whether the demarcation between the devolved authorities and the authority of this House could and should be blurred to take this matter forward. If a Minister can threaten to do such a thing on something like civil partnerships and same-sex marriage, there is an even stronger case for doing it here.

[Paul Goggins]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who spoke with his usual authority and attention to detail. I shall return to some of his points later.

I am deeply unhappy about new clause 3, which would provide the Home Secretary with an order-making power to change the lead responsibility for counter-terrorism by secondary legislation. In an intervention, I said it seemed odd that the Government wanted fresh primary legislation to extend pre-charge detention beyond 14 days—where urgent action would be needed if speed were of the essence—but here, on something that needs to be considered very carefully and at great length, they want to provide for an order-making power. I deeply regret that the Minister has completely ignored the Second Reading debate, when the Home Secretary said that she had not made up her mind. He failed to produce an amendment in Committee. Even though we finished our deliberations in Committee a day early, we had no opportunity to scrutinise this proposal. We can debate whether lead responsibility should be with the Met or the NCA, but it should be decided in fresh primary, not secondary, legislation.

As we heard, an unfortunate side effect of the proposal is that some in Northern Ireland have been able to suggest that it muddies the waters in relation to who is in charge of counter-terrorism operations and investigations. I asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland last week whether she would clarify that, and very helpfully she said:

“The primacy of the Chief Constable is retained to ensure consistency with the devolution of policing and justice.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2013; Vol. 559, c. 941.]

The Chief Constable has the lead in counter-terrorism, yet some have been able to suggest that that is confused by the Home Secretary’s proposal. That is a regrettable further side effect of the proposal. If the Government prevail today, I hope that those in another place will once again throw the measure out.

Like virtually everyone in the House—I think an exception might be made in a short while—I am deeply unhappy that the Government have had to table new schedule 1 to deal with the lack of a legislative consent motion in Northern Ireland. I generally accept the argument advanced by the hon. Member for East Antrim that we cannot simply blame the Ministers in this Government, but there has been a clear lack of urgency and clarity from them about who has the lead in these negotiations. Negotiations in the context of Northern Ireland are hard work, but I have not really seen any evidence that they have been taking place. It may be that they have been going on hidden from view, but if they have been going on, they ought to continue apace because it is essential to resolve this issue—the sooner, the better.

15:00

There is a balance to be struck between autonomy and collaboration. That is particularly important in the Northern Ireland context. I respect the Patten reforms and all that has come from them, whether it be the Policing Board, the ombudsman, the position of the Minister and the position of the Assembly committee—all those are absolutely essential parts of the architecture of policing in Northern Ireland, which provide the autonomy it should have.

I am siding today with my colleagues from the Democratic Unionist party on the substantial issue—perhaps parting company, who knows, with my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan),who is yet to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have also been prepared to do the opposite. I championed 50:50 recruitment, for example, because it was essential to ensure that we delivered as a Government on the Patten reforms in their completeness. Particularly in respect of organised crime, we also must make provision for collaboration. When it comes to human trafficking, smuggling and the laundering of fuel, we have to operate initially on a UK-wide basis, but also, of course, with Ireland and indeed countries across Europe and throughout the world. Organised crime is global business; we must operate on that basis.

Having no legislative consent motion means that, when it comes to customs and immigration, for example, certain activities will still go on and we will not see the full-blown co-operation that we need. In Committee, I proposed the organised crime task force system in Northern Ireland as a model for the rest of the country, bringing together all the partners in the fight against organised crime: the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Serious Organised Crime Agency in its present form, private business, Government Departments and a whole array of people, including the Policing Board, all working together to combat organised crime. Just a glance at last year’s annual report will show the benefits of that approach.

[Naomi Long]

I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would agree that there is another important issue here, to which the Government might be able to respond. Where the NCA is operating in the reserved field in Northern Ireland, we will still have an input into the organised crime effort. The Home Secretary, however, has removed the statutory requirement to consult the Department of Justice and the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland on strategic priorities and in respect of the annual plan by the director-general. That leaves another deficit that could be filled if the Government acted now.

[Paul Goggins]

I compliment my hon. Friend on her ingenuity in seeing two pages ahead in my speaking notes; I will come on to her very important point in a few moments.

I was reflecting on the effectiveness of the Organised Crime Task Force and how SOCA has been able to work with all the other law-enforcement agencies. Last year alone—this is in the annual report—£13 million-worth of drugs were seized, 33 potential victims of human trafficking were rescued, £4.44 million-worth of criminal assets were seized, and the list goes on. That is the result of working together to combat organised crime. That is now being put at risk because of the breakdown in negotiations and the failure to get a legislative consent motion. As reported by the BBC today, a recent massive operation against the illegal fuel trade involved law enforcement north and south of the border, with 300 officers deployed. If we do not get that sort of co-operation continuing at the highest possible level and to the fullest extent, the impact of such operations will be greatly diminished.

I have four specific points to put to the Minister, some involving broader issues. The first has been alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long). I think it is a mistake to take the Northern Ireland Justice Minister out of the loop of consultation, as suggested by the Minister in new schedule 1. That Northern Ireland Minister will no longer be consulted on strategic priorities, on the annual plan or indeed in respect of the appointment of a director-general. We have an impasse here: taking the Northern Ireland Justice Minister out of the loop of consultation is, I think, the result of a failure to co-operate or to show the right spirit. We want to get this issue dealt with across the line, not to retreat from the line. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East made an important point in her intervention. David Ford chairs the Organised Crime Task Force and is in a leading position in the fight against organised crime, so not to consult him on these key issues is a big mistake.

In that context, the Minister has described himself as a “collegiate” Minister—and who am I to argue with that description? I was rather hoping, in that spirit, that he would have come back with an amendment to schedule 6, paragraph 1(2), which deals with inspection. Provision is made there for inspections relating to the NCA in Scotland, but no mention is made—there is still no mention of it anywhere in the Bill—of Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland. It inspects the police there. It should be involved in any inspection of the NCA. In the spirit of trying to move this forward to get a meeting of minds, the Minister could, even at this late stage, make a commitment to involve Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland in the same way that he is involving the Scottish inspectors in Scotland.

Secondly, the Minister has to tell us more about how the negotiations will continue. Who is in the lead? Is he in the lead? Is it the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Is there a meeting this week? Is there a meeting next week? Are Ministers planning to meet the parties? How is it being done? Is there any real urgency in the negotiations that should be happening? Are Ministers just sitting back and waiting for Northern Ireland politicians to come forward? We really need to know whether something is happening. As I said, negotiation is hard work, but it is important for Ministers to get on with it.

Thirdly, let me deal with operational co-operation. I particularly want the Minister to address the issue of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. Frankly, many of our constituents think that CEOP, an excellent organisation, operates independently, but it is in fact part of SOCA and will be part of the National Crime Agency. The huge irony is that Jim Gamble, an excellent first chief executive, is from Northern Ireland and was a former officer with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. He did so much to put CEOP in the place it is as a world leader in this field.

What is going to happen in Northern Ireland? Will the Chief Constable have to establish a new team to deal with these issues? What happens if CEOP has intelligence and important information about paedophiles in Northern Ireland? What is going to be done? What are the practical arrangements that Ministers are overseeing and how will they ensure that they are in place to deal with such problems? It is important not just to have reassurance about the operational responsibilities but to ensure that the message goes out to people that, if they know of abuse or if they have been abused, they must come forward to report it. Goodness me, after all we are supposed to have learned from Savile, any message that says “Frankly, CEOP is closed in Northern Ireland” would be a dreadful message to send. It is essential that the Minister provides some reassurance about that.

[Naomi Long]

I hope I can reassure my right hon. Friend slightly. The Justice Minister is aware of that particular risk and is working to try to put in place mechanisms to ensure that such a gap does not exist and that alternative arrangements are available for co-operation and the trading of information if we fail to get to the desirable point where the whole of the NCA is operating properly in Northern Ireland.

[Paul Goggins]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that assurance. It is timely to pay tribute to David Ford, the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, who has done a superb job since devolution and who is, even now, looking at and trying to deal with the risks that may occur if consent is not given to these provisions. It does not come as a surprise to me at all to know that he is trying to plug the gaps in these provisions. The Minister, however, is the Minister responsible for the NCA and for CEOP, so that Minister has to offer us some reassurances.

My last point is about the relationship between the NCA and the Northern Ireland Policing Board. The hon. Member for East Antrim made the point that when he was a member of the Policing Board it was important to establish what the relationship was between a UK-wide body and the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I remember going, as the Minister responsible for policing in Northern Ireland, to the Policing Board—I did that once a year—for a formal session on organised crime. I would take with me senior SOCA officers, so that the Policing Board could ask them questions and get to the bottom of certain issues. We were as open as we possibly could be, even though there was no formal requirement for accountability. That was the spirit in which we operated. What will happen now? If the NCA is to have no formal relationship in Northern Ireland, the danger is that such discussions, formal and informal, will cease to happen. Yet the NCA will still have responsibilities for customs and immigration in Northern Ireland. There will be a loss of communication and dialogue about those and other important issues.

There is a huge agenda here. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer us some reassurance about the urgency with which he is dealing with these matters and the negotiations that need to take place, and that he will respond in detail to the points that I, and others, have raised. There are continuing and serious differences of opinion in Northern Ireland, which must be respected and worked through in a democratic way, but surely there should be absolute unanimity when it comes to the need to combat organised crime and the awful evil that it brings. That, at least, should be a matter of absolute consensus between the politicians of Northern Ireland.

[Mark Durkan]

Let me begin by saying that if the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) presses amendments 95 and 102 to a Division, my colleagues and I will vote for them. My name is also attached to those amendments.

I fully understand and support what the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said about new clause 3. I have a particular and positive regard for the principle contained in subsection (2), which relates to the Chief Constable of the PSNI, but the wider issues raised by the new clause are also important, and I share the concern that was expressed about them by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and others.

Like others, I find it regrettable that, in new schedule 1, we have a clumsy legislative provision that precludes functions for the time being, but provides for them to be introduced later by order, subject to other agreements. That proves that time was not used properly to secure those agreements. I do not believe that agreement on such matters is impossible. The discussions have been positive and practical rather than intractable. It is not a question of people trying to play politics, which some people unworthily accused us of doing some time ago. The character of the discussions with the Minister and his officials, and indeed the constructive role of the Minister’s special adviser, has been entirely positive. No one is saying, “Because this is coming from England, we want nothing to do with it.” There is no “green against green” competition. That is certainly not the SDLP’s position.

As I said in an intervention, some of us raised issues in relation to this Bill, and similar but different issues in relation to the Justice and Security Bill. We pointed out that there would be implications and complications when it came to the interface with, and the impact on, Northern Ireland and the Patten architecture. We cannot throw in new fixtures and fittings that are UK-wide, or even Northern Ireland-specific, and say that some of them do not affect the Patten architecture, if their character does affect it, or possibly affects it. When it comes to such matters as legislative consent motions, members of my party—as conscientious legislators both here and in the Assembly—must ask ourselves whether we have fully understood the implications, and assured ourselves that the results of these legislative changes will be positive. Are we persuaded that they will add to the fighting and the reducing of crime, but will not cause any difficulties in relation to the policing ethos, the upholding of the Patten principles and the new start to policing?

That is something we have consistently done. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East and I have had many discussions about the whole issue of national security—about the re-routeing of certain responsibilities and balances of interest, and about the changes that were made in the context of the St Andrews agreement, which took some of the Patten accountability and the Patten complaints process out of some of the purview of national security.

We opposed that. We had worked hard to ensure that the issue of policing would be addressed in the negotiations for the Good Friday agreement when no other party would address it, and we had ensured that an international commission was set up. Having done that, and having helped to drive the Patten reform programme, we were not going to say, “That does not matter. We never really cared about those principles. It was purely ephemeral.” When we saw measures relating to national security that we thought might provide a way of getting around or undermining Patten, we registered our concern about them, and we must ensure that that does not happen in the case of the National Crime Agency.

15:15

The SDLP worked hard to secure accountability. We were dealing with Unionist parties which told us that no change was needed, and we were being attacked by Sinn Fein, which told us that no change was happening. Of course we are going to be precious and pedantic about the need to ensure that the integrity of the change that we worked so hard to secure, with very little help from anyone else, is respected and protected, and that is what we are trying to do. We should all have been afforded more time earlier in the process, and a fuller, more open discussion when we had a draft Bill. That is not a criticism of David Ford as the devolved Minister of Justice. It is possible that we need to be less precious as a Parliament about which other parties can be in on discussions about the drafting and preparation of a Bill when a significant devolved interest is involved. If more had been done earlier in that regard, we would not have been left with the present unseemly situation.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman’s view on policing and the safeguards that are required obviously differs from mine, but all the discussion to which he has referred happened a long time ago, when SOCA was set up. The relationships between the Policing Board and SOCA and between the ombudsman and SOCA, and the safeguards that were to be provided, are still in place, and indeed have been added to. I cannot understand—I am sure it would be useful to the Minister to know this as well—where the gaps which, according to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), still exist can be found. The safeguards that his party agreed were necessary in the past were adequate and have been added to, but there seems still to be a reluctance to accept that the National Crime Agency will be able to operate in the context of the Bill.

[Mark Durkan]

The reluctance is not a reluctance to see the National Crime Agency operate or make a due contribution to the fighting and the reducing of crime in Northern Ireland, and crime that reaches into or out of Northern Ireland and affects other territories. The hon. Gentleman mentioned SOCA. When SOCA was first proposed, his party and mine had reservations about it, but many of those reservations were concerned with whether it would mean the loss of the valuable work done by the Criminal Assets Bureau. We wondered whether level 1 crime would be dealt with by the PSNI and level 3 would be dealt with by SOCA, and whether criminals knew that if they kept their criminal activity within level 2, there would be no one to deal with it.

Many issues arose in relation to SOCA, not just the issue of whether UK policing would affect Northern Ireland. We were seriously worried, for instance, about SOCA’s role in relation to the role of MI5. The notion of what is classified as national security, and of what a Government treat as national security, seems to be something of a movable feast in terms of the level of crime operations that are deemed to be within MI5’s sphere of influence. We were trying to clarify all those matters, and the same applies here. We need to know about any additional policing element.

The Bill with which we were originally presented provided for constabulary powers to be given to National Crime Agency officers in Northern Ireland, and we needed to know how they would be aligned with the constabulary powers of the PSNI. The Bill also provided for NCA special constables in Northern Ireland. I think that the hon. Gentleman would have been very surprised if, four and a half decades on from all the working and striving to get rid of the B-specials, nationalist parties did not question legislation providing for new special constables. Those are exactly the sort of provisions that people want to address in a sensible way.

[Naomi Long]

I do not doubt for a minute that the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about wanting the NCA to operate in a way that respects the devolved settlement and secures the progress that has been made in policing are genuine, but he has referred on a number of occasions to the original draft Bill, and considerable changes have been made to it to get to where we are today—leaving aside the fact that we are not going to delete all references to Northern Ireland. Huge progress has been made on constables and their status, answering to the ombudsman and other issues. Therefore, will he outline the remaining concerns that need to be addressed, so we can get over the line?

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Lady’s point about the discussions and modifications that have already been made proves that many of us have raised valid concerns. When they are validly accommodated, we accept that, and we will want to raise any further outstanding concerns.

What would have happened if we had not raised our misgivings? For a long time people were saying, “That’s just an SDLP hobby-horse.” For instance, it was certainly said that I was still hung up on all the stuff about MI5 and so forth. It was said that we had too much emotional and intellectual capital invested in the Patten reforms, and that we had a hang-up. Latterly, Sinn Fein seemed to realise some of the issues as well, but it is not a matter of them trying to outflank us, or us trying outflank them. We, as parties, have a duty.

We have made our own contributions and decisions about the new policing dispensation. If we are saying that assurances are in place and policing in Northern Ireland both now and in the future is different from the historical policing dispensation, we have to show that that will continue to be the case, and that it is not being got around by the lateral legislation and policing arrangements being produced by the Government here.

We have the NCA taking over from SOCA. As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, we agreed with, and came to terms with, some of the SOCA arrangements and the safeguards in relation to it. Then the NCA came along, and it cannot be the case that parties will just say, “Whatever other changes you at Westminster want, and whatever you’re having yourself, we’ll just take it and we won’t look at what difference it makes to us.” We need to be reassured.

Time should have been taken to address this matter. This is not a criticism of the Minister or anyone else; it might be to do with how legislative consent motions are handled, and how we get better joined-up scrutiny between a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland and Westminster so we are not left in the current clumsy situation, which is not just the case in relation to this Bill. Sometimes, legislative consent motions come before the Assembly long after a Bill has passed through this place. Introducing such motions earlier might give the Assembly more influence on the form of the legislation or the sensitivities that need to be taken into account. There are lessons to be learned at the procedural level for all of us, therefore.

I am not trying to point a finger at the devolved Minister or anybody else. As others have said, however, these issues were raised with Northern Ireland Office Ministers early last year, and they were asked, “What are you doing through conversations with the Home Office and devolved interests to make sure these issues are being well accommodated?” They did not seem to know, or to want to know, what we were talking about.

[Paul Goggins]

I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and his party for all the risks they have taken down the years in relation to policing. They have often been willing to become members of the Policing Board and other bodies, which have put policing at the heart of the community for everybody. The longer I listen to his speech, the more I hear that there is an issue of principle that has to be respected, and I agree with that, but there is also an issue about time, and there has been insufficient time to have the detailed discussions needed. I am amazed the Minister has not leapt to his feet to intervene to offer the hon. Gentleman discussions very soon to resolve this whole matter as quickly as possible.

[Mark Durkan]

I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman says. We have mentioned some of the discussions that have taken place involving different parties and the Minister and his officials. Some of them have also involved the director of the NCA, and I understand that he came away with a new appreciation about how the Policing Board accountability arrangements worked. He said no police agency at any level could be expected to be involved in accountability in such a way, only to find that senior Police Service of Northern Ireland officers said, “Well, we are, and it works.” A fuller conversation would have been better, therefore, and the relevant Westminster Ministers should have been involved in those discussions earlier, rather than leaving it to everybody else.

[Mr Hanson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his arguments about this particular matter also relate to the next set of amendments on asset recovery? It is important that we have an opportunity to test the Government on what they are doing to close the loophole in that regard, and I am conscious that we have limited time to do that. I hope he will either reflect on those concerns now or ensure that we can debate them, as the asset recovery issue is particularly important because there is no asset recovery in Northern Ireland, and I know he is concerned about that.

[Mark Durkan]

I fully accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. Our concern is not to make sure that the NCA has no remit or writ in relation to Northern Ireland. Our concern is to ensure not only that Northern Ireland does not lose out under the new dispensation by injury to the Patten architecture, but that we do not lose out on any equipment we might need to combat serious crime and to be part of combating it on a wider territorial basis. The asset recovery issues he raises point to important issues. It is imperative that we have full and proper discussions on all such matters.

On the criminal intelligence function, I hope we can put great store by what the Minister said in reply to my intervention about some of the functions not being precluded by the measures. He said the criminal intelligence function will still be discharged by the NCA in Northern Ireland, and that it will not be involved in running its own informers and so forth. The House should not have to be reminded that it is only a few months since we all sat here shocked at the revelations in the de Silva report about what happens when people are running agents and informers and some police know about it and others do not. We end up with scandalous situations, which are central to people’s concerns about confidence in policing in Northern Ireland. We have to make sure people know that we can never go back to that situation again, by default, by design or by any other means.

There is no point in us saying “Yes, we’ve sorted out full accountable policing and none of the old things can happen,” only for people to find all sorts of other things going on, and we then say, “Yes, but that was nothing to do with the accountable devolved policing. That was to do with these other policing arrangements we helped to legislate for.” We are then like Clouseau in one of the “Pink Panther” movies where he sees a man with a dog and asks, “Does your dog bite?” The man says, “No.” Clouseau pets the dog and the dog nearly takes his arm off. Clouseau then says, “I thought you told me your dog doesn’t bite,” and the man says, “That’s not my dog.” We cannot say, “We’ve sorted out policing, and we have full accountability and a full and open complaints process, but meanwhile anything goes in relation to how this Parliament here at Westminster legislates for other aspects of policing.” We have to get this right for now and for the future.

The hon. Member for East Antrim raised an issue that was close to being a red herring: what is or might be provided for in relation to Northern Ireland in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. As I read it, that Bill basically says that a same-sex marriage conducted in England or Wales will have the status only of a civil partnership in Northern Ireland or in Scotland. In one respect, Ministers could argue that they are respecting the legal position in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, and are saying, “We won’t do anything that does injury to that, interferes with that or introduces any other new language or different standing.” I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about a comparison with that Bill’s provisions, as they stand. The comparison is that there was a danger that the way in which this Bill was providing for Northern Ireland was going to damage carefully developed and agreed procedures in place in Northern Ireland.

15:30

I wish to deal with one other point. When we raised concerns about constabulary powers, we were accused of wanting all the paedophiles and child exploiters to be free to do what they want. That was what was said about the National Crime Agency not having constabulary powers, but of course the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre does not have constabulary powers, and it does not particularly need or want them. Some of the issues we raised are shared by Jim Gamble; he has shared in some of our concerns and highlighted others of his own. Those of us who have issues are not purely playing politics; we are trying to make sure that policing, at all its levels, and in all its natures and its full character, is right and stays right.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

Time is short and so, although I will try to give a thorough response, I may be sparing in the number of interventions I take, for reasons that hon. Members will understand.

A lot of points were made about new clause 3 and the changes with regard to Northern Ireland. I will deal with those and then briefly with the amendments. I will not address the Government amendments, even though I have not yet spoken about those. The right hon. Members for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) made particular points about new clause 3, with the former making the point that a super-affirmative order could not be amended.

It is worth drawing the House’s attention to the fact that the procedure in the Bill requires the Home Secretary to

“have regard to

(a) any representations,

(b) any resolution of either House of Parliament, and

(c) any recommendations of a committee of either House”.

As I said earlier, we envisage that in those circumstances the cross-party Select Committee on Home Affairs would consider proposals brought forward. After the Home Secretary has considered those matters, she may revise the order before inviting each House to agree the amended order. The point I am making is that, although there may not be a provision for the House to amend such an order at the end of the deliberations, there will be multiple opportunities for different bodies of Parliament to inform any recommendations that the Home Secretary may wish to bring to our attention. That detailed scrutiny process may be more comprehensive and may contain more provision for amendment and scrutiny than attaching an item of primary legislation into an overarching so-called Christmas tree Bill at another stage. There is a danger of the House underestimating the degree of scrutiny that will be available to Members, and the Government would certainly wish such a serious measure to be scrutinised effectively.

We had a lot of debate about Northern Ireland, and it is worth stressing that I agree with the central thrust of the points that have been made by nearly every Member who has spoken; the United Kingdom Government wish the NCA’s provisions to reach right across the UK, and in so much as they do not that is a source of regret to us. I therefore think that there is no difference between the Government’s position and that of most Members who have spoken on that point. Obviously, a number of meetings have taken place between officials, Ministers here in London and Ministers in Northern Ireland, but David Ford, the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, has led the main body of discussions. As legislative consent is a devolved process, it was for him to take forward the discussions with his Executive colleagues and the political parties. That is the proper way to proceed.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

There is a lot of desire to discuss proceeds of crime in Northern Ireland, so, ironically, the longer I speak, the less chance Members will have to speak about Northern Ireland matters. I will give way once, but I will not give way again, unless I have said something that offends people’s sensibilities.

[Ian Paisley]

The Minister certainly has not offended my sensibilities. He accepts that the Bill is deficient and will be deficient in its operation—he accepted that in Committee—and as he cannot obtain consent for the legislation in Northern Ireland, he is left with a choice. He can either ignore that and plough on without that consent or implement the legislation from this place. I think that it will boil down to that choice. The House will have to determine whether it will face down the unjustified opposition to the implementation of the Bill in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, if only because it allows me to clarify that it is our intention to abide by the Sewel convention. We are not in the business of facing down, as he puts it, elected representatives in Northern Ireland, as we want to proceed with their approval and consent.

It is worth making it clear to the House that the NCA will still have a role in Northern Ireland, as there is a danger that a casual observer of our deliberations might think otherwise. I can confirm that some types of cross-border crime will fall within the remit of the NCA in Northern Ireland, even in its constrained form. For example, the NCA in Northern Ireland will be able to tackle immigration or customs offences. The NCA and CEOP will continue to be able to co-operate with partners in Northern Ireland and we are seeking to mitigate the operational impact of the situation we find ourselves in.

The NCA and CEOP will continue to operate in Northern Ireland, but it is worth saying that that operation will be curtailed as a result of the absence of legislative consent. In a way, that illustrates the wider point. There will be an NCA function in Northern Ireland and obviously we hope and believe that it will benefit the people of Northern Ireland. It will not be as comprehensive as we would have wished, but there is provision for it to be made more comprehensive in the future, as and when the political will and consensus in Northern Ireland provide for that.

Let me deal briefly with the non-Government amendments. New clause 2, tabled by the right hon. Member for Delyn, seeks to provide for a review of the NCA within 12 months of Royal Assent. I think I said earlier that the NCA would come into effect in October 2013, but for the avoidance of doubt let me clarify the Government’s position. We wish the NCA to come into effect by the end of 2013. Our target date is October, but that will obviously depend on matters that are not necessarily directly within our control, including potential issues to do with Parliament.

The new clause asks for a review during the 12 months after Royal Assent. Obviously, we want to keep a close eye on the effectiveness and accountability of the NCA when it is up and running and that is a core job of Government and Parliament, but the Government do not believe that an additional formal review mechanism is necessary. There are plenty of other means by which Ministers and Parliament can examine the progress made by the NCA and by which Parliament can examine the actions and decisions of Ministers.

Amendment 3 would make the director general’s power to provide assistance to any overseas Government or body subject to the prior approval of the Secretary of State. It is worth noting that there is no equivalent requirement for the Secretary of State to seek consent in statute for SOCA, HMRC or the security and intelligence services. We see no reason why we should create unnecessary statutory barriers to continuing the good work that already happens. Day-to-day assistance between the NCA and its overseas partners will be so routine that it would be completely impractical to require the Secretary of State to give consent in every instance.

On amendments 95 and 102, I must say that it was refreshing to hear the principal argument being made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who made the case for trade unionism. Those points were not given more than a passing and cursory airing in Committee and were not raised by the Labour Front Bench, so we are not minded to agree to the amendments given that, as I understand it, there is consensus among the political parties that the Government are right and the Labour party enthusiastically supports the Government’s position on the trade unions.

[Mr Hanson]

Would the Minister clarify for me, given what my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has said, who he believes will be covered by the provisions of clause 12 in addition to those, such as Keith Bristow, who are accredited police officers?

[Mr Browne]

It is interesting; we now do have interest from the Opposition Front Bench.

[John McDonnell]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I will speak to the amendments in the group.

[John McDonnell]

It is important that we hear a response to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), because the people who are covered in the legislation are not just police officers; they are immigration officers, they are customs officers. What has also happened is that, as of three weeks ago, the staff have been notified. Some of those officers from SOCA who will be moving across had no powers; their powers had lapsed. They have been told that by October, investiture day, their powers will be returned to them and they will be included in the cache of people to whom the no-strike provisions apply. That means that, already, 1,500 people—possibly—will be included, as well as potentially another 900 staff. The provision goes beyond police officers to immigration officers and customs officers.

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Let me explain the Government’s position and see whether I can persuade him to take the same view as those on the Labour Front Bench. [Hon. Members: “Answer the question.”] I will; I am coming to it. Calm down. Those on the Labour Front Bench have supported us on this all along, and they have good reason for doing so. I want to try to persuade the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington that Labour is right to support the Government’s position, so let me explain our position.

Amendments 95 and 102 seek to remove the restriction on the right to strike for NCA officers with operational powers. This is an important measure to ensure that the NCA can protect the public from the threat of serious and organised crime and be operationally effective around the clock, every day of the year. Criminals do not stop when there is strike action. The threat to the British public from serious and organised crime is a constant threat and we do not want NCA operations disrupted or jeopardised by striking NCA officers. In the interests of public safety, it is therefore necessary that we restrict the right to strike of certain NCA officers. That will apply to NCA officers with operational powers. This is not about banning NCA officers from being members of a trade union, should they wish; it is about ensuring that the public remain protected at all times.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been clear that our strong preference is to put in place a voluntary no-strike agreement with those unions that will be recognised by the NCA. That would, in practice, impose strike restrictions on the vast majority of NCA officers and establish an alternative method for resolving disputes with the organisation. If that is achieved, the Bill gives the Home Secretary a power to suspend the operation of the provisions restricting the right to strike. In essence, therefore, the no-strike provision is designed as a reserve provision.

I return to the central point: I think the public will not be able to understand why, if they are at threat from serious and organised crime, the agencies of the state, which are paid for from our taxes to protect the public from that serious and organised crime, should not be available 24 hours a day to do so. The threat to the public exists 24 hours a day. I would ask the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington to reflect on that central point, because as I understand it, unless those on the Labour Front Bench have changed their position, it has been accepted by the Labour party that we should be seeking to protect the public around the clock. I invite the hon. Gentleman to accept that point too.

[John McDonnell]

Of course that is the case; we all accept the need to protect the public. Until now, customs and revenue officers—the immigration officers—have been able to do that without having the right to strike withdrawn. That is what the Labour party thought was happening. The Labour Front-Bench team thought that the provision related to policing powers, but it has gone well beyond that. A briefing was circulated to all MPs on Friday to explain that. Some people are saying that they did not receive it. I have a list of the e-mail addresses that it went to, so I know who got it. That briefing showed, in the explanation from management to staff, that the provision has gone well beyond what Ministers originally proposed, which was just for police officers. It has been extended to immigration officers—customs officers—who have always had the right to strike and yet have always protected our country. This is a massive step beyond anything that was proposed initially in the Bill.

15:45

[Mr Browne]

If the Opposition spokespeople have changed their position—

[John McDonnell]

They have not changed their position.

[Mr Browne]

Well, if they have come to see the wisdom of the position adopted by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and accept the inadequacies of their previous position, they will support him when he presses the amendment to a Division.

[Mr Hanson]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

Let me finish the point. [Interruption.] I will give way; I have already done so, and I will do so again, but there is a serious point to be made. NCA officers with operational powers should, as they are paid to do from our taxes, protect the public 24 hours a day from the threat of serious and organised crime. We want that arrangement to be secured through negotiation, as I have outlined, but the bottom line is that we want the public to be protected by the NCA around the clock, because the threat from serious and organised crime exists around the clock. If Opposition Members do not want NCA officers with operational powers to be available around the clock, they should say so explicitly.

[Mr Hanson]

It may come as a surprise to the Minister, but part of the purpose of Report is to discuss matters of implementation. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has raised concerns that were circulated late on Friday. I just want clarification from the Minister as to what he means by “some officers”. Will he confirm whether customs officers and immigration officers will be included in the provision under clause 12, as opposed to just police officers, whom we understand to be those who have constable roles, as the Opposition understood in Committee?

[Mr Browne]

Let me say two things. Nothing in the Government’s position has changed since Committee. There is an idea that this is something that has been circulated at the last moment and which Labour has suddenly discovered, but the Bill is the Bill. If there are agonies in the Labour party about where—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should wait a second; I am trying to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s point. If the Labour party cannot decide where it stands on the matter, that is for it to resolve internally.

I have been given a note that confirms what I have said. For the avoidance of doubt, I said that the measure applies to people with operational powers, and the Bill has always provided that those NCA officers designated with operational powers— police, customs or immigration powers—will be prevented from striking. That is what the measure said from the outset. I feel bad, because the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is being told by Labour Whips that they are all on his side and so on. He should have served on the Committee, because Labour Members did not object to the measure there. They have to resolve that between themselves, but our view—the bottom-line view, which is the same as when the matter first came up; nothing changed in Committee or elsewhere—is that the provisions on the NCA should be there to protect the public around the clock from a threat that they face around the clock.

[John McDonnell]

This is about exactly what my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn said. This is what we call legislating; this is what we call debate. We discover during the passage of legislation the implications of that legislation. I did not serve on the Bill Committee, so this is my opportunity to discover and debate. We have all discovered that the intention of the Bill is to remove the right to strike, not from police officers but from immigration and customs officers, who are civil servants—they are not police officers. That was never the intention behind any of the debates until now, and on that basis, I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to vote for the amendment. If the Government need to return with clarification at a later stage in another place, that is fair enough, but we must ensure that we do not introduce legislation in the House that is a fundamental attack on a fundamental human right.

[Mr Browne]

I will clarify the fact that the intention of this part of the Bill is very straightforward. There is a serious threat to the public of the United Kingdom 24 hours a day from serious and organised crime, and we want the new National Crime Agency to meet and counter that threat from the people who perpetrate it 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. So we want a consensus to be arrived at about the best way that these affairs can be structured, but we do not want people to be threatened by serious and organised crime and for operational officers at the National Crime Agency to be unavailable to counter that threat.

Labour Members appear to have changed their position and we will have a Division in the House of Commons on that. I hope that enough Members of the two parties in the coalition will share my view and the view of the Government that it is not appropriate for the public to be left exposed to the threat from serious and organised crime in the way that is envisaged by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, which appears, in this ever shifting situation, now to be endorsed by the right hon. Member for Delyn as well.

[Mr Hanson]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

Having been told that Labour Whips wanted us to proceed quickly, I give way for the fifth time to the Opposition.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the Minister. He should know that one of our concerns is that police officers should not have the right to strike, and we have supported that. I wanted clarification from him, which perhaps we should have sought in Committee when we discussed the detail of the matter, but he appears to be getting notes from his officials about that. Information has come to light with regard to customs officers and immigration officers, and we wanted clarification on that. I cannot support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington calling for the removal of the whole clause, but clarification is certainly needed on the matter.

[Mr Browne]

I received a note because I said to Parliament that the provision applied to NCA employees with operational powers, and Labour MPs who have hitherto been entirely happy to endorse the Government’s position suddenly changed their mind. That gave me cause for concern that I may inadvertently have made a mistake when I said that the provision applied to NCA officers with any operational powers, so I sought clarification from officials that I had been right all along and that Labour had been happy to endorse that position, and they reassured me that I had been right and Labour had been happy to endorse that position.

I commend the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington on the power that he wields within the Labour party. Labour had been entirely happy to endorse the Government’s position, which is that we believe that people who are potentially victims of serious and organised crime should not have the National Crime Agency unavailable to protect them from that serious and organised crime. Labour now takes a different position so, as I say, when there is a Division on the matter, we will have to see which vision of public protection commands the support of the House. With respect to all the other new clauses and amendments in this group, I hope the House will see fit to support those of the Government and reject those tabled by other Members.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

15:52

Division 186

Ayes: 283

---

Conservative: 233
Liberal Democrat: 41
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Independent: 2

Noes: 232

---

Labour: 218
Scottish National Party: 6
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

New clause 3 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 1

The NCA: Northern Ireland

Provisions that do not extend to Northern Ireland

1 (1) The relevant NCA provisions do not extend to Northern Ireland.

(2) The Secretary of State may, by order, provide that any other provision of Part 1 of this Act is not to extend to Northern Ireland.

(3) This paragraph is subject to paragraph 2.

Power to provide for provisions to extend to Northern Ireland

2 The Secretary of State may, by order, provide for any of the following to extend to Northern Ireland—

(a) any relevant NCA provision;

(b) any provision in respect of which an order has been made under paragraph 1(2).

Provisions extended to Northern Ireland: consequential provision

3 The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, a provision of this Act extending to Northern Ireland by virtue of an order under paragraph 2.

Provisions not extending to Northern Ireland: consequential provision

4 The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, a provision of this Act not extending to Northern Ireland by virtue of—

(a) paragraph 1(1), or

(b) an order under paragraph 1(2).

NCA functions in Northern Ireland

5 The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for modifying the ways in which—

(a) NCA functions are exercised in Northern Ireland, or

(b) the exercise of NCA functions in Northern Ireland is planned or supervised.

Consent of Northern Ireland Assembly to transferred provision

6 (1) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this Schedule which makes transferred provision unless the Northern Ireland Assembly consents to the making of that provision.

(2) In this paragraph “transferred provision” means provision which, if it were contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly—

(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly, and

(b) would deal with a transferred matter without being ancillary to other provision (whether in the Act or previously enacted) which deals with an excepted matter or reserved matter.

Orders under this Schedule: particular provision

7 (1) The provision that may be made by an order under paragraph 2, 3, 4 or 5 (whether by virtue of that paragraph or section 43(12)) includes—

(a) provision conferring, removing or otherwise modifying a function (whether or not exercisable in, or in relation to, Northern Ireland);

(b) provision amending, repealing, revoking or otherwise modifying any enactment (including an enactment contained in, or amended by, this Act).

(2) The making of an order under any provision of this Schedule does not prevent—

(a) a further order from being made under that provision, or

(b) an order from being made under any other provision of this Schedule.

(3) An order under paragraph 2 or 3 may modify or reverse the effects of an order made under paragraph 4.

(4) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) do not limit the powers conferred by paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5.

(5) In this paragraph “function” includes—

(a) an NCA function, and

(b) a function of the Secretary of State.

Interpretation

8 Expressions used in this Schedule and in Part 1 of this Act have the same meanings in this Schedule as in that Part.

9 For the purposes of this Schedule, each of the provisions of this Act specified in the following table (including any amendment, repeal or revocation made by such a provision) is a “relevant NCA provision”.

The relevant NCA provisions

Section 2	—subsection (2)(a) so far as it requires consultation with the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland
Section 3	—subsection (6)(a) so far as it requires consultation with the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland —subsection (7)(b) —subsection (8)(c)
Section 10	—subsection (8)
Schedule 1	—paragraph 7(1)(b) —paragraph 8(3)(b)
Schedule 2	—paragraph 5(b) —paragraph 6(2)(b)(ii), (4) and (5) —paragraph 8(4) and (5)
Schedule 3	—paragraph 1(2) so far as it imposes a duty on: (a) a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, or (b) a person operating in Northern Ireland who falls within paragraph 1(3)(f) —paragraph 3 so far as it relates to the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland —paragraph 14 —paragraph 15 —paragraph 25 —paragraph 26(3)(b)
Schedule 5	—paragraph 11(1)(c) —paragraph 11(6) to (8) —in paragraph 11(9), the definitions of “Northern Ireland general authorisation” and “Northern Ireland operational authorisation” —paragraph 13 —in paragraph 30, the definition of “powers and privileges of a Northern Ireland constable”
Schedule 6	—paragraph 19
Schedule 8	—the provisions of Part 2 and Part 3 so far as they relate to transferred matters

10 In this Schedule—

“ancillary” has the meaning given in section 6(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;

“excepted matter”, “reserved matter” and “transferred matter” have the meanings given by section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will recall that Wellingborough prison was closed without any notification to me, and that I learned about it through the media. I have just been contacted by my local press and learned that Wellingborough prison has been sold. I have received no notification whatever from the Ministry of Justice, and there is no written statement in the Library. Can you advise me of how I might get some more information about what seems a very unfortunate situation?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that the Chair has not been advised of such a sale, but his point is now on the record, and I am sure that since he has raised it, the Prisons Minister will get in touch with him to say whether it has been sold. I look to the Government Front Bench as I say that I presume that has been taken on board.

New Schedule 2

Proceeds of crime provisions: Northern Ireland

Part 1

Civil recovery provisions

Meaning of “relevant civil recovery provision”

1 For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule, each of the following is a “relevant civil recovery provision”—

(a) section 33(2), (3), (5) and (6);

(b) section 33(7) so far as it relates to amendments made by section 33(2), (3) and (5) and Part 2 of Schedule 17;

(c) each provision in Schedule 17;

(d) each amendment or repeal made by the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (c).

Relevant civil recovery provisions not to extend to Northern Ireland unless order made

2 (1) The relevant civil recovery provisions do not extend to Northern Ireland.

(2) But that is subject to paragraph 3.

Power to provide for relevant civil recovery provisions to extend to Northern Ireland

3 The Secretary of State may, by order, provide for one or more of the relevant civil recovery provisions to extend to Northern Ireland.

Relevant civil recovery provision extending to Northern Ireland

4 (1) The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, a relevant civil recovery provision extending to Northern Ireland.

(2) An order under this paragraph may, in particular—

(a) provide for section 282A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to have effect in relation to orders made by the High Court in Northern Ireland;

(b) provide for an enforcement authority in relation to Northern Ireland to make requests for assistance under section 282B of that Act;

(c) provide for a receiver appointed under an order made by the High Court in Northern Ireland to make requests for assistance under section 282C of that Act;

(d) provide for the High Court in Northern Ireland or a receiver appointed by an order made by that court to make requests for assistance under section 282D of that Act;

(e) provide for an enforcement authority or trustee for civil recovery to make a request for assistance under section 282F of that Act where a recovery order has been made by the High Court in Northern Ireland;

(f) provide for section 316(8B) of that Act to have effect in relation to an enforcement authority in relation to Northern Ireland.

Relevant civil recovery provision not extending to Northern Ireland

5 The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, a relevant civil recovery provision not extending to Northern Ireland.

Consent of Northern Ireland Assembly to transferred provision

6 (1) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this Part of this Schedule which makes transferred provision unless the Northern Ireland Assembly consents to the making of that provision.

(2) In this paragraph “transferred provision” means provision which, if it were contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly—

(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly, and

(b) would deal with a transferred matter without being ancillary to other provision (whether in the Act or previously enacted) which deals with an excepted or reserved matter.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2)—

“ancillary” has the meaning given in section 6(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;

“excepted matter”, “reserved matter” and “transferred matter” have the meanings given by section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Orders under this Part of this Schedule: particular provision

7 (1) The provision that may be made by an order under paragraph 3, 4 or 5 (whether by virtue of that paragraph or section 43(12)) includes—

(a) provision conferring, removing or otherwise modifying a function (whether or not exercisable in, or in relation to, Northern Ireland);

(b) provision amending, repealing, revoking or otherwise modifying any enactment (including an enactment contained in, or amended by, this Act).

(2) Such an order may provide for provision amending, repealing or otherwise modifying Chapter 2 or 4 of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to have retrospective effect.

(3) The making of an order under any provision of this Part of this Schedule does not prevent—

(a) a further order from being made under that provision, or

(b) an order from being made under any other provision of this Part of this Schedule.

(4) An order under paragraph 3 or 4 may modify or reverse the effects of an order made under paragraph 5.

(5) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (4) do not limit the powers conferred by paragraphs 3, 4 and 5.

(6) In this paragraph—

“enactment” means any enactment, whenever passed or made, contained in—

(a) an Act of Parliament;

(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;

(c) Northern Ireland legislation;

(d) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales;

(e) an instrument made under any such Act, legislation or Measure;

(f) any other subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978);

“function” means a function of any description, including a power or duty (whether conferred by an enactment or arising otherwise).

Part 2

Investigation provisions

Meaning of “relevant investigation provision”

8 For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule, each of the following is a “relevant investigation provision”—

(a) each provision in paragraphs 2 to 13, 25 to 27, 29 and 30 of Schedule 18 (including each amendment or repeal made by those provisions), and

(b) section 34 so far as it relates to each of those provisions.

Relevant investigation provisions not to extend to Northern Ireland unless order made

9 (1) The relevant investigation provisions do not extend to Northern Ireland.

(2) But that is subject to paragraph 10.

Power to provide for relevant investigation provisions to extend to Northern Ireland

10 The Secretary of State may, by order, provide for one or more of the relevant investigation provisions to extend to Northern Ireland.

Relevant investigation provision extending to Northern Ireland

11 The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, a relevant investigation provision extending to Northern Ireland.

Relevant investigation provision not extending to Northern Ireland

12 The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, a relevant investigation provision not extending to Northern Ireland.

Consent of Northern Ireland Assembly to transferred provision

13 (1) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this Part of this Schedule which makes transferred provision unless the Northern Ireland Assembly consents to the making of that provision.

(2) In this paragraph “transferred provision” means provision which, if it were contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly—

(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly, and

(b) would deal with a transferred matter without being ancillary to other provision (whether in the Act or previously enacted) which deals with an excepted matter or a reserved matter.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2)—

“ancillary” has the meaning given in section 6(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;

“excepted matter”, “reserved matter” and “transferred matter” have the meanings given by section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Orders under this Part of this Schedule: particular provision

14 (1) The provision that may be made by an order under paragraph 10, 11 or 12 (whether by virtue of that paragraph or section 43(12)) includes—

(a) provision conferring, removing or otherwise modifying a function (whether or not exercisable in, or in relation to, Northern Ireland);

(b) provision amending, repealing, revoking or otherwise modifying any enactment (including an enactment contained in, or amended by, this Act).

(2) The making of an order under any provision of this Part of this Schedule does not prevent—

(a) a further order from being made under that provision, or

(b) an order from being made under any other provision of this Part of this Schedule.

(3) An order under paragraph 10 or 11 may modify or reverse the effects of an order made under paragraph 12.

(4) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) do not limit the powers conferred by paragraphs 10, 11 and 12.

(5) In this paragraph—

“enactment” means any enactment, whenever passed or made, contained in—

(a) an Act of Parliament;

(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;

(c) Northern Ireland legislation;

(d) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales;

(e) an instrument made under any such Act, legislation or Measure;

(f) any other subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978);

“function” means a function of any description, including a power or duty (whether conferred by an enactment or arising otherwise).’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 61 to 71, 75, 86 and 88.

[Mr Browne]

I do not propose to detain the House long on the new schedule and amendments. In essence, they deal with the consequences of the failure to agree a legislative consent motion in Northern Ireland for the proceeds of crime provisions in the Bill, just as similar amendments in the previous group dealt with the consequences of not securing an LCM for the NCA provisions. As I have already explained the context of the amendments and it has been given an extensive airing, I do not propose to cover the same ground again.

The amendments made to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in Committee to remedy the effects of the Perry judgment will operate UK-wide, but as with the NCA provisions, which we have just discussed, in the absence of an LCM it is necessary that we amend those provisions so that they do not extend to Northern Ireland. In new schedule 2, a similar approach is adopted in respect of the proceeds of crime provisions to that taken in new schedule 1 in respect of the NCA. It provides that “relevant civil recovery provisions” and “relevant investigation provisions” do not extend to Northern Ireland.

The primary outcome of the new schedule and the associated amendments to clause 33 and schedule 17 is that the High Court of England and Wales will be able to make a civil recovery order against property located outside the UK where there is, or has been, a connection between the case in question and the relevant part of the UK, and the Court of Session will have similar powers in Scotland, but the High Court of Northern Ireland will not be able to make such an order. If the unlawful conduct occurred in Northern Ireland but the property was located outside Northern Ireland, the High Court of Northern Ireland would have no power to make an order over that property.

Like new schedule 1, however, which we considered in the last group of amendments, new schedule 2 contains a number of order-making powers that will enable the Secretary of State to extend certain civil recovery and investigation provisions to Northern Ireland at a later date. In respect of matters falling within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Secretary of State must secure the Assembly’s consent before doing so. As I have indicated, we will continue to work with the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice to secure all-party agreement to the full application of the Bill’s proceeds of crime provisions to Northern Ireland, but for now we must ensure that the Bill respects the Sewel convention.

[Mr Hanson]

I say again to the Minister that this is a really difficult issue for Northern Ireland. It is a big hole in the Bill. He has just said that because we do not have agreement with the Northern Ireland Assembly, from Royal Assent Northern Ireland will not have asset recovery powers, because of judgments that have been made in relation to the UK as a whole. Because Northern Ireland’s jurisdiction has not agreed to the provisions in the Bill, we will face difficulties.

[Sammy Wilson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is a great pity that the Minister would not give way on this point earlier.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that crime barons in Northern Ireland who are reaping hundreds of millions of pounds a year will now be able to invest those proceeds across the border in the Irish Republic with impunity and without any danger of those assets being seized? I know that that is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly, but it will create a serious hole in the pursuit of such criminals and will cause great difficulty in recovering assets from them.

[Mr Hanson]

It does indeed; it creates a tremendous hole in asset recovery provisions. In effect it means—the Minister has accepted this—that a criminal in Taunton could buy a property in the Republic of Ireland and have those assets confiscated by the High Court, but a criminal in Belfast, for example, with a property in the Republic of Ireland, could not. There is also a perverse incentive for people to move to Northern Ireland to pursue their criminal activities. At the moment, unless an order is introduced urgently, the provision will not allow assets abroad to be confiscated from those in the north of Ireland.

16:15

[Ian Paisley]

I am sure the shadow Minister will agree that the situation gives gangsters and criminals in Northern Ireland who are involved in serious and organised crime a free rein in part of the United Kingdom, and that must be addressed. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a test and that people want to see the rule of law operating against people such as Mr Murphy and Mr Hughes in South Armagh, just as it does against serious and organised criminals in Manchester, Birmingham and other parts of the United Kingdom?

[Mr Hanson]

This is an extremely serious issue, and I want the Minister to say not just that there is a problem—he has done that—but what the solution is in relation to getting parties around the table to discuss the Executive agreeing to provisions on asset recovery. This is not a hypothetical issue. On 6 March a British newspaper stated:

“Briton hunted as police crack IRA and Mafia fraud scheme…A British man…is being sought by detectives investigating the £390m fraud which was based around a development on the…coast of…Southern Italy.”

Italian authorities arrested people in dawn raids and a warrant has been issued for the arrest of an individual from Belfast whom I shall not name. If that individual is convicted of fraud in Italy, his Italian assets cannot be confiscated because he is resident in Belfast. If he was resident in our constituencies of Delyn, Darlington, Walthamstow, Taunton or Middlesbrough, however, he could be taken to court and his assets taken from him.

There is a massive incentive for criminals to relocate to Northern Ireland, and for those operating criminal activities across the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to continue doing so. I know there are issues in some political parties about the provisions and the legislative consent motion, but I appeal to the Northern Ireland Executive to consider the matter again because it is undermining action against criminal activity in Northern Ireland.

In the few minutes remaining I would welcome the Minister outlining a clear road map and stating how he intends to resolve this problem. It is not simply about bringing an order forward in the future, but about how we can reach an agreement where such an order can be effected to close this appalling loophole.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

In a way, points or lines of difference are being drawn between the two Front Benches that do not exist. The right hon. Gentleman described the situation correctly because the status of a criminal from Taunton—that was his example—would be different from that of a criminal from Belfast when it came to the seizure of assets. The Government of the United Kingdom do not want that to be the case and wish the arrangements to apply universally across the United Kingdom. That is partly because measures to rectify the offence of illegally acquired assets and to address that wrong should apply regardless of where in the United Kingdom it took place, but also because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, this situation creates an extremely worrying incentive for people wishing to perpetrate organised crime and acquire financial assets to base themselves in Northern Ireland. That is an extremely worrying development, I would have thought, for any Member who represents a Northern Ireland constituency, but it is also a concern for the United Kingdom Government as a whole, because we do not want such perverse and malign incentives to result from decisions made by politicians.

[Paul Goggins]

rose—

[Ian Paisley]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

One second.

Our position is clear. In a way, this is a strange debate, in that I am explaining the reality as it stands, but it is not the reality as I would like it to be. The British Government would like the NCA to apply in Northern Ireland in the way I have been describing throughout this afternoon. At the same time, we cannot have a system of devolution that applies only when the United Kingdom Government approve of the decisions made by the politicians in the devolved Executive and legislature. For devolution to mean anything, where the politicians in the devolved Executive and legislature—in this case in Northern Ireland—are not willing to endorse the preferred option of the United Kingdom Government, there obviously has to be a sense of discretion among those politicians. I want the politicians in Northern Ireland to arrive at the outcome that the United Kingdom Government seek, because I think it would be in the interests of the people in Northern Ireland.

[Ian Paisley]

That analysis might come back to bite the Minister under another set of circumstances. All I would say is that the First Minister of Northern Ireland said in evidence to a Select Committee in this House that, because of the disagreement, this sovereign Parliament should rule on it. That is the test for the Minister. Rule on it! He should make the sovereign decision if there has been no agreement. Let us remember that the majority of the Assembly has voted in favour of this proposal and the majority of the Executive is for it, but it is being held to ransom by a tiny, tiny minority.

[Mr Browne]

The point I am making is that the proposal is not being held to ransom by the UK Government. I agree with the hon. Gentleman; indeed, if I may say so, the tone of his intervention would rather imply to anybody who had not followed our deliberations carefully that he and I are on different sides of the argument. I agree with what he has said: I want people in Northern Ireland to have just as much protection under the NCA as people in my constituency of Taunton Deane, but I also recognise that the constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland is different from that in Somerset. Therefore, different considerations apply.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the Minister not accept, however, that on this issue there is a big difference? The inability to seize assets that criminals who operate from Northern Ireland might have outside Northern Ireland is a UK-wide problem, in so far as criminals currently involved in activities here in Great Britain could relocate to Northern Ireland and thereby escape losing their ill-gotten gains. From that point of view, this is not simply a Northern Ireland issue or an issue for the Government of Northern Ireland; rather, it becomes an issue for the Government of the United Kingdom. At least on this issue, he could override the views in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Browne]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

16:23

Three and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed form the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the schedule be read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

New schedule 2 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Clause 2

Strategic priorities

Amendment made: 4, page 2, line 42, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)

Clause 12

NCA officers with operational powers: labour relations

Amendment proposed: 95, page 10, line 15, leave out Clause 12.—(John McDonnell.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

16:24

Division 187

Ayes: 19

---

Labour: 10
Scottish National Party: 6
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 2
Green Party: 1

Noes: 288

---

Conservative: 239
Liberal Democrat: 41
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Independent: 2
Alliance: 1

Schedule 8

Abolition of SOCA and NPIA

Amendments made: 5, page 115, line 37, at end insert—

‘( ) In section 195S (Codes of practice: Secretary of State), in subsection (1)(c), for “members of staff of SOCA” substitute “NCA officers”.’.

Amendment 6, page 117, line 3, at end insert—

‘( ) In section 339ZA (disclosures to SOCA)—

(a) in the title, for “” substitute “”;

(b) for “Director General of the Serious Organised Crime Agency” substitute “Director General of the National Crime Agency”.’.

Amendment 7, page 118, line 38, at end insert—

‘( ) In subsection (6)—

(a) for “a member of SOCA’s staff” substitute “an NCA officer”;

(b) for “SOCA” substitute “the Director General of the NCA”.’.

Amendment 8, page 121, line 30, leave out ‘officer’ and insert ‘agency’.

Amendment 9, page 121, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 34 and insert—

(a) the National Crime Agency;”.’.—(Mr Syms.)

Schedule 22

Super-affirmative procedure

Amendment made: 76, page 336, line 26, leave out ‘2’ and insert ‘[Modification of NCA functions]’.—(Mr Syms.)

Clause 33

Civil recovery of the proceeds etc of unlawfl conduct

Amendments made: 61, page 33, line 33, after ‘High Court’ insert ‘in England and Wales’.

Amendment 62, page 34, line 2, after ‘High Court’ insert ‘in England and Wales’.

Amendment 63, page 34, line 14, leave out from beginning to ‘and’ in line 15.

Amendment 64, page 36, line 10, leave out

‘a part of the United Kingdom’

and insert

‘England and Wales or Scotland’.—(Mr Syms.)

Schedule 17

Proceeds of crime: civil recovery of the proceeds etc of unlawful conduct

Amendments made: 65, page 290, line 5, after ‘authority’ insert

‘in relation to England and Wales or Scotland’.

Amendment 66, page 290, line 8, leave out ‘and Northern Ireland’.

Amendment 67, page 290, line 29, after ‘order’ insert

‘made by the High Court in England and Wales’.

Amendment 68, page 290, line 35, leave out ‘or’ and insert

‘made by the High Court in England and Wales or an’.

Amendment 69, page 291, line 8, leave out ‘or’ and insert

‘made by the High Court in England and Wales or an’.

Amendment 70, page 291, line 17, after ‘High Court’ insert ‘in England and Wales’.

Amendment 71, page 292, line 40, after ‘order’ insert

‘made by the High Court in England and Wales or the Court of Session’.—(Mr Syms.)

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I now have to announce the result of today’s deferred Divisions. In the deferred Division on the draft Conditional Fee Agreements Order 2013, the Ayes were 288 and the Noes 225, so the Ayes have it.

In the deferred Division on the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) Regulations 2013, the Ayes were 286, the Noes 223, so the Ayes have it.

In the deferred Division on the draft Tax Credits Up-rating, etc. Regulations 2013, the Ayes were 286, the Noes 228, so the Ayes have it.

In the deferred Division on the draft Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2013, the Ayes were 289, the Noes were 224, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

New Clause 18

Sanction for and trial in relation to drink driving

‘Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is amended such that the time period stipulated as punishment for an offence under section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit) is two years and such that the said offence shall be triable either way.’.—(Mr Burrowes.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 120, in clause 41, page 45, line 44, in clause 41, at end insert—

‘(3A) In section 3ZB of the 1988 Act (causing death by driving: unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured drivers), after (c) insert—

“(d) section 5A of this Act (driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with concentration of specified controlled drug above specified limit).”.’.

Amendment 2, page 46, line 31, in clause 41, at end add—

‘(8) The Secretary of State shall have responsibility to ensure that within 12 months of Royal Assent an assessment has been made by the Home Office on the impact of this section on equipment, training and resources with particular regard to published impact assessments from the Home Office, Department for Transport, Department of Justice and the Crown Prosecution Service.’.

Amendment 89, page 46, line 34, in clause 42, at end insert—

‘(1A) In section 4(1) (“Fear or provocation of violence”) for “abusive or insulting” in the two places where it occurs substitute “or abusive”.

(1B) In section 4A(1) (“Intentional harassment, alarm or distress”) for “abusive or insulting” in the two places where it occurs substitute “or abusive”.’.

Amendment 90, page 46, line 36, in clause 42, at end insert—

‘(6) In section 6(3) (“mental element: miscellaneous”) for “abusive or insulting” in the two places where it occurs substitute “or abusive”.’.

Government amendment 84.

[Mr Burrowes]

Both new clause 18 and amendment 120 concern sentences for driving over the prescribed limits for drugs and alcohol and both seek to fill a gap in sentencing. There are 220 traffic cases each year in which individuals die on our roads owing to a driver who has been impaired through drink or drugs.

On the subject of filling gaps, I pay tribute to the Government for filling the gap in drug-driving offences. The new offence will not require proof of impairment. Owing to the imminent arrival of roadside drugalysers, it will become an offence that sits alongside drink-driving. It will be possible to rely on proof that someone is over the prescribed limit, whether for alcohol or drugs, rather than relying solely on proof of impairment.

Here I must declare an interest as a criminal defence solicitor. I must confess that I recall many prosecutions that did not succeed because of ambiguities and complexities relating to proof of impairment. The filling of that gap might not have been welcome to some of my clients of old, but it will be welcome to victims of offences of this kind, and it will be welcome to those who believe that it is in the public interest to ensure that drink and drug-driving offences are prosecuted properly.

However, I am also concerned about another gap. The purpose of new clause 18 and amendment 120 is to draw attention to it, and to ensure that, in one way or another, we fill it. Without the new clause, the maximum custodial sentence for driving after consuming excess alcohol, or indeed drugs over the prescribed limit, will still be six months’ imprisonment. Statute has properly provided that, if carelessness or dangerousness is proved, greater penalties will follow. The last Conservative Government recognised the need to ensure that drivers who caused death while under the influence of drugs or drink should be more heavily penalised. We now have on the statute book the offence of death caused by careless driving while the driver is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, which attracts a maximum sentence of 14 years.

In 2011, the number of drivers tried for causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs was 27, and the number of those convicted was zero. Rather than relying on the good work of the last Conservative Government, we need to ensure that it is followed through in practice. When it comes to the sad and tragic cases of people who die as a result of the actions of drivers, particularly drivers who are under the influence of drink or drugs, there must be a penalty that exceeds the fairly minimum penalty of a six-month sentence.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I believe that in Northern Ireland there are already rules, regulations and laws that address this issue specifically. There has also been a campaign aimed at dealing with drink and drugs. Does the hon. Gentleman think that it might help the Government to contact the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, where policing and justice are a devolved matter? Might they learn something about how these matters can be handled?

[Mr Burrowes]

The amendments are intended to enable the Government to conduct a proactive review, which should, indeed, involve looking at what happens on the opposite shore. We all want to tackle the profound consequences of death caused by drivers under the influence, and ensure that they receive the appropriate penalty.

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

I, too, must make a declaration. I was a criminal barrister who both prosecuted and defended.

As my hon. Friend says, the maximum custodial sentence for a first offence of drinking and driving is six months. It is the same for a second, third and fourth offence. Does he agree that drink-drivers who pose a threat on our roads should receive longer sentences, and that their cases should be sent to the Crown court where there can be multiple convictions?

[Mr Burrowes]

I remember briefing my hon. Friend on many occasions. He was a great advocate in courts in Enfield and Haringey, and he continues that advocacy in the House. He has made an important point. There is a parallel between dealing with drink-driving cases and dealing with, for example, cases of criminal damage. Where there is a succession of criminal damage cases, later cases can receive a higher penalty and can be committed to the Crown court; indeed, there are categories of criminal damage that attract a higher penalty and the attention of the Crown court. The Government should look at whether that principle, which is already in statute, should be applied to drink-drive cases that have the most serious consequences.

We have already crossed the Rubicon in terms of culpability and consequences in death by careless driving and dangerous driving. We have recognised that there needs to be a particular way of dealing with penalties that is aligned to the consequences, rather than looking at culpability alone. My amendments seek to take that a stage further.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) would be here in the Chamber supporting me if he were not in a Committee. He has fought a valiant and successful campaign as a result of the tragic case of one of his constituents who died as a result of someone driving carelessly. The issue of impairment must be dealt with properly and that will now happen. He and I share the concern that the new offence of drug-driving needs to address the issue of fatalities, which was where the campaign that led to the new offence began. It would therefore be ironic if we were left with a Bill that does not deal with cases where dangerous driving cannot be proved independently but people who are plainly under the influence of drugs or drink have killed someone, and they can—perhaps through the hard work in years gone by of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and myself as defence solicitors and barristers—get to the point where there is a lesser plea of drink-drive with a six-month penalty.

Sadly, that has already happened. We have heard that 27 people were tried and nil were convicted on this charge. I am concerned that in those cases there was a plea bargain to the lesser charge of drink-drive.

The explanatory notes to the Bill make another important point. It is stated about schedule 18:

“Paragraph 2 amends section 3A of the 1988 Act so that if the person had a controlled drug in the blood or urine in excess of the specified limit for that drug, the person could be charged with the more serious offence in that section of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs.”

I was proud to serve on the Bill Committee, and I sought clarity from the Minister about this point, which had been raised in correspondence with the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Justice dating back to March 2012 and in the campaign I mentioned earlier that sought a higher penalty in cases where it was not possible to prove careless driving. Unfortunately, now, a year after that correspondence began, we are in the final throes of the passage of the Bill.

This point has been made not just by me; this was not just a hobby-horse of mine—it is not about me wanting to make a point and send out a press release. It was made by Chief Superintendent David Snelling, who was an excellent commander of the Met traffic division, and it also came to the fore as a result of the campaigning efforts of my constituents, the Galli-Atkinson family, who lost their daughter as a result of dangerous driving and who saw a gap involving fatalities in drink and drug cases that are not prosecuted as they should be, so we do not end up with the sentences that the dead victims and their families deserve. They make their point based on the practical reality of cases that actually arise, and that is also the basis of my amendments.

The gap is in hit-and-run cases where a driver who is over the limit on drink or drugs crashes into another car or a pedestrian and kills, and then leaves the scene. In situations where fatalities occur, such cases are not infrequent, as—it will not surprise Members to learn—many people who know they are over the limit will do their best to evade prosecution, so they will leave the scene. They get hunted down and arrested, and when they are found to be over the limit the prosecution begins and the investigation continues. A prosecution for a failure to stop carries a limited penalty that does not reflect the gravity of the situation, and I have previously sought amendments to extend the penalties in that regard.

The prosecutor is left with the option of prosecuting for death by careless driving, but the problem is that there is no witness. In these cases, often the only witness is dead; there is nobody left. The steps are then traced back and the scene is marked out. The marks on the road might allow people to come up with a prosecution that shows that careless driving took place, because there are signs of speed, swerving, braking and so on. But it may well be that none of that is available, as perhaps it was a wet day and very little could be shown. Little corroborative evidence may be available beyond the fact that the person has died because of that vehicle and that driver, and all we have left is the fact that the driver was over the limit.

Sadly, all the prosecutor can perhaps do is prosecute for driving with excess alcohol or driving over the prescribed limit for drugs, which carries a maximum sentence of six months. Clearly that is not acceptable, given the gravity of the situation. Over the years, Parliament has recognised that where a death occurs as a result of driving it needs to be dealt with, and quite properly so. So that sets out the gap I am seeking to fill through my proposals.

The issue is whether there can be independent proof of careless driving and whether that must be sought out. In Committee, I asked the Minister what he thought of the situation and asked him for clarification. I said:

“I want it to be made clear…that it will not be necessary for the prosecutor to independently prove careless driving as the standard of driving, and that the effect is that someone’s being over the prescribed limit for drugs or alcohol will be sufficient for the prosecutor to be able to make the decision to charge them with a serious offence.”

He replied:

“My understanding is that it will not be necessary. I hope that I have clarified the point.”––[Official Report, Crime and Courts Public Bill Committee, 7 February 2013; c. 394-95.]

I would settle for that and move on. Indeed, I would probably have a press release saying, “I welcome the fact that the Minister has recognised that drivers who are over the limit and kill will get a higher penalty, which amounts to a maximum 14 years.” I would rest easy that the campaign has been successful, the victim’s voice has been heard, and the chief superintendent and police on the ground have recognised that gap and say, ”That is good. That has been dealt with.”

However, I then received correspondence from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), in what we might term “Yes Minister” language, saying that there “may be confusion”. That is what has led me to table new clause 18 and amendment 120. It was clear in the Bill Committee that we would have confusion, so today the Minister has an opportunity to be brave and to fill the gaps that I have had a go at filling through a couple of options.

One option, new clause 18, would make drink-driving or driving over the prescribed drug limit an either-way offence—one capable of being committed to the Crown court and then attracting a maximum sentence of two years. The other option is amendment 120, whereby those on licence, disqualified drivers and uninsured drivers who kill in this way will face a heavy penalty of two years. That simply adds to the list in respect of drink-driving.

I have to put my lawyer’s hat on, because I appreciate that people may have concerns about new clause 18 opening up all drink-driving cases to a Crown court trial; I recognise the expense and the vagaries of jury trials, and that that is not wholly satisfactory in itself. I am perhaps being generous in how I am presenting new clause 18 and it perhaps needs to be refined. Perhaps it should be simply specified in relation to fatalities. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham suggests making specific provision about repeat drink-driving offenders. There is certainly a role for making only those high-end cases liable for a committal to Crown court, in a similar way to what happens in the criminal damages cases I referred to earlier.

Another way around that would be to deal with magistrates’ maximum sentencing powers. Perhaps the Government will respond to the calls from the Magistrates Association to extend their powers to a maximum of two years. Youth courts have a two-year custodial sentence power, so perhaps we should have equity for adult courts. That would be much more cost-effective and would avoid cases all going to the Crown court and we lawyers being paid more up there—although we must appreciate the legal aid restrictions in that regard. The issue could then be dealt with in a magistrates court in a proportionate manner. That option is also open to the Government.

I recognise that there are reservations about amendment 120. As a lawyer, I am not keen on extending strict liability cases too readily and the amendment would certainly effectively extend a strict liability scenario to drink and drug-driving-related cases. Nevertheless, my amendment is clean cut. It does not extend the powers of the Crown court to all drink-driving cases but relates specifically to fatalities. It deals with the issues that have motivated my amendments and merely adds to the list of offences. Members of the public might ask what the difference is: if someone takes the risk of driving while uninsured, disqualified or without a licence, they are pretty careless to do that and should accept the consequences, and the same applies to those who are over the prescribed limits. My amendment would retain the statutory defence for drink-drive cases and would therefore have less of a strict liability nature.

The Government need to fill the gap. I am trying my best to do that and have provided two options. There might be more and I have no doubt that the Minister can tell us about any others. I look forward to seeing how the Government will do it as this is a real problem that should not be ignored. The fact that there were 220 deaths in a year but only 27 people were charged with causing death by dangerous driving while impaired in the same period makes the point very clearly. Large numbers of impaired drivers who kill are, for one reason or another, avoiding prosecution for the more serious offence and are probably ending up being charged with the lesser drink-drive offence.

In conclusion, I spoke to Ministers before tabling the amendments. I welcome the commitment from Transport Ministers that if I can provide evidence that proving carelessness is problematic, the Department will review the case for amending legislation. The statistics I have given are evidence and I put the burden of proof on the Government. I ask them to review the issue and seek to prove the point. We are very much in the end game on this Bill. Some might say we should have done that earlier to avoid getting into such a situation, but I urge the Government to recognise that we have a problem and to fix it. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

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

It is a great pleasure to contribute, albeit briefly, to the debate. It is also a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who made an extremely powerful case about the complexities of the situation. At the heart of the matter is the fact that, as we all know, people kill other people on the roads yet seem to receive remarkably light sentences. His points about people abusing drugs and alcohol before going on to kill someone were powerful.

There was a case in my constituency that was not drug or alcohol-related but demonstrated an anomaly. Many other people are trying find a solution to this, and I shall introduce a ten-minute rule Bill on the subject later in the spring, but today, in the light of what the hon. Gentleman said, I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions.

17:00

In relation to drug-driving, what drugs can we test for on the roadside today, in the aftermath of incidents like those that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate described? I would also like to quiz the Minister a little about the drugalyser. When I first heard the idea, I thought it sounded exactly right and would make a difference, but my fear is that if it is seen as part of forensics, it comes under a back-office function of the police, and could be subject to fairly serious cuts. I cannot see the point of having lots of police legitimately checking people for drug-driving if we cannot get the results of the tests and get the guilty people put in jail to serve the necessary sentence.

Those are my quick points. I urge the Minister to take seriously the thoughtful issues that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate raised. Across the House, in all parties, people are sick of the fact that people can receive such light sentences for one of the most serious offences imaginable, which causes immense heartbreak to so many families across the country.

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

I thank the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) for her brief but to-the-point contribution on the new clause so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). Many people throughout the country will have sympathy with it, and even if it is not added to the Bill today, they will be listening and watching for future developments.

Amendments 89 and 90 deal with an entirely different matter. As Members are aware, the Bill is wide ranging. Clause 42 was inserted during the Bill’s passage through the other place. Its effect is to remove the word “insulting” from section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. We could debate that for many days, and I do not propose to rehearse all the arguments, which were well made in the other place, but it is perhaps worth noting that, notwithstanding the Government’s indication that they did not support the amendment in the other place, it was agreed to on a Division by 150 votes to only 54. I think it is fair to say that there was overwhelming support for the removal of the word.

The very minor amendments that I am proposing would bring the wording of the offences set out in sections 4 and 4A of the 1986 Act in line with section 5. Those amendments are in line with the findings of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which stated in its report issued in October 2011:

“We also support the amendment of the Public Order Act 1986 to remove all reference to offences based on insulting words or behaviour. This would enhance human rights and remove a possible incompatibility with the right to freedom of expression.”

I stress that the report states, “remove all reference” to offences based on the use of insulting words or behaviour, not just the reference in section 5 of the Public Order Act. I entirely accept that most of the publicity and the campaign on the offence of using insulting words or behaviour centred on the need to reform section 5, but if, as the other place has voted, and as the Government have accepted, it is deemed sensible and appropriate to amend section 5, it must follow that the phrase, “insulting words or behaviour”, should be removed from other provisions in the 1986 Act that make an identical reference.

Section 4 of the 1986 Act deals with the fear or provocation of violence and states that someone

“is guilty of an offence if he…uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or…distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.”

Section 4A, which deals with intentional harassment, alarm or distress, states:

“A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he…uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or…displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.”

If my amendments are accepted, the offences would remain completely unchanged, apart from the fact that the word “insulting” would be removed. If those offences are allowed to remain on the statute book unamended there is a serious danger that people who would have been charged under section 5 will simply be charged under section 4 or section 4A, and all the campaigners who have been celebrating the insertion of clause 42 and the removal of “insulting words or behaviour” from section 5 will be disappointed.

A leading campaigner for the removal of the word “insulting” from section 5 is Mr Peter Tatchell. I suspect that I may disagree with him on other issues, but I hope he will not mind my praying in aid of my argument words of his that appeared on The Huffington Post website in January 2012:

“Section 4A of the Public Order Act is sufficient to cover any exceptional circumstances requiring prosecution, although its criminalisation of mere insults should also be repealed”.

It is obvious that Mr Tatchell has looked at this whole field and recognised that there is a need wider than just amending section 5—that it is necessary to amend other provisions in the Public Order Act.

Our country rightly values and defends the right of individuals to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It is wholly wrong to retain any reference to the term “insulting” in any criminal offences on our statute book. The people of this country are fed up with political correctness. If the House supports these minor amendments, it would be one small step towards restoring the public’s faith in this House and in our country as a place where the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression are cherished.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I speak on behalf of the Opposition on this collection of amendments. The Bill has been called a Christmas tree because of the number of different issues that have been tacked on to it. This selection of amendments feels a little like a series of tinsels and baubles and some fairy lights, but when those are all put together, they create the Crime and Courts Bill.

Before turning to our amendment 2, I shall make a few brief comments on new clause 18 and amendment 120 tabled by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). All of us have sympathy for the concerns that he raises, and we will have seen cases in our own constituencies where people’s lives and families have been devastated by drink-driving. It is disappointing that these amendments were not tabled in Committee. The hon. Gentleman and I spoke at length about various issues, and it would have been good to get some guidance from the Government about the implications of the discussion that he had with them. There are issues that merit further examination, but I am not sure whether Report stage is the right time for that. No doubt we will hear from the Minister about the implications of implementation.

Some issues will need to be taken into account in respect of the powers of magistrates. We all understand and have sympathy with the idea of flexibility in sentencing, but there may be concerns about what that might mean for the sentences handed out. I am not clear what the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate seeks to achieve with amendment 120. He might inadvertently remove the offence of careless driving and I am sure he would not wish to do that. Somebody who gets behind the wheel and is already over the limit through medication would drive carelessly in any case—

[Mr Burrowes]

The prosecution may want to push forward a prosecution for careless driving with limited independent evidence of standard driving, but the CPS guidance is clear that being over the limit does not in itself amount to carelessness. Relying on that to prosecute for carelessness is not good enough. That is the reason for my amendment, which expresses a concern that the Government need to hear.

[Stella Creasy]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. That is exactly why we needed to test in Committee the consequences of the changes that his amendment would make. That would have allowed us to hear a fuller explanation from the Government of the consequences. I hope I am proved wrong by the Minister and that he will give us an extensive explanation of the potential impact of the amendments. I would want clarification of the consequences where an individual involved in an accident might be over the limit through medication but would not be at fault for the accident itself. I welcome rather belatedly the bauble that the hon. Gentleman wishes to add to the Bill and I look forward to the Minister’s response to it.

Amendment 2 reflects the Opposition’s concerns about the implications of the Bill for the laws on drug-driving. We welcome the proposals to make driving while under the influence of illegal drugs against the law. I am disappointed not to see in the Chamber the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), given the work that he has done on the issue on behalf of his constituent, Lillian Groves. We know that drug-driving will be a substantial offence. We know from the Government’s impact assessment that more than 2,000 people will be affected by the new provision.

As the Minister told the Committee, although it may not be on a scale comparable to drink-driving, it is important that we close the gap that drug-driving has created. However, there is no point in having a power if one cannot put it into practice. Amendment 2 requires the Government to ensure, through an impact assessment, that the clause can be enacted across the country. That will entail looking at the equipment, training and resources that the Home Office, the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Justice and the Crown Prosecution Service have to enable them to implement the law.

Those concerns reflect the debates we had in Committee, when the Government were simply unable to explain what work they had done to ensure that the potential new offence could in fact be prosecuted. We had a number of questions about the logistics of rolling out this policy across the country. With that in mind, I want to ask the Minister a series of questions, which I hope he will answer when he responds.

17:14

First and foremost, the key issue is how well equipped our police forces are to address that new crime. The Home Office’s own briefing states:

“For the most effective enforcement of the new offence, the police will be assisted by the availability of reliable drug testing devices.”

We certainly concur. We all know that the provision of breathalysers makes drink-driving a much clearer and simpler offence to prosecute because evidence can be gathered. The hon. Member for Croydon Central argued strongly in Committee about the importance of the police having the appropriate equipment to deal with the crime.

However, alcohol testing is very different from drug substance testing; alcohol testing requires a test for a single substance, but drug testing will inevitably involve tests for a range of substances, and indeed of a range of substances to find the substance. We already know that the testing equipment will have to be approved by the Home Office. At present, only one item, which tests for cannabis use via an oral saliva swab, has been approved. Indeed, several police forces have reported that they do not have that technology at the moment. When my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) went to see the new machinery in her constituency, she found that they had only one machine, that it needed a full room and that police officers had to wait a full hour before they could access it.

We already know that police forces do not necessarily have the technology to deal with just one aspect of drug-driving. If there is more than one substance they need to test for, do they have all the equipment they need to be able to test for that wide range of substances? Fortunately, the Policing and Criminal Justice Minister, in response to a parliamentary question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), proved otherwise when he said:

“Once manufactured and type approved, decisions on the number and type of devices to purchase are also operational decisions for chief officers as they will know what best meets their individual force needs.”—[Official Report, 25 February 2013; Vol. 559, c. 116W.]

We have recently seen the expert panel report, which details the sorts of tests the police would be expected to perform and the types of substances they would be expected to test for. It is clear that it is much more complex than testing for drink-driving, so the types of machinery and equipment that the police will need will be much more complex. Indeed, the question of whether a single machine, such as a breathalyser, could be produced to test for every drug that the expert panel has suggested should be tested for is one that I hope the Minister will answer.

Above all, that raises a series of questions about the cost implications for our police forces. We know that police forces are investing in some of that technology. For example, Essex police are investing in the tests for cannabis, but whether they will be able to buy a machine that tests for all drugs is clearly a question of value for money. For the Home Office simply to say that that is a matter for the police to decide is not an appropriate way to proceed, given the importance of getting the offence right.

For example, will the police be able to test for legal highs? I am aware that the expert panel does not think that there is sufficient evidence at present on the impairment generated for a driver, but were that evidence test to change, would the police then have to buy a subsequent set of equipment to be able to deal with that, and what would be the consequences for their budgets? I think that the Minister needs to give us much more information about what he has done to ensure that when this becomes law our police have the equipment they need to deal with every drug that might impair driving. As the Institute of Advanced Motorists has pointed out, unlike alcohol, which is just one drug, the number and range of drugs that can impair someone’s driving is almost incalculable. Designing a piece of machinery that will deal with all of them will prove extremely difficult.

The Opposition want more evidence that the Government have really thought that through so that we do not see people being let down by the inability of the police to deal with particular substances. Indeed, it is not just about being able to test for difference substances; the way different substances are metabolised within people’s systems will also play a part in the effectiveness of the offence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) argued in Committee, we need to know the level of drugs that will be likely to result in a prosecution. Will it be equivalent to current levels for alcohol and drink-driving offences? What work has been done to show that comparable tests can be achieved?

We welcome the belated publication of the expert panel document, which gives some detail on that, but the question of the ways in which different individuals metabolise different drugs will be key to the success of the offence. In particular, we know that co-codamol, which we discussed at length in Committee, can, like heroin, be metabolised in some people’s systems. Questions about how different drugs will be treated and tested are key to the Bill’s enactment, but the Minister admitted in Committee:

“At the moment, I cannot give the Committee the relevant levels. It is difficult for me to defend work that does not yet exist and it is difficult for us to debate it”.––[Official Report, Crime and Courts Public Bill Committee, 7 February 2013; c. 389.]

Ministers have admitted that they do not know what they will be testing for, we do not know whether the police have the necessary equipment to test for it, and the expert panel has set out a wide range of potential tests that might need to be taken.

That leads us to the question of whether the police will be able to gather the appropriate evidence. A response to another parliamentary question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn revealed that no assessment has been made of the training required by police forces to be able to undertake roadside drug testing. This is a critical issue, because the expert panel itself has pointed out that the most effective evidence on drug offences is gathered at the roadside. The question of whether blood and urine samples will be tested at the roadside will also be a key issue for how the police manage the system. As the expert panel points out, it is widely acknowledged that blood and, to a lesser degree, oral fluids are most likely to give the most accurate measurement of drugs active in the system. Potential prosecutions may rest on whether a substance was in somebody’s system at the time an offence was committed, so accurate evidence is vital.

This is a problem, therefore, not just for our police, but for our courts. As a result of my right hon. Friend’s sterling work in asking parliamentary questions, we have uncovered the fact that the courts do not have the relevant training to deal with questions about differences in metabolism and equipment or to interpret the evidence. That is why we have tabled the amendment to push the Government to be much clearer on how we can all make sure that this particular offence is dealt with successfully. We do not know how the equipment will be developed, how much it will cost or its source. We do not know whether police budgets will be able to extend to the range of equipment they will need, or whether the police will be given appropriate training to collect the necessary samples in the right manner to secure a successful prosecution. It is not unreasonable for Parliament to continue to ask those questions.

I hope that the Minister will not only say that he supports our amendment and the intention behind it, but provide much more detail. In particular, will the Government accept in full the guidelines suggested by the expert panel? Have the Government made provision to ensure that police forces throughout the country are able to purchase the necessary equipment and that they will be able to future-test those purchases when new evidence becomes available about the impact of different drugs as our experience and understanding of issues such as legal highs develops? The amendment seeks to probe the Government to ensure that, at this late stage, they have done more of the homework that we all want to see so that the offence is recognised and families of people such as Lillian Groves can take comfort that Parliament is listening to their concerns.

In conclusion, I want to speak briefly to amendments 89 and 90. We all enjoyed the opportunity provided in Committee to discuss our favourite insults—whether they be the work of Nye Bevan or Winston Churchill—and, naturally, to repeat them and direct them at each other. However, I want to put on record that the amendments and our concerns about section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 are based on serious worries about its potential impact, particularly on minority communities. We agreed with the Government’s decision not to overturn the other place’s decision to remove the word “insulting” from section 5 on the basis of evidence provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions that all the cases brought so far could have been prosecuted without taking that word into consideration. Nevertheless, concerns have been raised by a number of groups, particularly Stonewall, which points out that 88% of incidents of homophobic abuse that many of the people it represents have experienced involved insults, abuse and harassment. Many of us are also concerned about the Government’s management of debates such as that on the “Innocence of Muslims” film.

There is no such evidence for the changes that the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) wishes to make. I urge him to look again at the distinctions between sections 4 and 4A and section 5 of the 1986 Act, particularly with regard to the role that insults may play in incitement to violence. Given the distinction identified by the Crown Prosecution Service, we are not convinced that the same sort of evidence exists to remove the word “insulting” from sections 4 and 4A as that to remove it from section 5. The Crown Prosecution Service is clear that these are two very different elements of offence. There are different conditions under which sections 4 and 4A of the 1986 Act would be brought forward. I note in particular the number of prosecutions that involve racial or religious harassment that have been brought forward under section 4A.

I urge caution on the hon. Member for Bury North in believing that the issues with the use of the word “insulting” in section 5, which clearly precludes disruptive behaviour, can be translated into sections 4 and 4A in the way that he has tried to do. I urge the Government to exercise extreme caution in considering whether to make such a move and in responding to amendments 89 and 90.

I look forward to the Minister’s response and to a full explanation of just how he will make the offence of drug-driving a reality in this country in the years ahead.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

I will talk mainly about drug-driving because that has been the largest part of our debate, but I will pick up on the points that have been made in relation to other amendments.

On drug-driving, it is important that we consider carefully any extra burdens that we place on the police, the Crown prosecutors and the Courts Service when introducing a new offence. The Government published an impact assessment in May last year that considered those issues. It shows that removing the requirement to prove that a driver is impaired will make it easier to enforce the law against drug-drivers.

In 2010, about 40% of the proceedings in magistrates courts for driving while impaired through drugs were withdrawn or dismissed. The comparable figure for exceeding the drink-drive limit is just 3%. In addition, research for Sir Peter North’s review of drink and drug-driving law found that in one police force, only 35% of positive preliminary impairment tests led to findings of guilt at court in 2008 and 2009. It is clear, therefore, that the existing law on drug-driving is unsatisfactory, resulting in costs being incurred unnecessarily by the police, the CPS and the courts.

The new offence will reduce the wasted time, expense and effort involved when prosecutions under the existing impairment offence fail. It is not surprising, therefore, that the new offence is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers. ACPO has been fully involved in the development of the proposal and is fully aware of the resource implications for the police.

Depending on the level at which specified limits are set and on the drugs specified for the offence, it is possible that introducing the new offence, which does not require proof of impairment, will increase the number of proceedings against drug-drivers. However, based on the Government’s estimates, those costs will be more than offset by savings from fewer road deaths and serious injuries. Indeed, the impact assessment published in May 2012 records an overall net saving of some £86 million over a 10-year period.

I acknowledge that, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said, there is still work to be done and that getting the technical details right is difficult and important. Although she said that this work is being done at the last moment, we do not envisage the offence coming into effect until the later part of next year, so there is time to get the details right. The Department for Transport and, where relevant, the Home Office will be concerned to ensure that the details are in place.

The hon. Lady asked about police equipment and training to support the enforcement of the new offence. Equipment was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones). We have already granted type approval for the first station-based drug screening device for use in enforcing the existing impairment offence. We are also committed to type approving roadside devices for use in enforcing the new offence. Work on that will be taken forward once we have determined the drugs to be covered by the new offence and the specified limit for each drug. Our aim is to have approved roadside devices available as soon as practicable after the commencement of the new offence. As hon. Members will know, training on the use of new equipment is an operational matter for chief officers in consultation with roadside drug-testing device manufacturers. I acknowledge the validity of the observation made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow that the Government do not have the answers to every question, but I hope that I can reassure the House that the work is ongoing.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the Minister respond to the question that I asked him about the expert panel, which has set out a series of substances that should be tested for? Will the Government accept its recommendations in full and ensure that every police force can test for all the substances that it has outlined?

17:30

[Mr Browne]

No final decision has been made on the precise list of what will be tested for. We are grateful for the contributions and representations that have been made, and when we are in a position to provide the details we will do so. We obviously want to ensure that a wide range of drugs whose consumption could lead to increased risk on our roads are covered, but the line will need to be drawn somewhere and there will be practical considerations to take into account. We will obviously want to ensure that we inform everybody once the deliberations have run their course.

On new clause 18 and amendment 120, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has explained that he is concerned about the penalty regimes for drink and drug-driving. That is the issue that has exercised people the most, so I think it will be helpful if I dwell on it for a while. The new drug-driving offence created in clause 41 will be subject to the same penalty regime as the existing drink-driving offence of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit. The penalties available are mandatory disqualification from driving for at least a year, and a fine of up to £5,000, and/or imprisonment for up to six months. In addition, there is the offence in section 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 of causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, which carries a penalty of up to 14 years’ imprisonment. It is necessary for the prosecution to show that a person’s driving was careless to secure a conviction for that offence.

Section 3ZB of the 1988 Act makes it a criminal offence to cause death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured. The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment, or a fine, or both. Amendment 120 would amend that section to include people who were driving with a specified controlled drug in their body in excess of a specified limit. Importantly for my hon. Friend, carelessness does not have to be proved to secure a conviction under that section. I know that he is concerned that requiring the prosecution to prove carelessness puts too great a burden on it, but the Government are not aware of any recent cases in which that has proved problematic. The hon. Member for Walthamstow made that point.

The test for carelessness is broad, and CPS guidance suggests that a wide variety of circumstances should be considered as carelessness. Indeed, in the case of Lillian Groves, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell)—although he is in another debate now, he has been extremely vigilant in pursuing the case on behalf of his constituents—the driver was convicted of causing death by careless driving. It therefore seems likely that if the new offence had been in force when the tragedy took place, the defendant would have been tried under the section 3A offence, provided that the prosecution could also show that he had a specified controlled drug in his body in excess of the specified limit.

However, if my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate or interested groups can provide evidence that prosecutors are failing to prosecute drivers for the section 3A offence because they cannot show that the driver was careless, the Department for Transport has undertaken to review the case for amending legislation. The changes in the Bill will make a difference, but the carelessness provision already stands and we have no reason to believe that it will prevent prosecutions, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow suggested. However, if evidence of that is brought to our attention we will of course consider it properly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate also proposed new clause 18 that would increase the maximum sentence for the prescribed limit drink-driving offence to two years’ imprisonment. The United Kingdom already has the toughest drink-driving penalties in Europe. Sir Peter North’s 2010 review of drink and drug-driving law examined the penalty regime and did not identify any evidence that would support that increase in the maximum sentence. The Government are not aware of any new evidence that has come to light since the North report was published.

The Government consider that the existing offence framework is sufficient and appropriate, and ensures that those who ought not to be on the roads are removed from them. Where more serious offences are committed—such as where others are hurt or killed—other relevant offences could be pursued. I do not want to suggest in any way that the Government are complacent about or insufficiently vigilant in the face of such matters. We want to make our roads as safe as possible, but it is worth noting that Britain has some of the safest roads anywhere in Europe and the western world. That is due to responsible social attitudes but also the fact that the legal framework in place has been shown to be effective. I understand, however, why people involved in each individual case and each individual tragedy would feel strongly about these matters.

Amendments 89 and 90 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) bring me to the subject of public order offences. I suggest that the amendments would limit the police’s ability to deal with those who can be shown to be intentionally provoking violence, causing others to fear violence, or causing harassment, alarm or distress to others. They would do that by removing the word “insulting” from the offences under sections 4 and 4A of the Public Order Act 1986.

My hon. Friend may see the amendments as a helpful intervention to bring those sections of the 1986 Act into line with the amendment to section 5 of that Act set out in clause 42, but that would be a mistake as it would ignore the thorough consideration, consultation and debate undertaken by the Government, both here and in the other place, before agreeing to reform section 5. It would also ignore the significant differences between the section 5 offence and the more serious offences described in sections 4 and 4A. This is not just a tidying-up exercise; sections 4 and 4A are materially different from section 5. Offences under sections 4 and 4A require proof of intent to cause harm to another person, and proof that harassment, alarm or distress was both intended and actually caused to another person. The intent and harm caused are the differentiating features of those offences, rather than the likely effect of the words used or behaviour involved.

Using insulting words that cause someone to fear violence against them, or that have the deliberate intention of causing harassment, alarm or distress, is a far more serious matter than the section 5 offence in which the perpetrator might not intend to cause harassment, alarm or distress, and indeed none might have been caused. In the Government’s view, using insulting words or behaviour in the context of sections 4 or 4A oversteps the line between freedom of speech and the freedom of someone to live in peace and safety. The line must be drawn somewhere, and the Government believe it right to draw it between sections 4A and 5.

Furthermore, during the long-running campaign that culminated in clause 42, one key argument put forward by those seeking to remove “insulting” from section 5 of the 1986 Act was that removal would not have a negative impact on minority groups. The reasoning behind that was that the police have more appropriate powers available to deal with such unacceptable behaviour under sections 4 and 4A of the 1986 Act. Having accepted that argument as part of the reasoning behind the removal of “insulting” from section 5, it seems perverse to remove the protections for minorities provided by the “insulting” limb in sections 4 and 4A.

In summary, for reasons that I hope I have explained to the satisfaction of the House, the Government are not persuaded of the case for making the same change to section 4 and 4A offences that clause 42 makes to the section 5 offence.

Finally, I ought to speak briefly to the single Government amendment in this group, amendment 84, which provides for the enhanced householder defence provisions in clause 30 to come into force on Royal Assent. Clause 30 is designed to give householders greater latitude to protect themselves in those terrifying circumstances when they are confronted by intruders in their homes. We recognise that it is unusual, although not unprecedented, to commence provisions of this nature on Royal Assent. We would usually allow a gap of at least two months between Royal Assent and commencement, to allow the enforcement agencies time to prepare. However, in this case we are anxious to avoid any unnecessary delay in delivering a coalition commitment and, more important, a tangible enhancement of the protection that householders have to defend themselves. The Government have discussed the amendment with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, which are content with clause 30 being commenced on Royal Assent. We think the public would find it difficult to understand why commencement had been delayed beyond Royal Assent, particularly if a householder was attacked by an intruder in the intervening period while acting to protect themselves or family members, but could not rely on the heightened householder defence.

For all the reasons I have set out, I would invite Opposition Members and my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Bury North not to press their amendments. I recognise that I cannot provide the House with all the practical details of the methods that police forces will use to test for drug-driving, but we are at the broad legislative phase, not the practical implementation phase. I can assure the House that we will no doubt discuss such practical considerations in due course, but they are not necessary to approve the proposed legislation before us.

[Stella Creasy]

Given the Minister’s open, earnest and welcome admission that he cannot answer the questions raised today and that the spirit of our amendment 2 is precisely to get at that information, will he tell the House when we will have that information about the implementation of the offence and the ability of our police forces and courts to deal with it? After all, our amendment calls for information one year after the introduction of the offence, which seems a reasonable amount of time to expect police forces to deal with it, so can he explicitly set out for the House when he expects to report back on these issues?

[Mr Browne]

The Government will publish a revised impact assessment alongside our consultation on the drugs to be covered by the new offence and the limit for each, and we will revise it again, if required, before the draft regulations are laid before Parliament. As the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, they will need to be debated and approved by each House before they can be made and come into force. Given the requirement to consult on the draft regulations and then to have them approved, we are working on the basis that the new offence will come into force in the latter half of 2014, as I said a few moments ago.

On that basis, I would suggest that requiring a full evaluation of the impact of the new offence just 12 months after Royal Assent would be premature. However, I can assure the House that the Government will commission research to evaluate the effectiveness of the new offence once it is in operation. The research will take account of the impact of the new offence on the police, prosecutors and the courts. The results of such research will be published on the Department for Transport’s website. A lot of the responsibility sits with the Department for Transport rather than the Home Office, but I am not in a position to give the hon. Lady a definitive date when these matters can be considered in detail. All I can give is an assurance that this work is being undertaken and that opportunities will exist to consider such matters. I say this entirely in a spirit of openness, but I see no reason why we would not wish to give Members in all parts of the House an opportunity to consider the progress the Government have made when we are in a position to bring forward proposals that will stimulate a debate and consideration of that type.

With that, I hope that Members will see fit not to press their amendments, and I commend Government amendment 84 to the House.

[Mr Burrowes]

I welcome the debate on new clause 18. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) referred to the proposals as a “bauble”, but this is a serious matter and I am not sure that the victims, the police and the road safety charities behind the new clause would appreciate it being referred to as a bauble. However, I appreciate that her comments were being made in the general context of the Bill.

17:47

I have received some criticism for tabling the new clause and amendment 120 at a rather late stage in the proceedings. However, the issue was raised last year with the Department for Transport, and hon. Members will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and I raised the matter on Second Reading. My hon. Friend has rightly been lauded for his excellent campaign on the issue. We relied at the time on the explanatory notes to the Bill, and we received assurances that a person who killed someone when driving while over the limit in relation to drugs or alcohol would face the prospect of being charged with the offence of causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, which carries a heavy penalty. On the basis of those assurances, we proceeded to the Bill Committee, where my hon. Friend the Minister gave further clarification and assurances that the gap that I have described had already been filled. Subsequently, however, we have realised that there is a need for further clarity.

I welcome the Minister’s response to the new clause. I also welcome the fact that he and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), recognise that this is an important issue. I appreciate the Minister’s openness in saying that if the necessary evidence were to come to light, an undertaking would be made to review the case for amending the legislation. That is a welcome commitment.

Only 27 people were charged with causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, even though 220 deaths were classified as having that as a contributory factor, which suggests that there is a gap. I invite the Government to work with me to get beneath those figures and find out why that difference exists between those two numbers. There is also a difference between the number of people tried for the offence, which was 27, and the number of people convicted, which was zero. Is there perhaps an over-reliance on the simple offence of driving with excess alcohol or while over the limit in relation to drugs?

I will seek to meet the Minister’s challenge to me and others to bring any additional evidence to the Government’s attention. I hope that there will then be a joint investigation into that evidence that will culminate in the Government fulfilling their obligation to amend the legislation appropriately. In the light of the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18

Judicial appointments

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

I beg to move amendment 22, page 17, line 21, at end insert—

‘Part 4A amends the selection procedure for certain senior judicial appointments until Part 4 of the Schedule is in force,’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 10 to 21.

Amendment 100, page 224, line 42, schedule 13, at end insert—

‘Each of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice must at all times engage in a programme of action which is designed—

(a) to secure, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, that appointments to listed judicial offices are such that those holding such offices are reflective of the community in England and Wales;

(b) to require the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, to secure that a range of persons reflective of the community in England and Wales is available for consideration by the Judicial Appointments Commission whenever it is required to select a person to be appointed, or recommended for appointment, to a listed judicial office.’.

Government amendments 23 to 59.

New clause 7—Enforcement services

‘(1) The Legal Services Act 2007 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 125 insert—

125A (1) For the purposes of this Part (and sections 1, 21 and 27 as they apply in relation to this Part)—

(a) the Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents Council is to be treated as an approved regulator;

(b) enforcement services are to be treated as a reserved legal activity;

(c) a person authorised under sections 63 and 64 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act services is to be treated as an authorised person in relation to that activity;

(d) the Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents Council is to be treated as a relevant authorising body in relation to such a person, and

(e) regulations under the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the National Standards for Enforcement Agents are to be treated as regulatory arrangements of the Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents Council as an approved regulator.

(2) For the purposes of sections 112 and 145 (as extended by this section), a person authorised under sections 63 and 64 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act, is to be treated as a “relevant authorised person” in relation to the Regulator.”.’.

New clause 17—Protection of vulnerable debtors

‘(1) At any time after a notice required under paragraph 7, Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 is served on a debtor, the debtor may apply to the court to stay or suspend the notice on terms on either of the following grounds—

(a) the enforcement action being taken is disproportionate to the debt and circumstances involved; and

(b) the debtor’s goods may be insufficient in value to satisfy the debt involved.

(2) The court may, in its discretion and if satisfied with the above grounds, suspend or stay any judgment or order given or made in prior proceedings for such time and on such terms as the court thinks fit.

(3) Enforcement proceedings under Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 are proceedings for the purposes of section 71(2) and section 88 of the County Court Act 1984.

(4) Subject to the regulations under section 64 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 complaints against holders of certificates shall be considered by a designated judge and may include both complaints regarding compliance with the terms of certification as well as the exercise of legal powers under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Further to which—

(a) the designated judge may, on consideration of a complaint, exercise powers under section 64 to suspend or cancel a holder’s certificate; and

(b) the designated judge shall publish an annual report.

(5) The Lord Chancellor shall periodically review data concerning complaints against holders of certificates, update guidance where evidence of bad practice arises and respond to any recommendations set out in a report under subsection 2 within six months.’.

Government new clause 5—Supreme Court chief executive, officers and staff.

Government new clause 6—Making and use of recordings of Supreme Court proceedings.

Government amendments 60, 77 to 80, 82 and 83.

[The Solicitor-General]

I shall start by speaking to the Government amendments, but I should also like to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), if he arrives. I shall start with amendments 22, 57 and 58.

As hon. Members will be aware, the Government are making a number of changes to the judicial appointments process, including to the selection process for the Lord Chief Justice and the heads of division. As part of the changes, the details of the selection process that are currently in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 will move into secondary legislation. There are many reasons for doing that, and many improvements are being made. There is an urgency to this, however, because the Lord Chief Justice is about to retire and we hope that it will be possible to deal with the new appointment and any consequential appointment of a head of division under the new system rather than the old. The amendments aim to achieve that by briefly inserting the new selection process into the 2005 Act, so that it applies to the appointment of Lord Judge’s successor. I must stress that it will be a transitory measure and will cease to have effect after the appointment of the next Lord Chief Justice and any consequent head of division. It is then intended that the secondary legislation will follow.

Amendments 25 to 55 deal with the technical aspects of the change to the Lord Chancellor’s role in the judicial appointments process, including the transfer to the Lord Chief Justice or the Senior President of Tribunals, as appropriate, of the power to decide upon selections made by the Judicial Appointments Commission for certain judicial offices below the High Court. The Government intend to retain the Lord Chancellor’s role in all other aspects of these appointments, particularly terms and conditions for fixed-term judicial appointments where a fee is paid. However, the Bill currently transfers the power to renew, or to refuse to renew, fixed-term judicial appointments to the Lord Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals. Amendments 25 to 55 therefore amend schedule 13 so that that power is retained with the Lord Chancellor. They ensure that, in exercising that role, the Lord Chancellor must, as now, if deciding not to renew a fixed-term appointment, comply with any requirement to secure the consent of the Lord Chief Justice or Senior President of Tribunals.

Amendments 23 and 24 also deal with the selection process for judicial appointments and the move from primary to secondary legislation. As part of these changes, the original idea was to move the requirement for there to be on the commission a commissioner with special knowledge of Wales into secondary legislation, but on further consideration, the Government decided that it was important to retain an appropriate level of input by a lay member of the commission with a special knowledge of Wales and that that requirement should remain in primary legislation. The amendments therefore reinstate the requirement in the 2005 Act that those selecting persons for appointment as commissioners should ensure, as far as practicable, that there is at least one lay commissioner with special knowledge of Wales.

Amendment 59 relates to the judicial deployment provisions in schedule 14. The objective is to give the Lord Chief Justice more flexibility in deploying judges to different courts and tribunals. That supports an important objective for the Government because it means that judges can be used efficiently. Individual judges will also benefit, if they have a wider breadth of experience and can develop their judicial careers as a result. The policy was brought forward in partnership with the judiciary and the aim has always been to move forward collectively in the delivery of our shared aims and objectives. After further consultation with the judiciary and further thought, it has been decided that the particular skills and experience needed in the Crown court mean that it should be removed from the flexible deployment provisions. Those matters should be dealt with by Crown court judges, as happens now.

Amendments 10 to 21 are technical and minor amendments dealing with the single family court provisions. I can be brief, because there is only one point of substance. At the moment, magistrates courts can vary maintenance orders registered with them, but because in future the family courts will be able to issue those orders, it is necessary to provide that magistrates will no longer have that variation power, which will lie with the family courts—a victory for the Committee, the other place and, of course, the Government.

New clause 5 relates to the appointment of the chief executive of the UK Supreme Court. I am confident it will be welcomed. A new clause along similar lines was tabled in the other place and again here in Committee. The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said at the time that we were going to discuss the matter with the powers that be. The appointments process for the chief executive of the UK Supreme Court has been discussed with the president of the Court, and I am pleased to report that those discussions have been successfully concluded, and the Government have therefore tabled the new clause with the Court’s agreement. Thus the president of the UK Supreme Court, not the Lord Chancellor, is responsible for the appointment of the chief executive. It is no longer necessary for the chief executive to agree the staffing structure with the Lord Chancellor, and the provision also clarifies that the Court’s officers and staff will be civil servants—something that needed to be done.

New clause 6 deals with broadcasting in the Supreme Court. To clarify matters, clause 28 expressly disapplies section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which prohibits sound recordings in court, to facilitate court broadcasting below the UK Supreme Court. It looks odd not to confirm at the same time that the Supreme Court is able to be exempt, so new clause 6 achieves that. Let me be clear that this is about clarifying the matter; there is no question that this has caused any problem in the past.

Amendments 60, 77, 78 and 82 make consequential amendments. I now reach the point where I can say that I am looking forward to hearing the right hon. Member for Blackburn and other colleagues presenting their new clauses and amendments.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

I shall address my remarks to the Government amendments, but also to new clause 7, which deals with bailiffs, and amendment 100 on judicial diversity.

Let me start with a positive. We are pleased that the Government have seen fit to include new clause 5. These provisions were debated favourably in the other place and were introduced by the Opposition in Committee. The creation of the Supreme Court was, I think, an excellent achievement of the previous Government and it is right that Ministers have accepted the argument put to them by the Opposition and many in the profession for a further transfer of powers to strengthen the Court’s independence. We welcome the Government’s agreement with the recommendations and their decision to include in the Bill these important changes.

Continuing on a positive note, we completely accept the other Government new clauses and I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will be pleased that a member of the Judicial Appointments Commission will have special knowledge of Wales in the future.

Amendment 100 was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). I have not heard what he is about to say, but I feel confident that I should agree with it. The Opposition are strongly in favour of that amendment. My noble Friend Baroness Hale gave a lecture a few weeks ago, in which she stated she was going to

“start by taking it for granted that judicial diversity is a good thing.”

For the purposes of this debate, I shall use a few more words to echo the arguments that will be put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, but I think the House will agree that my noble Friend also speaks with considerable expertise on this issue.

The Government have recognised in the Bill that diversity in our judiciary is desirable, and unless we hold with the idea that talent is innately concentrated in one social group, we must acknowledge that for every exceptional judge we have, we are losing out on able candidates because we do not do enough to find them. Measures to support diversity seek not to give credit where it is not due, but to encourage ability wherever it may be found. We have seen many instances where it has been argued that merit and diversity are mutually exclusive, but we have argued that a diverse judiciary is not artificial or missing out on talent—it is quite the other way round. Diversity matters in both principle and practice. A judiciary that incorporates a range of voices, backgrounds and experiences brings more to the table. The differences, as Baroness Hale put it,

“add variety and depth to all decision-making.”

18:00

The amendment confers a duty on the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice

“as far as it is reasonably practicable to do so”

—that is important—to encourage the establishment of a judiciary that better reflects the society that it serves. That brings many obvious and stated benefits, not least public confidence in the courts.

One of the major strengths of the amendment is that it has a precedent. It is modelled directly on a law in Northern Ireland that was implemented to ensure that all sections of society were respected in judicial appointments. It is popular across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland, and has met with considerable success there. I understand that it is reasonably uncontroversial. A second strength of the amendment is that it is in the spirit of the diversity provisions that are already in the Bill. It does not specify process or demand the filling of quotas, and it is in keeping with the aim to bring about a long-term shift in the present culture. It asks for awareness, intelligent decision making, and encouragement for the best from every background to enter the profession. We are rightly proud of our judiciary, and we want that pride to continue.

The Government have taken some welcome steps in the Bill, not least the introduction of flexible working conditions and the tipping-point provision, and I commend them for that. As I am sure they recognise, however, the limit of the tipping point is that it requires a candidate to reach that point in the first place. We need a good pool from which to recruit. Opening up the possibilities of recruitment and promotion in the profession is vital if we are to gain the best and the brightest young people from the length and breadth of our constituencies. I do not know how many of my constituents have become judges. I assume that some have, but probably not as many as I would wish.

The amendment is a proven and highly desirable provision. It proposes a small change in the law that would present opportunities for many more talented individuals to prove their ability to guard and interpret the law as members of the judiciary. It represents welcome progress, although it is long overdue. Should my right hon. Friend wish to press it to a vote, he will have our support.

New clause 7, entitled “Enforcement services”, deals with the issue of an independent complaints procedure for bailiff practice. It allows a complainant against a bailiff redress through an ombudsman. The issue has some history in relation to the Bill, in which this important provision has previously been included. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring it back to the House, but it is more than a little disappointing to have to argue yet again for its inclusion in the face of Government opposition.

The new clause amends the Legal Services Act 2007 to provide for enforcement services to be treated as a reserved legal activity, which means that the Office for Legal Complaints would have jurisdiction to deal with complaints about bailiffs. It was first introduced as an amendment by Baroness Meacher, who said that it

“seeks to provide some protection for vulnerable people who have suffered unacceptably at the hands of a bailiff.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 1475.]

It was supported by a majority of the Lords, who passed it in a Government defeat.

The fact that aggressive and unlawful bailiff action is a problem that is both serious and too widespread is not in contention. The Government’s consultation has acknowledged the unacceptable occurrence of intimidating, aggressive and threatening behaviour by some in the bailiff industry. Citizens advice bureaux report receiving over 24,000 complaints against private bailiff practice in 2011 and 2012. After too many months of silence following their consultation, the Government have made a great deal over the past few weeks of their intention to transform bailiff action, but their proposal is to implement part 3 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 introduced by the previous Government, which codified over 800 years of enforcement law and paved the way for extensive reform to challenge bad practice. Part 3 sets out improved procedures and rules for the seizure of goods, including scope for regulations to be brought forward on a clear fee structure.

Credit is due on both sides of the House for recognising that problem. Some of the Government’s proposals, in particular regarding banning the use of force against the person, are to be commended, but, unfortunately, that is where the congratulations should end. The previous Government laid out the foundations of the Act with the intention of building on them. It was, and remains, the Opposition’s position that the clarification of enforcement law should be backed by a robust independent system of regulation. The enhanced certification regime is a key thread of the Government’s package and was intended as an interim measure en route to this long-term goal. The Government have not only stopped, but settled halfway along that road and so are offering a bit of a half-hearted solution.

New clause 7 provides for one small but central element in an independent regulatory system: an independent grievance process. The Government’s position is that such a system is unnecessary, but we disagree, as did the majority of the advice sector respondents to the Department’s consultation. They do not believe that the in-house system of complaints in relation to enforcement firms is objective or adequate. Rather than building on the foundations of the Act, the Government chose in Committee to knock down the progress that had been made and to force the removal of the new clause.

In Committee, the Minister suggested that the vote on that provision in the Lords was born out of frustration that the Government had not yet responded to its consultation on bailiff action. I wonder whether he will now concede that support for the provision is born out of frustration that the Government have responded, but have done so disappointingly, and have prevented an effective and reasonable safeguard from being included.

The Minister centred his argument on the premise that the Government’s proposals will make a robust complaints procedure unnecessary. He said that things have “moved on” and that most of the reasons for current complaints will be removed. It is not good enough for the Government to say “We’ve dealt with this and there will be fewer problems next year”. We do not believe that.

Members across this House know what is facing families in the months to come. In the next year, hundreds of families, including many working households, will be hit by the 1% uprating of social security, the bedroom tax, cuts to working tax credit and many other austerity measures. I am not making a political point here; I am just observing that that is the case. We predict that many people will be pushed into tough times and will have to face bailiffs for the first time.

The Minister acknowledged in Committee that there will be cases where “things go wrong”. The Government’s consultation acknowledges that there is confusion over who should deal with complaints against bailiffs, not least among the victims. Citizens advice bureau guidance for victims of aggressive action has to navigate the variety of factors that govern what complaints can be taken where, including the unhelpful truth that a victim might have to ask the aggressive agent where they should register a complaint. We should not tolerate that.

We do not hold with the Government’s arguments for removing the new clause. The Minister has stated that he believes it subjects the industry to over-burdensome regulation, and that the Government’s proposals offer a more “measured and proportionate” response to concerns. We simply disagree with that. Ombudsmen are not extraordinary in public life. They are pretty much the norm, and we have them in the fields of health, housing, local government, financial services, legal services, telecommunications and prisons. Do we really believe it is disproportionate for a person who has redress to an ombudsman over a phone bill disagreement also to have redress to an ombudsman if their door is kicked down or their family are threatened by an aggressive bailiff?

The Minister also made the point in Committee that some bailiff practice is already subject to the jurisdiction of the local government ombudsman. If ombudsman action is appropriate for some complaints, why do the Government believe it is not appropriate for all complaints? In particular, why would they hold it disproportionate to ensure that the entire private bailiff sector, which generates the vast majority of complaints, is covered, rather than just the public sector work?

We believe that an independent complaints procedure is an important and necessary safeguard, and would like to see it re-included in the Bill. An ombudsman can provide objective redress, root out bad behaviour, publish data on good and bad practice, and suggest improvements. I should make it clear to the House, just as Baroness Meacher made it clear in another place, that the legal ombudsman is able and willing to take on that role, which is compatible with other responsibilities of that office. This is a volatile area, and we would like the Government to commit to a robust complaints procedure.

[The Solicitor-General]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Jenny Chapman]

I was about to finish, but I will give way.

[The Solicitor-General]

Under the Legal Services Act 2007, the legal ombudsman only investigates cases about the service provided to the customer; it deals only with legal services that have been badly provided. If we were to say, “Oh well, let’s include bailiff services”, that would be very nice for the creditor, who would be able to report to the legal services ombudsman, but it would not help the debtors. They are the people for whom the hon. Lady is speaking, but they would not be able to complain to the legal services ombudsman because a service is not being provided to them.

[Jenny Chapman]

It was not me who made that suggestion; it came from the legal services ombudsman. So clearly there is a way around this matter and the Minister may wish to explore that a bit further. His intervention shows that the Government are not going to do this, but we would like them to commit to a robust complaints procedure to sort out the problems that our constituents face. They deserve access to a robust complaints procedure when things go wrong, as they too often do, so we hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support our proposal.

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

I shall speak briefly in support of a probing proposal, my new clause 17. I listened carefully to the speech made by the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), and I entirely share and sympathise with the thrust of her argument: we do need to make sure that the regulation of the behaviour of bailiffs is not just about certification; and the continuing behaviour of individual bailiffs does need to be monitored, tracked and adequately assessed, so that regulations are adjusted to keep pace with changing practices in debt collection.

We all know that debt collection is a sad fact of life that affects a large number of our constituents. We have all, in our case loads, doubtless come across worrying stories about abuses of power. It is right to acknowledge that the Government are moving, with their transformative agenda, to address large parts of the concerns that Members rightly have. Using the existing legislation to create new regulations is a good step forward. Importantly, the strengthening of the certification process, in the form of training and the like, is a valuable way forward, as is the creation of the new fixed-fee system. As I have already said, that deals only with the point of certification and not with practice. We must be realistic and we must acknowledge that taking a snapshot of the behaviour of individual bailiffs will not deal with many of the problems that beset people who are in debt but still deserve to be treated with respect.

18:14

My new clause takes a slightly different course from the Opposition amendment. It seeks to build on existing structures in Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and to use those mechanisms to create a system whereby individuals who have been wronged can make complaints and seek redress of grievance. The grounds I have set out relate to behaviour that is disproportionate to the debt and circumstances involved and to a situation where the debtor’s goods are insufficient in value to satisfy the debt. Giving the court the discretion to stay orders made in prior proceedings is, I submit, a cost-effective, streamlined and appropriate way of building in the extra check and balance that is needed in the system of regulation.

My new clause does not stop there but goes on to deal in subsection (2) with the discretion of the court. Importantly, subsection (5) would give power to the Lord Chancellor to review data on complaints and allow the regulatory framework to be updated when, as a result of that review, a body of evidence demonstrates that change is needed. There are some concerns that the creation of such a system could lead to a flood of applications that would mean that the debt enforcement system fell into some form of disrepute. I do not accept that. I believe that the creation of such systems incentivises the behaviour of bailiffs so that their standard of conduct becomes even better. That is the thrust of the Government’s reforms and, I think, the combined will of Parliament. We want to see a change of culture and a constant striving for improvement.

My proposal would create a more streamlined procedure than the ombudsman path. It is simple, clear and allows individuals to have proper redress against bad bailiff behaviour. I agree that challenging the certification of bailiffs is important, but that path is hardly ever used. Unless there is a concomitant increase in the number of challenges to certification, I am worried that the system will not keep pace, however well intentioned the reforms are, with the change that so many of our constituents quite rightly demand.

As I have said, my new clause is a probing amendment. I look forward to hearing the comments of my hon. Friend the Solicitor-General in response to the arguments outlined by me and others.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) for her remarks in support of amendment 100, which we have tabled along with other hon. Friends, and to the Solicitor-General for what he had to say in anticipation of my remarks. I look forward to his acceptance of my amendment and to the other changes, which I broadly endorse, to the 2005 arrangements for judicial appointments.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has 12 justices. Just one has been a woman—Baroness Hale. Towards the end of last year, three vacancies on the Supreme Court bench arose. A special panel, as provided by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, was established to fill those vacancies. I am quite sure that the panel applied itself to the highest standards for the selection process. The candidates who were successful are all jurists of the highest quality. Their names were announced last month. All three are men. So this country’s highest court will, for the foreseeable future, continue to be composed of 11 men and one woman. Therein lies the problem.

As the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, said last year in evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee,

“if…women are not less good judges than men, why are 80% or 90% of judges male? It suggests, purely on a statistical basis, that we do not have the best people because there must be some women out there who are better than the less good men who are judges.”

The figures are stark: the further up the judicial ladder you go, the fewer and fewer women there are to be found.

My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington referred to the important lecture that Baroness Hale gave recently. Baroness Hale set out the figures:

“22.5% of the judges in the ordinary courts…are women and 4.2% are British minority ethnic…Only 26.6% of the upper tribunal judiciary are women, though 11% are BME.”

When we get to the High Court, just 15% are women and 4.5% BME; 10% of Court of Appeal judges are women; none is black or Asian. She said that

“none of the five heads of division is a woman or BME; and in the Supreme Court there is still only me and the only ethnic minorities we have are the Scots and the Irish…The average”—

for judiciaries—

“across the countries in the Council of Europe is 52% men and 48% women. At 23% England and Wales is fourth from the bottom, followed only by Azerbaijan, Scotland and Armenia.”

These days everyone—more or less—agrees with Lord Neuberger’s sentiment that women are just as qualified to do any job, including the top jobs, as are men. The problem is that, for the judiciary, the system is simply not delivering the equality of outcome that we all seek. It was supposed to do so. When the current statutory system of judicial appointments was established in 2005, one of the arguments advanced for the new, independent Judicial Appointments Commission was that it would be able to advance the diversity of the judiciary in terms both of gender and of ethnicity.

Initially, progress with that commission was frustratingly slow, as both I, as Lord Chancellor, and my permanent secretary, Sir Suma Chakrabarti, repeatedly made clear to its then chair. I happily concede that there have been some more recent improvements, and I know of the personal commitment of the new chair, Chris Stephens, to see the commission do better, and of the steps he is taking. Those steps are necessary but, with respect to Mr Stephens, they are not in my view sufficient.

Part of the problem has been the wording of the 2005 Act, which requires the Judicial Appointments Commission to select solely “on merit”. I will come back to that loaded concept in a moment. The Bill seeks to qualify “on merit” by a provision in part 2 of schedule 13 which essentially allows the commission, where it judges that there are

“two persons of equal merit”,

to choose the woman, or the black or Asian candidate.

I am not cavilling, and that provision may help a little, but some of this country’s much better legal brains than me tell me that it can only help a little, since “merit” is likely to be narrowly defined for these purposes. Indeed, one of Lady Hale’s colleagues on the Supreme Court, Lord Sumption, has challenged the whole idea of equal merit. He was formerly a member of the Judicial Appointments Commission, and he said that at the

“upper end of the ability range there is usually clear water between every candidate once one looks at them in detail.”

He went on:

“If you dilute the principle of selecting only the most talented candidates by introducing criteria other than individual merit, you will by definition end up with a bench on which there are fewer outstanding people. But there is a more serious problem even than that. It is the impact that the change would have on applications.”

Happily, Lord Sumption’s view is not shared by Lady Hale, as her recent lecture made clear, nor, it would seem, by the president of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, who, I believe, is on the side of light and whose frustration with the present outcomes shone through in a recent interview he gave to The Guardian in which he dissected the concept of merit—that is my gloss, not his words—and discussed how loaded it could be in practice. He said of the appointment process:

“I’m not saying there is a subconscious bias…what worries me is that we may all be suffering from a subconscious bias which by definition may be difficult to show or to prove.”

It might, he suggested, be a subconscious expectation of

“having an image of a judge with…male-type qualities and a male appearance. I’m not saying we do have that but there’s a risk that we do and it’s difficult to know how to cater for it.”

I agree entirely.

When I joined the House 34 years ago, just 19 Members—less than 3%—were women. Today, there are 143 women MPs, or 22% of the 650—seven times the proportion when I became an MP. The Labour party has managed to increase its proportion of women MPs to over a third; the Conservatives are now up to 15%. The proportion of black and Asian MPs is now up to 4.2%. For the first time in my parliamentary career, the House of Commons is beginning to look more like the society it represents, but the numbers are still not good enough.

We know two things. First, progress could not have been achieved without the special measures for women’s selection pioneered by my party, and commendably adopted in modified form by the Conservative party. Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence that the quality of women MPs, or of black and Asian MPs, is any less than that of white men. I do not at this stage suggest that we adopt similar measures of explicit positive discrimination for the judiciary, although it may come to that if we continue to trail badly in the league tables. Canada adopted positive discrimination measures, which made a big difference to representation on the bench, and it has certainly not affected the quality of the Canadian judiciary.

Instead, the amendments that I have tabled with my hon. Friends would put on the statute book provisions that have been law in part of the United Kingdom for nine years, and which are plainly working, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington set out. Amendment 100 is a direct lift from provisions of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004. The Minister may say in his reply that the Government are doing quite a lot, and urge us to look, for example, at paragraph 11 of schedule 13 on page 224 of the Bill. The problem—although that measure is better than other provisions—is that it requires the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice to

“take such steps as that office-holder considers appropriate for the purpose of encouraging judicial diversity.”

In other words, the test is entirely subjective, whereas as my hon. Friend said, our proposed provisions, which are already law, have been operated successfully by successive Governments, both Conservative and Labour, in Northern Ireland. As Lord Chancellor for Northern Ireland until the transfer of judicial functions in 2009, I operated those provisions, and they caused no difficulty at all. Instead of a subjective test, under the amendment the duties on the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice

“would secure, so far as it is reasonably practicable…that appointments to listed judicial offices are…reflective of the community in England and Wales”.

They would also ensure that a range of persons who are reflective of that community can come forward for those positions.

18:30

These provisions have worked, Northern Ireland having been a back marker on judicial diversity. For the avoidance of doubt, the problem identified by the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission was not principally that there was an under-representation of Catholics. It was that there was a gross under-representation of women. So from having been far behind us, Northern Ireland is now far ahead. According to the last figures that I have seen for the judiciary in Northern Ireland, 57% were men and 43% were women—streets ahead of our judiciary in England and Wales. Why? Because this House—not the Northern Ireland Assembly—put into the law provisions for the Northern Ireland judiciary.

Incidentally, back in 2004 the Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended that the same provisions be included in the 2005 Act for England and Wales, and it is a matter of great regret to me that my Government, though it was not me; I was abroad at the time—[Interruption.] I always say that; it is always true. It is a matter of great regret to me that my Government did not do that. The amendment is a serious one, moved with serious purpose, and I hope we can hear from the Minister that it carries his serious approbation as well.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you had any message from the Minister for Europe that he would like to come along and make a statement to Parliament on the decision of the European Parliament today not to support the budget—to throw out the budget that we in this Parliament asked to be cut?

[Mr Speaker]

I have received no such indication from a Minister. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) is a ready source of information. She has now enlightened the House. I had not heard that news, but I imagine that it will now be well known to the Treasury Bench and her remarks will very soon find their way to Ministers, so my advice to her is that she should remain alert for any developments that might arise. I thank her for what she said.

[The Solicitor-General]

May I start where the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) left off? I entirely accept that what has happened since 2005 has been very disappointing indeed. We had high hopes. I was involved in the debates at that time and we expected that we would see far more women at the very top of the judiciary than we have done. He mentioned one out of 12 in the Supreme Court. I believe it is four out of 38 in the Court of Appeal. It is not acceptable and there is no question but that more needs to be done.

As the right hon. Gentleman conceded to some extent, we have done much in the Bill to try to achieve that, starting with flexible working, which could make a difference, and the tipping-point provisions where two people are of an equal standard. There has been a long debate in the legal profession and among judges about exactly what merit means in this context. Lord Bingham and Lord Phillips previously said that it was the judicial qualities, plus what the needs of the Court were, which had to be put together to establish what the commission should be looking for. One of the needs of the Court is to have the wisdom of highly intelligent women who have sat as judges for many years and who come to the role with the experience of women, which is, admittedly, different in all parts of the House. We are very keen to see the position improved.

There are one or two encouraging signs. For example, those entering the legal profession are now balanced and there is some progress, as the right hon. Gentleman said, at the lower levels. There is no question but that more needs to be done. The Bill makes a start with the flexible working and the tipping point. There was a great deal of discussion in the other place about how to try to make matters go forward faster, and it was accepted there that one way would be a statutory duty underpinning the leadership role of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. That is why, as the right hon. Gentleman said, paragraph 11 of schedule 13 provides that both office holders must take such steps as they consider appropriate for the purposes of encouraging diversity.

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is correct that that is not the application of an objective standard. We are putting trust in the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor to take this matter seriously and come up with a plan for the steps they consider appropriate for the purposes of encouraging diversity. For my part, given that we have not done that previously, and given that I trust those office holders to take it seriously and pursue it vigorously, I am prepared to give them the chance without making it an objective standard. We are putting trust in them, under paragraph 11 of schedule 13, to do the job. I believe that the current Lord Chief Justice takes that very seriously—I have discussed it with him and he certainly gives that impression—as does the Lord Chancellor.

[Mr Straw]

I have the highest regard for the Lord Chief Justice and, as it happens, for the Lord Chancellor, so that is not the issue. Will the hon. Gentleman explain something for me? Exactly the same arguments could have been used with regard to the Northern Ireland judiciary, because we were trusting the same Lord Chancellor—the same person—until 2009, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland is a man of the highest quality. Therefore, if these measures have not only been needed in Northern Ireland but have worked, why is the hon. Gentleman moving on to say—I think he is about to do so—that they are not needed in England and Wales?

[The Solicitor-General]

What I am saying is that the new provision was accepted in the other place, with wide acclaim—the Opposition thought that it was a major move forward—and an agreement about the way forward was established, so it is perhaps wrong for this House simply to say, “Oh well. Let’s nudge it another inch.” If Parliament is prepared to say that there will be a legal duty on those officer holders to take those steps, that seems to me to be a step forward. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman, when he was in that great role, would have taken it lightly if Parliament had told him that he must take such steps as he considered appropriate for the purposes of encouraging diversity.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I do not want to sound repetitious, because I know that this point has been made, but why is what is good for Northern Ireland not also good for the United Kingdom?

[The Solicitor-General]

Of course, there are unique circumstances in Northern Ireland, as we know, and indeed as we have discussed today in other contexts. The point I am making is that an agreement was reached in the other place on the way forward and I think that we should give it a chance. I agree with the right hon. Member for Blackburn that there has been a disappointing performance since 2005, and I am happy to make it clear from the Dispatch Box that I share his concerns about that. We have tried to do a good deal about it in the Bill. The other point I will make—I do not know how far I can take this—is that we are about to see appointments to the Court of Appeal and to very high positions in the judiciary, and there are some very good candidates who are women, but we will have to see what the outcome will be.

Turning to bailiff regulation, new clause 7 echoes an amendment that was agreed in the other place but later removed from the Bill in Committee. New clause 17 proposes a role for the court in relation to every warrant and provides for the judiciary to compile an annual report on bailiff complaints for the Lord Chancellor to consider. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) made a compelling argument on the need for a firm response to the misbehaviour of rogue bailiffs and suggested that one way of doing so would be through the court and its procedures. The Government’s approach, which I will come to shortly, is set out in the response to the “Transforming Bailiff Action” consultation, which was published on 25 January. It sets out the reforms that will tackle what we consider to be the root problems of the complaints about bailiffs. It introduces safeguards for debtors and, equally, allows creditors to collect money they are owed, which I think all parties agree is necessary.

It remains our belief that the package of reforms offers the most effective and proportionate response to the problem of aggressive bailiffs and that it will render unnecessary some of the cost and bureaucracy inherent in the proposals of the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) and the Opposition. It will be a new world, if I may put it that way.

The Government’s reforms centre on part 3 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007—the background is one of all-party consensus—and they do six things. They remove antiquated, confusing laws and clarify what the powers of bailiffs are, so those powers will be known. Regulations that we will publish this summer and aim to implement in April 2014 will set out what goods can and cannot be seized. There will also be a clear and fair charging regime. It is iniquitous for a bailiff to turn up at a door to collect three debts and then demand three fees when he has made only one visit.

[Jenny Chapman]

In the interests of moving the debate along, I have made it clear that we do not disagree with the Government on any of those things. Our point relates to when things go wrong. If the Solicitor-General could respond to that, perhaps we could make some progress.

[The Solicitor-General]

The point is that these things have not been happening, but they will happen under the Government’s reforms. They will change the landscape. That is why the word “transforming” is in the title of the consultation—they will transform things. The enhanced certification and mandatory training will make a difference and we all agree that that is a good thing. The county court certificate to practise, which a judge can withdraw on complaint, and the offence of not having a certificate when attempting enforcement are powerful new remedies that did not exist before.

The hon. Lady mentioned the legal ombudsman. It is difficult to see how the system would work effectively under her proposal. Eighty per cent. of the cases are local council cases, so the local government ombudsman will be available for complaint. That is a remedy, but the hon. Lady is complicating things by suggesting that there should be another remedy on top of it. A certification complaint is one possible route of complaint and strong remedy, as are court procedures, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon has mentioned, and the local government ombudsman. The hon. Lady also mentioned a whole host of internal complaint schemes and she wants to put another scheme on top of them, but her proposal will not work legally. She is trying to patch her proposed scheme on to the Legal Services Act 2007, but the legal ombudsman looks only into complaints about the service provided to the customer, and in these circumstances the customer is the creditor. It would be nice for the creditor to have an avenue of complaint, but that would not help the debtor.

[Jenny Chapman]

The Solicitor-General will forgive me for saying that he is repeating himself. My point is that we want a simpler ombudsman service, under which there would be one ombudsman for complaints about bailiffs. That would be far simpler and I do not know why the Solicitor-General feels the need to repeat his earlier comments, which have already been dealt with.

[The Solicitor-General]

The hon. Lady’s case is compelling in the sense that there are a lot of problems with bailiffs and their misbehaviour and that that needs to change. There is cross-party support for six changes that will change the landscape, but she is saying, “Oh, we want one more thing,” but that one more thing happens to be half-baked legally and would not do the job, so I have to make that point. Of course, it is wrong to repeat things over and over again, but I am trying to get the hon. Lady to agree that hers is not a sensible proposal.

[Jenny Chapman]

You are wrong.

[The Solicitor-General]

I have failed to persuade the hon. Lady, but I will certainly not make a concession. I hope she will forgive me in due course. I am sure she will.

Although we believe that the underlying causes of most, if not all, complaints will be dealt with by our reforms, officials are working with the advice sector to consider once more the types of complaints received. They will work with them to ensure that they are adequately addressed in the regulations, which are due in the summer.

The reforms are a significant step forward and it is worth giving them a chance. I know that the hon. Member for Darlington knows that in her heart of hearts. We are confident that our reforms will have a positive effect on bailiff action. It is time for action and something is now being done. The Bill responds to the concerns that inspired new clause 7. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon has pointed to some useful powers that can be held in reserve. It may be that in due course we will have to go that step further in court. We have given a commitment to review the reforms. That will happen one, three and, if necessary, five years after their introduction. We are working with stakeholders to ensure that there is a robust framework.

The Government are being reasonable and pro-active, so I ask the House to support the reforms. I urge the hon. Member for Darlington not to press new clause 7. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon said that new clause 17 was a probing amendment so I hope that he will not press it. I say to the right hon. Member for Blackburn that we are disappointed, but we are doing a lot in the Bill. Is it not right to trust the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, when they are given a statutory duty such as the one in the Bill, to come up with a plan that works?

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Schedule 10

The Family Court

Amendments made: 10, page 166, line 12, after ‘court’ insert ‘and to be varied by that court’.

Amendment 11, page 167, line 15, leave out paragraph 8 and insert—

‘8 (1) Section 4 (variation etc of orders registered in a magistrates’ court) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) (orders in relation to which section 4 applies) for “orders registered in magistrates’ courts” substitute “High Court orders registered in the family court”.

(3) In subsection (2)(a) (court of registration may vary rate of payments specified by order)—

(a) for “court of registration” substitute “family court”, and

(b) for “original court” substitute “High Court”.

(4) In subsection (2)(b) (general rule that variation of rate of payments specified by registered order is to be by court of registration) for the words from “court of registration” to the end substitute “family court.”

(5) Omit subsections (2A) to (2C), (5A), (5B) and (7).

(6) In subsection (4) (power of court of registration to remit application for variation of rate of payments to original court)—

(a) omit “it appears to the court to which”,

(b) after “registered order” insert “and it appears to the family court”,

(c) for “original court”, in both places, substitute “High Court”, and

(d) for “first-mentioned court” substitute “family court”.

(7) In subsection (5) (other circumstances in which original court has jurisdiction to vary rate of payments) for “original court” substitute “High Court”.

(8) In subsection (6A) (with the exception of power to make provision as to means of payment, magistrates’ courts in England and Wales have no power to vary certain orders made by Court of Session or by High Court in Northern Ireland)—

(a) for the words before “variation” substitute “Although such an order as is mentioned in this subsection may be varied under section 1 of the Maintenance Enforcement Act 1991 as applied by section 4A(2) of this Act, no application for any other”,

(b) for “any court” substitute “the family court”,

(c) for “that court” substitute “the family court”, and

(d) for “section 1(2)” substitute “sections 1(2) and 2(6A)”

(9) In subsection (6B) (no application to be made to a magistrates’ court for variation of certain orders) for “any court” substitute “the family court”.’.

Amendment 12, page 167, line 36, leave out ‘or an officer of that court’.

Amendment 13, page 167, line 39, leave out ‘or an officer of that court’.

Amendment 14, page 177, line 37, leave out ‘or an officer of the court’.

Amendment 15, page 177, line 40, leave out ‘, or an officer of the court,’.

Amendment 16, page 181, leave out lines 21 and 22.

Amendment 17, page 181, line 23, leave out ‘paragraphs 3 and’ and insert ‘paragraph’.

Amendment 18, page 182, line 10, leave out ‘paragraphs 4 and 5’ and insert ‘paragraph 4’.

Amendment 19, page 183, line 7, leave out ‘22,’ and insert ‘22(2),’.—(Oliver Heald.)

Schedule 11

Transfer of jurisdiction to family court

Amendments made: 20, page 188, line 14, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) to (7) and insert—

‘( ) For subsections (1A) to (1E) (powers of magistrates’ courts in England and Wales to vary registered orders) substitute—

“(1A) The family court may exercise the same powers in relation to an order registered in the family court under this Part of this Act as are exercisable by the family court under section 1 of the Maintenance Enforcement Act 1991 in relation to a qualifying periodical maintenance order (within the meaning of that section) which has been made by the family court, including the power under subsection (7) of that section to revoke, suspend, revive or vary any means of payment order (within the meaning of that subsection) made by virtue of this subsection.”’.

Amendment 21, page 216, line 37, column2, at end insert—

‘In Schedule 2, paragraph 3(3).’.—(Oliver Heald.)

Schedule 13

Judicial appointments

Amendment proposed: 100, page 224, line 42, at end insert

‘Each of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice must at all times engage in a programme of action which is designed—

(a) to secure, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, that appointments to listed judicial offices are such that those holding such offices are reflective of the community in England and Wales;

(b) to require the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, to secure that a range of persons reflective of the community in England and Wales is available for consideration by the Judicial Appointments Commission whenever it is required to select a person to be appointed, or recommended for appointment, to a listed judicial office.’.—(Mr Straw.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

18:46

Division 188

Ayes: 216

---

Labour: 208
Plaid Cymru: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Scottish National Party: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Alliance: 1

Noes: 272

---

Conservative: 231
Liberal Democrat: 38
Independent: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

18:59

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Schedule 13

Judicial appointments

Amendments made: 23, page 227, line 8, leave out ‘Wales, of some other’ and insert ‘a particular geographical’.

24, page 227, line 11, at end insert—

‘6B The powers to make regulations under this Part of this Schedule are to be exercised with a view to ensuring, so far as may be practicable, that the Commissioners who are lay members include at any time at least one person who appears to have special knowledge of Wales.”’.

25, page 230, line 13, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) to (5).

26, page 230, line 45, leave out ‘subsections (4) to’ and insert ‘subsection (4) or’.

27, page 231, line 28, leave out ‘Chief Justice’ and insert ‘Chancellor’.

28, page 231, line 40, at end insert ‘,

but only with any agreement of the Lord Chief Justice, or a nominee of the Lord Chief Justice, that may be required by those terms.’.

29, page 232, line 5, leave out ‘, (5A)(a), (5B) or (5C)(c)’ and insert ‘or (5A)(a)’.

30, page 232, line 33, leave out ‘Chief Justice’ and insert ‘Chancellor’.

31, page 232, line 44, at end insert ‘,

but only with any agreement of the Lord Chief Justice, or a nominee of the Lord Chief Justice, that may be required by those terms.’.

32, page 233, line 9, leave out ‘, (6A)(a), (6B) or (6C)(c)’ and insert ‘or (6A)(a)’.

33, page 233, line 41, leave out ‘Chief Justice’ and insert ‘Chancellor’.

34, page 234, line 4, at end insert ‘,

but only with any agreement of the Lord Chief Justice, or a nominee of the Lord Chief Justice, that may be required by those terms.’.

35, page 234, line 13, leave out ‘, (5ZA)(a), (5ZB) or (5ZC)(c)’ and insert ‘or (5ZA)(a)’.

36, page 234, line 43, leave out ‘Chief Justice’ and insert ‘Chancellor’.

37, page 235, line 5, at end insert ‘,

but only with any agreement of the Lord Chief Justice, or a nominee of the Lord Chief Justice, that may be required by those terms.’.

38, page 235, line 13, leave out ‘, (3A)(a), (3B) or (3C)(c)’ and insert ‘or (3A)(a)’.

39, page 235, line 38, leave out ‘Chief Justice’ and insert ‘Chancellor’.

40, page 236, line 2, at end insert ‘,

but only with any agreement of the Lord Chief Justice, or a nominee of the Lord Chief Justice, that may be required by those terms.’.

41, page 236, line 11, leave out ‘, (4)(a), (4A) or (4B)(c)’ and insert ‘or (4)(a)’.

42, page 238, leave out line 9.

43, page 238, leave out line 11.

44, page 238, line 12, leave out ‘7(3A)(a)’ and insert ‘7(1)’.

45, page 238, leave out line 13.

46, page 238, leave out line 19.

47, page 238, line 19, at end insert—

‘(3) In section 46 (delegation of functions by Lord Chief Justice etc) after subsection (6) insert—

(7) In Schedules 2 to 4 “senior judge” means—

(a) the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales,

(b) the Lord President of the Court of Session,

(c) the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, or

(d) the Senior President of Tribunals.”’.

48, page 239, line 3, leave out ‘Senior President of Tribunals’ and insert ‘Lord Chancellor’.

49, page 239, line 14, at end insert ‘,

but only with any agreement of a senior judge (see section 46(7)), or a nominee of a senior judge, that may be required by those terms.’.

50, page 240, line 3, leave out ‘Senior President of Tribunals’ and insert ‘Lord Chancellor’.

51, page 240, line 14, at end insert ‘,

but only with any agreement of a senior judge (see section 46(7)), or a nominee of a senior judge, that may be required by those terms.’.

52, page 240, line 44, leave out ‘Senior President of Tribunals’ and insert ‘Lord Chancellor’.

53, page 241, line 8, at end insert ‘,

but only with any agreement of a senior judge (see section 46(7)), or a nominee of a senior judge, that may be required by those terms.’.

54, page 242, line 42, leave out ‘Senior President of Tribunals’ and insert ‘Lord Chancellor’.

55, page 243, line 7, at end insert ‘,

but only with any agreement of a senior judge (see section 46(7)), or a nominee of a senior judge, that may be required by those terms.’.

56, page 244, line 5, at end insert—

‘(5) In the entry in Part 3 for Deputy Chief Coroner appointed under paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 8 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, for “2(5)” substitute “2(6)”.

(6) In paragraph 51 of Schedule 21 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (which inserts entries at the end of Part 3 of Schedule 14 to the 2005 Act)—

(a) after “at the end of” insert “Table 1 of”, and

(b) for “2(5)” substitute “2(6)”.

(Accordingly, the power to commence that paragraph 51 becomes a power to commence it as amended by this sub-paragraph.)’.—(Oliver Heald.)

New Clause 7

Enforcement services

‘(1) The Legal Services Act 2007 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 125 insert—

125A (1) For the purposes of this Part (and sections 1, 21 and 27 as they apply in relation to this Part)—

(a) the Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents Council is to be treated as an approved regulator;

(b) enforcement services are to be treated as a reserved legal activity;

(c) a person authorised under sections 63 and 64 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act services is to be treated as an authorised person in relation to that activity;

(d) the Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents Council is to be treated as a relevant authorising body in relation to such a person, and

(e) regulations under the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the National Standards for Enforcement Agents are to be treated as regulatory arrangements of the Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents Council as an approved regulator.

(2) For the purposes of sections 112 and 145 (as extended by this section), a person authorised under sections 63 and 64 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act, is to be treated as a “relevant authorised person” in relation to the Regulator.”.’.—(Jenny Chapman.)

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

19:01

Division 189

Ayes: 210

---

Labour: 207
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1

Noes: 286

---

Conservative: 240
Liberal Democrat: 40
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1

Schedule 15

Dealing non-custodially with offenders

Amendment made: 110, page 268, line 24, at end insert—

‘(5A) In a case where there is such a restorative justice requirement, a person running the activity concerned must in doing that have regard to any guidance that is issued, with a view to encouraging good practice in connection with such an activity, by the Secretary of State.’.—(Anne Milton.)

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.— (Anne Milton.)

Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

Freedom of Speech: Members of Parliament

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

19:13

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I am very grateful, particularly to you personally, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to raise a matter in the House that relates to a criminal investigation that has been conducted against me by Sussex police over the past six and a half months before being dropped, but which has implications for all hon. Members and how we communicate with our constituents.

I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members when I say that we all appreciate our constituents—it is one of the reasons we do our job—but I doubt that there are many hon. Members without a tiny minority of constituents who either by design or default try to make our lives hell. A very few think they have a divine right to be gratuitously rude to MPs or other figures in the public eye, and some think they can be offensive because of their own political allegiances—although I have never had that problem with my own opposition locally, with whom I have always had a constructive relationship—and others have personal issues that make them obsessive.

In the case of Mr Kieran Francis of Shoreham in my constituency, he has all three attributes, as a result of which he has worked tirelessly to try to make my life hell, together with that of my staff at Westminster and at my constituency office, local councillors, council officials and countless others. To cut a long story short, going back many years Mr Francis has sought my help to promote formal complaints against the police for brutality against him; against the local hospital for not giving him the treatment he thinks he needs as a result of police brutality; against the Benefits Agency for having the temerity to summon him for an assessment; against the Courts Service for not enabling him to progress legal action; and against the local council and council officials for all manner of things. I am not aware that any of his complaints has ever been upheld on any substantive issues. He is a serial complainer with more chips on his shoulder than McCain’s, and as someone who does not work and is on benefits, he has too much time on his hands, as well.

When Mr Francis does not get his way, he becomes abusive. He once stormed out of my surgery accusing me of being “an effing Nazi”. He has attended my street surgeries to harangue my local councillors and me. He rings my office repeatedly to abuse my staff, despite having been told constantly that he should not contact my office, having reduced a former member of staff to tears when she was heavily pregnant. But of course Mr Francis knows better. He also knows better than to commit his abuse to paper, so last year he increasingly took to social media, including his own blog, where terms beginning with the F word, the C word and the W word directed at me and others are commonplace, along with creatively doctored photographs.

I am referred to as “an arrogant, lying, racist arsehead”—one of the more moderate terms of endearment that Mr Francis uses—and am likened to the perpetrators of the holocaust. The cabinet of Adur council in my constituency is referred to as “the Führer council”; a council official is an “ugly pig-faced fascist”; a constituent is condemned as “a paedophile”; and another who is now suffering mental health problems as a result is taunted with the phrase, “Let’s hope his **** shrivels up and drops off whilst he is suffering a horrible death at the hands of a nasty disease.” Elsewhere, he has boasted about his trips to far-left rallies in the Czech Republic; on social media, he details his dream dinner guests, including Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot, and is pictured with his prized collection of over 300 edged weapons. He also describes a scene in the local council chamber drenched with blood; he is there with machine gun in hand until he wakes up and realises it is only a dream—much to his disappointment.

Let me give a more graphic idea of what I am talking about. Mr Francis has recently posted a photo-shopped image of me taken when, as a Minister last year, I was visiting a school in east London in support of the City Year charity, except that now I have Nazi insignia on my jacket and I am toting a smoking gun in a playground full of screaming, fleeing children. I will not read you the caption, Mr Speaker, but it is just one of many such tasteless and grossly offensive postings. These appear on a blog run by Mr Francis, previously masquerading under the pseudonym of “Lord Hardy Ha Ha”, with a photograph of him wearing a terrorist-style balaclava. Despite complaints to Sussex police, these remain on the web.

Last year, Mr Francis engaged in almost constant complaints against the local Adur district council, in respect of which he was a tenant of a council house and had an allotment. The most prolific issue was on account of his losing his allotment because of complaints about his abusive behaviour against other allotment holders and his using human excrement on his compost heap. After a court case, which he lost, the council placed Mr Francis on their “customer of concern” list—or “COC” list as Mr Francis proudly and loudly boasted. On the internal document for the COC list that he obtained under freedom of information, under the section marked “description” he is referred to as “unkempt”—cue another complaint from Mr Francis that Adur council should deign to refer to him as unkempt.

After failing to get satisfaction from Adur council and after one of his regular abusive visits to one of my street surgeries, Mr Francis wrote to me. I investigated and sent an e-mail back to my constituent, saying that given that the dictionary definition of “unkempt” is “untrimmed, dishevelled and rough”, the council’s description—not mine—struck me as “eminently accurate”. Anyone who has seen a photograph of the pony-tailed, shaggily bearded Mr Francis could not but concur. For good measure, and uniquely in almost 16 years of being a constituency MP—but probably unwisely—I let my true feelings get the better of me and referred to Mr Francis’s latest whinges as self-serving nonsense. In place of the word “nonsense”, however, the word I used, which I took off Mr Francis’s own blog—one that you have given me special dispensation to use today, Mr Speaker—was “bollocks”. It was one of the tamer terms frequently used against me and others by Mr Francis.

Indeed, the word is often used figuratively as a noun to mean “nonsense”, as an expletive following a minor accident or misfortune, or as an adjective to mean “poor quality” or “useless”. Conversely, the word also figures in idiomatic phrases such as “the dog’s bollocks” or “the bollocks”, referring to something that is admired, approved of or well respected. Thank you to Wikipedia for that! Moreover, as Members may be aware, the well-respected overseas aid charity ActionAid has been running a high- profile and successful campaign called “Bollocks to Poverty”. I therefore thought that I was on safe ground. Having suffered years of abuse at the hands of Mr Francis, I thought it was about time to make the point that enough was enough, and that a proportionately robust reply was in order. Someone needed to stand up to his self-indulgent time wasting that has cost the taxpayer thousands over the years.

What happened next and the reason for securing the debate today—as well as for the national media publicity that has accompanied my case—has caused consternation. Within hours of receiving my e-mail, and before phone calls to my Westminster office and a foul-mouthed tirade at my researcher, Mr Francis contacted the police claiming that I was guilty of an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 1988. A few days later, I was contacted by a detective inspector from Sussex police requesting a meeting to discuss a “sensitive issue”. I responded immediately, saying that I was happy to help in whatever way I could, and 48 hours later a discussion of a “sensitive issue” became a 90-minute recorded interview under caution in Worthing police custody suite.

I was presented with a disclosure document that had given rise to the interview, in which Mr Francis had claimed that the single e-mail that I had sent him qualified as a malicious communication because

“Mr Francis states that he is of Romany Gypsy origin and feels that the references made against him within the email are of a racist nature and that the email contains insults of a grossly offensive nature.”

So using the word “unkempt” is deemed racist, purely on the basis that a constituent with a grudge says that it is, and the police go along with that. Even though it came as a complete surprise to me, and indeed to the local council, that Mr Francis is of Romany Gypsy origin, especially as he has lived in a council property for all the years I have dealt with him, since when has “unkempt” been a term associated with Romany Gypsies, let alone a derogatory one? Surely, if anything, it would be the act of identifying the term with Romany Gypsies that could be construed as racist, but that was down to Mr Francis, not me. As for his taking gross offence at one of the more moderate terms used on his own blog, whatever happened to proportionality? Some people might take it as offensive—although I doubt that they would take it as grossly offensive—but the likes of the constituent I have already described? I think not.

I was happy to help the police with their inquiries. It is absolutely right that all MPs should be treated no differently from any of their constituents, notwithstanding the occupational hazard facing us and others in public life that we are more high-profile targets for vexatious complaints. I have no problem with the fact that the rather embarrassed custody sergeant had to go through the formalities before the interview, asking whether I could read or write or had mental health problems; the answers were yes and no in that order. I was happy to tell the police everything I knew about my constituent, and to offer to hand over any correspondence that I had had with him over the years. In particular, I informed them of Mr Francis’s blog and Twitter account, which had given rise to the tone of my e-mail and both of which he had taken down at the same time as making the complaint to the police, knowing that they were self-incriminating. He is now claiming that his blog post-dated my e-mail. That is, of course, another of his lies, and the police should have traced it through the internet service provider.

At that point, anyone with any common sense could have seen that there was no basis to the case that had been advanced by a serial complainer, well versed in making malicious and vexatious complaints. The case could have been terminated at that stage. It would have satisfied the procedures that sprang from the Macpherson report, under which alleged race incidents should be taken seriously and should be subject to at least an initial investigation. However, there was no remotely racial side to this case, and any offence in the language was small beer compared with what I and other victims of Mr Francis had been subjected to over many years. I personally resent any suggestion that I am racist. Racism is an insidious cancer against which I have always fought. Equally insidious, though, are the forces of political correctness that seem to have been brought to bear in this instance, which can do so much damage to good race relations and social harmony and which too often triumph over common sense.

In this case, however, a full-blown investigation ensued, lasting six and a half months. I had contact with at least six separate officers who were involved, and a file was then sent to the Crown Prosecution Service in December. All my Westminster office staff were interviewed, as well as a former secretary who lives in Hampshire. We trawled the archives for all copies of previous correspondence, which were eventually collected two months later. Throughout that time, Mr Francis continued to post abusive articles about me on his blog, while I remained silent in order not to prejudice the case or be seen trying to influence the outcome.

When I put in my own complaint to Sussex police about some of these blogs being grossly offensive, my complaint was not taken up, and instead Mr Francis was warned to take down some of his posts and went quiet for a while, but only a short while. When I pointed out that I had made a formal complaint of my own and that the blog could provide material evidence, it transpired that the police had failed to take copies of the blog entries before they disappeared. They had lost their own police evidence and subsequently had to come to ask me if I had taken a copy, which, fortunately, I had.

Eventually the Crown Prosecution Service decided there was no case to answer and informed the police. A further two weeks later, on 26 February, when the investigating chief inspector returned from his holiday, my secretary—not me—was eventually told I was in the clear. That came as a huge relief, after this whole case had been hanging over me and my family since August of last year.

Not surprisingly, Mr Speaker, since being told that his complaint had no substance, Mr Francis has gone into overdrive of offensiveness. I gather that your office has had the joy of being called by Mr Francis, as has the local and national press repeatedly, the chairman of the Conservative party, the Prime Minister, assorted charities I am associated with and goodness knows who else.

How did this happen, and could it happen again, if not to me, then to any other hon. Member? Clearly there are local matters that I will be pursuing through the formal complaints process to Sussex police, and I shall lodge a complaint tomorrow. I had hoped that I could gain some answers at an informal meeting with the chief constable that I requested last week. I would also have been there taking up the cudgels if one of my constituents had fallen foul of a similar experience. I gave the chief constable a list of questions in advance, to try to get to the bottom of exactly how I had been subjected to such an intensive, and intensively wasteful, use of police resources. Yet without going into detail about that confidential meeting, I was treated by Chief Constable Martin Richards not only as if I was the subject of ongoing criminal investigations, but almost as if I had actually been charged and found guilty. It was as if “plebgate” runs well beyond the confines of Whitehall. I was given a prepared list of one-sentence answers, effectively saying the investigation was dealt with in an exemplary way. The chief constable is apparently happy that everything was handled properly, so clearly the same thing could happen again and again to me or anyone else.

What had the police done to determine that Mr Francis actually is of Romany Gypsy origin, and what specifically had caused offence to such a retiring violet? Who had authorised the investigation to carry on for this long? How many officers had been involved in the case, and how much had it cost? All these questions were met with a stone wall. To get any further, I would have to submit freedom of information requests to my own local constabulary. Well, that I have done, as well as submitting requests to the CPS and making a formal complaint about the way the investigation was carried forward, the incompetence with which it was handled by the police, and the failure of the chief constable of Sussex to exercise a modicum of common sense and instead support the system.

Not surprisingly, I have received a torrent of e-mails from around the country following the publicity about my case. Interestingly, many have come from police officers past and present, including senior ones from Sussex police. They are all aghast at my treatment, though not surprised. They agree with me that political correctness seems to have taken a stranglehold in much of the decision making by too many senior police officers, while common sense has gone out of the window. One comment was simply:

“Can we have our traditional police force back please?”

Another:

“Is this not another indictment of the state of modern day Britain?”

Risk aversion has replaced common-sense judgments as certain senior police do not want to do anything that might jeopardise their career with head office. The Association of Chief Police Officers 10-point decision-making model has been junked. An inquiry process that should be justified, accountable and proportionate has been ignored, and investigations have been stepped up to a higher authority and ultimately the CPS for fear of making a decision that might reflect badly.

If this can happen to an MP, it can happen to any of our constituents. It is no way to run a police service. It is little wonder that just last week the Brighton Argus reported on how low morale has sunk among Sussex police officers.

I have always been a strong supporter of my police force. I have always had a good relationship with my local officers, and I very much hope that that will continue, in all our interests, but this incident has severely knocked my confidence in whether the chief constable of Sussex and his senior management are working in the best interests of my constituents and the council tax payers, who have financed this whole waste of police resources.

One of my constituents has already asked me to supply her with a list of terms that she should avoid using in correspondence, for fear of having her shoulder felt. What should any of us do when faced with a gratuitously offensive constituent in the future? We can ignore them, but when they insist on coming back again and again with abuse against our staff and our colleagues or hounding us on social media, do we not have a duty to stand up against bullies? Our constituents have the power to sack us at general elections—quite rightly so. We, alas, do not have the power to sack them. Perhaps I should have taken out an injunction or restraining order against Mr Francis in the past, but in almost 16 years in this House I have never had to resort to such measures. I would like to take this opportunity now, Mr Speaker, to put it on record that I will not be responding to any communications from Mr Francis in the future and my staff have been instructed to put the phone down on him. I am sacking Mr Francis as my constituent, and I hope that he gets the message without my having to resort to legal means.

The bigger question for this House and for hon. Members—I am delighted to see so many of them here this evening—is how do we deal with the small minority of constituents where a robust reply is the most appropriate? Outside this Chamber, unprotected by parliamentary privilege, as my case starkly demonstrates, we now risk a feel on our collar from a police force pandering to political correctness and unquestioningly taking the word of someone intent on lodging a vexatious and malicious allegation. While I hope that I will never experience another constituent as nasty as Mr Francis and will not feel the need to use the level of robust language that I felt proportionately offensive only in this case, I cannot say that the same dilemma will not happen again, because I still do not understand exactly what the offence was that merited the investigation and consideration of charges. By what warped yardstick could I have been deemed racist? And how is using someone else’s own language back at them “grossly offensive” one way but not mutually so?

What if you, Mr Speaker, were innocently to refer to someone as “well kempt” whose religion demands that he should be fully bearded—would that be racist? Even more unlikely, what if you were to praise someone famous for being proudly gay and out only for the celebrity involved to be very much heterosexual—could you find yourself under criminal investigation for some form of inverted homophobia? Where will it all end, Mr Speaker? Are we to be issued with a manual of words and phrases that we can or cannot use? Perhaps we need a whole new section in “Erskine May”. Will this House and hon. Members in future be muted in speaking their minds, ironically at a time when the public and the media criticise politicians for not saying what they really mean more and for hiding behind obfuscation and spin? It is no longer good to be straight, Mr Speaker—oh dear, I may have done it again!

The fallout of my case goes far beyond the series of events and the one nightmare constituent that I have described. It has implications not only for the way we do our politics and the way we communicate with our constituents, but for the way we are all able to go about our business and be true to our beliefs. If the law needs changing, it is up to this House to change it. If police procedures need to be changed, it is up to the Home Secretary to change them. But if, as I suspect, we need society to change and to challenge political correctness, we all need to play a part in that. If MPs can fall foul of it, clearly anyone can and it is time we fought back. I am ready to don my gender-neutral, non-aggressive, culturally sensitive armour for the crusade—I mean, secular expedition. Who is with me, Mr Speaker?

19:32

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

I should like to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on securing this debate. I should say at the outset that I am responding to the debate as the Minister with responsibility for Government policy relating to parliamentary privilege. I know that he knows that I have no responsibility for the police and will not attempt to answer for the conduct of the Sussex police in investigating an alleged offence of malicious communication under the Malicious Communications Act 1988. These are indeed operational matters, but of course he will have noted that the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice was present during the debate and will have taken away with him the telling remarks that my hon. Friend made.

The House will have heard my hon. Friend’s description of events surrounding the investigation of the allegation of malicious conduct and the subsequent advice by the Crown Prosecution Service that no further action be taken. Hon. Members can draw their own conclusions about the merits of his constituent’s claims. I have to say that I have sympathy, as I am sure all hon. Members here tonight will, with my hon. Friend’s remarks about the amount of time and resources devoted to that investigation, given the nature of the allegations.

My hon. Friend spoke about his freedom of speech as a Member of Parliament. I therefore want to address my remarks to the protection of freedom of speech afforded to Members of Parliament by parliamentary privilege. In doing so, I might help to inform a judgment as to whether this particular case has any implications for the application of parliamentary privilege, or whether it is, as he said in his closing remarks, more an issue of police practices and policy.

Perhaps it would be helpful if I set out briefly how the protection of our freedom of speech afforded by parliamentary privilege extends to Members’ correspondence with constituents. Freedom of speech for Members of Parliament is guaranteed by article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689, but it provides absolute protection only to proceedings in Parliament. The meaning of “proceedings” in that context is to an extent open to interpretation and I am not aware that the issue raised by my hon. Friend of privilege for a Member’s correspondence with a constituent has ever been tested in the courts. The legal position is clear: the House has never sought to assert that privilege should apply to communications between Members and their constituents or other members of the public.

There have not been many cases to test the boundaries of privilege in that regard but the basic principles are clearly understood. It has been established that letters from constituents to Members are not proceedings in Parliament and it therefore follows that Members’ replies to constituents are not proceedings either. Indeed, the courts have separately determined that Members’ letters to Ministers are similarly not considered to be proceedings in Parliament. However, the courts have regarded some types of communication to a Member of Parliament by a constituent as enjoying qualified privilege in certain circumstances. For example, a Member who passes on a constituent’s concerns in good faith to the proper authority, such as a Minister, will not be protected by absolute privilege but is likely to be protected by qualified privilege.

Qualified privilege might also apply to communications with a link to parliamentary proceedings, such as a speech or parliamentary question, or those that relate to a matter of public concern. That will depend on the circumstances, but in their ordinary dealings with constituents, Members of Parliament, like everyone else, should expect to be subject to the laws of the land, including that on malicious communication. As all Members would agree, however, Members and constituents should expect the law to deal with matters proportionately.

I am not sure that my hon. Friend is making the case for change and for extending parliamentary privilege to all forms of communication between a Member and a constituent. The issue has been considered before, several times. The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which considered the matter between 1998 and 1999, recommended that there should be no extension of parliamentary privilege to correspondence between MPs and Ministers. Conversely, the Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill in 2011 argued that the

“the democratic process is unacceptably hindered by a lack of certainty and awareness among constituents about their right to engage in open and frank discussions with their Westminster representative”

and recommended that

“all forms of communication between constituents and their MP (acting in his or her official capacity as an MP)”

should be protected by qualified privilege.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the Green Paper on parliamentary privilege that the Government published last April, which arose in part from concerns that parliamentary privilege might be able to be used by MPs to avoid prosecution for offences relating to expenses, but also from a feeling that there might be scope usefully to clarify the law in certain areas, including on the definition of parliamentary proceedings and Select Committee powers. On the issue of Members’ correspondence with constituents, the Green Paper set out the Government’s view that, on balance, it is preferable to let the courts determine the boundaries of privilege on a case-by-case basis than to introduce a statutory qualified privilege for MPs’ correspondence. To extend an absolute privilege to correspondence between MPs and constituents could encourage malicious complaints to be made to MPs that are damaging to third parties. I am not aware that such an extension has been seriously advocated.

A Joint Committee is considering the issues raised in the Green Paper and we look forward to considering its conclusions on this and other issues, which are expected to be published in the next few weeks. I am sure that the Committee will consider tonight’s debate and all the points raised by my hon. Friend carefully to see whether they are pertinent. If Parliament collectively believes that some injustice arises from the way the courts apply the law, it is open to Parliament to change the law.

I do not see that the issue raised by my hon. Friend advances the case for any legislative action on parliamentary privilege, but we will consider the issue in the round when we receive the Joint Committee’s report. In the meantime, I hope that he ensures that he works hard on having a constructive dialogue with his local police force. I was going to say, “continues to have a constructive dialogue,” but I think perhaps to date that dialogue has not been there in the way that he would have liked.

Question put and agreed to.

19:39

House adjourned.

Deferred Divisions

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

Division 182

Ayes: 288

---

Conservative: 241
Liberal Democrat: 45
Independent: 1

Noes: 225

---

Labour: 212
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Independent: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1
Conservative: 1

Division 183

Ayes: 286

---

Conservative: 241
Liberal Democrat: 43
Independent: 1

Noes: 223

---

Labour: 211
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Plaid Cymru: 3
Independent: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Division 184

Ayes: 286

---

Conservative: 242
Liberal Democrat: 42
Independent: 1

Noes: 228

---

Labour: 212
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Scottish National Party: 5
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Division 185

Ayes: 289

---

Conservative: 240
Liberal Democrat: 44
Plaid Cymru: 2
Independent: 1
Scottish National Party: 1

Noes: 224

---

Labour: 211
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Scottish National Party: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Independent: 2
Plaid Cymru: 1
Alliance: 1

Ministerial Correction

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Ministerial Corrections

Wednesday 13 March 2013

Transport

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Ministerial Corrections

Great Western Railway Line

[Kerry McCarthy]

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent conversations he has had with (a) the West of England Partnership, (b) Passenger Focus, (c) local authorities in the south west and (d) other stakeholders on the Great Western franchise concession.

[Official Report, 7 March 2013, Vol. 559, c. 1111W.]

Letter of correction from Simon Burns:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) on 7 March 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Simon Burns]

Since 31 January 2013, departmental officials have spoken to all local authorities served by the franchise.

They have since met with Wiltshire county council to discuss the TransWilts Rail project, and with West of England Partnership to discuss the Bristol Metro project.

A meeting is planned with councils and passenger groups in West Berkshire and Wiltshire to discuss electrification. We will be meeting authorities again after the announcement on the franchise programme has been made in the spring.

The correct answer should have been:

[Mr Simon Burns]

Since 31 January 2013, departmental officials have spoken to all local authorities served by the franchise that had specified priced options in the Great Western Invitation to Tender.

They have since met with Wiltshire county council to discuss the TransWilts Rail project, and with West of England Partnership to discuss the Bristol Metro project.

A meeting is planned with councils and passenger groups in West Berkshire and Wiltshire to discuss electrification. We will be meeting authorities again after the announcement on the franchise programme has been made in the spring.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 13 March 2013

[Albert Owen in the Chair]

British Sikh Community

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Nicky Morgan.)

09:30

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen, I think for the first time.

I pay tribute to the inspiration behind the debate, which was that of the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) who runs the all-party group for British Sikhs, and to the excellent work of that group in Parliament and the way in which it has helped to recognise the contribution of the Sikh community to our country. I also pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) and the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma); they have probably put in more effort for the Sikh community than any other Members, and their work has been over a considerable number of years in their own communities and in the wider country.

I want to concentrate on the success of the British Sikh community; I do not intend to dwell on politics in India and what is happening there. I want to highlight how the successful work of the Sikh community has evolved in this country over the years, which I will illustrate by highlighting a few areas in my own constituency.

The Sikhs make up the largest ethnic minority group in Dartford and they have integrated into the community so that today they form an integral part of the local population. The local gurdwara, Hargobind, is a lively, bustling and welcoming place. I mentioned the temple in my maiden speech, because it sits right next door to our Baptist church on Highfield road in Dartford. Both congregations enjoy extremely cordial relationships with each other; there is absolutely no hint of friction whatever, which is very much a testimony to our good race relations in the area.

[Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that because of the racial harmony experienced not only in his constituency but in constituencies such as mine we must commend the Sikh community for how it works together with all other communities? I have many communities in my constituency living in peace and harmony and working together, and I congratulate the Sikh community on its leadership and input.

[Gareth Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, but an extra point is that the good relationship does not happen accidentally; it takes a lot of hard work from the indigenous population and the Sikh community. It is absolutely essential for everyone to play their role and not to take for granted the good relationships that exist between the Sikhs and every other part of the community.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important and timely debate. Does he agree that the temples, or gurdwaras as we call them, are not only places to worship? They are places to promote equality and even secularism and to bring health and education to the community, so that every community can get involved and receive the benefit.

[Gareth Johnson]

That is an important point. In my experience, what has always been obvious from the moment I have walked through the door of a Sikh temple is the welcoming nature and community spirit that exist there. The Sikhs who worship in gurdwaras do not say, “This is just for us Sikhs. It is not for anyone else to become involved. This is a closed shop that no one else can enter into.” What is so obvious is the open-door policy, for everyone to come in and celebrate Sikhism, which is perhaps a lesson to every other religion in the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter to the attention of the House. He mentioned the Baptist church and the Sikh temple working together; the Sikh community and Baptist churches also worked together to put on record their opinion of and opposition to the Marriages (Same Sex Couples) Bill. Does he feel that that is a supreme example of two different religions working together to oppose something that they see as wrong?

[Gareth Johnson]

Forgive me, but I will not concentrate on the issue of gay marriage today. We have had that debate in the main Chamber. I certainly pay tribute, however, to the existence of common political ground between various religions; it is heartening to see those two religions working together for a common interest.

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

I will not go down the avenue of gay marriages either. For many years, certainly in Coventry, I have dealt with the Sikh community, as leader of Coventry city council and as an MP. To return to the point made earlier by the hon. Gentleman, one of the things that strikes people when they go to a temple, if they do not know much about the Sikh community, is the way that they share food with the rest of the community—that is open to the community. People should bear it in mind that one of the major contributions of the Sikh community, certainly in Coventry and probably nationally, is that it gets involved with other faiths—in the Council of Churches, for example. More importantly, it makes a major contribution to education, medical science, medical ethics and so forth. The Sikhs punch above their weight, frankly. We should acknowledge that.

[Gareth Johnson]

That is an excellent point. My local Sikh temple is very much a community hub. I worked with a Sikh by the name of Jatinder Sokhal in a firm of solicitors before being elected to this place; he said that, when he was studying at university and could not even afford to feed himself, he went down to his local Sikh temple, was welcomed and fed. The benevolence, therefore, in many Sikh temples is something that we should remark upon.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He has just made a point that is very true in my home city of Southampton. The students know that if they wish to get not only wonderful food but free food, the gurdwara is the place to go for it. Every year, the Southampton Council of Faiths holds an annual peace walk, which has almost become a frenzy of competitive feeding, as the different religions compete to ensure that those enjoying the peace walk and the different religions coming together get the best food at whichever religious building they attend.

[Gareth Johnson]

That is absolutely right. A source of pride in the temple is how well its members can provide for the community and how hospitable they can be. That is very much to their credit.

I will now make some progress—

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gareth Johnson]

I will give way and then make some progress.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, I must bring Leicester into this part of the discussion. We are a proudly diverse city, strong and vibrant today thanks in part to the contribution of our Sikh community. I pay tribute to the Leicestershire Sikh Alliance and to the many gurdwaras in Leicester, some of which host me for regular advice surgeries. Given that the Sikh community has played such a prominent role not only in cities such as Leicester and Wolverhampton but in British history, does he agree that the Sikh contribution to the first and second world wars should be given greater prominence in our national debate as we look towards the commemorations of the first world war?

[Gareth Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I pay tribute to his work in his local Sikh community. Those of the Sikh religion have undoubtedly made a disproportionately large contribution to the British armed forces and to the first and second world wars, in which they served with huge distinction. Today, there are many Sikhs in the British Army. Later in my speech, I will talk about the Guardsman who has been able to serve without a bearskin, which illustrates the selfless manner in which many Sikhs have served this country. It is something we should be grateful for.

Recently, I had the pleasure of attending a gurdwara in Gravesend, for the wedding of Mr Avtar Sandhu’s daughter. The ceremony was held in the gurdwara Nanak, which is the largest Sikh temple not just in Europe, but outside India. What struck me about the building was not just its beauty, but the way in which it was built. If anyone is looking for an example of the big society in action, the building of that Sikh temple is a classic one. Sikh carpenters and bricklayers who attended the temple to pray spent their spare time building it. It was fantastic that they attended the temple, and then changed into their work clothes and worked extremely hard to finish off an enormous project that has brought together the whole Sikh community in that area.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. I must add Milton Keynes to the list of communities in this country with a large and vibrant Sikh community. His point about the big society is important. In 2007, the Sikh community in Milton Keynes built and opened a large gurdwara, which now provides a wide range of services, such as a weekly over-50s lunch club which binds together members of the community.

[Gareth Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point and I pay tribute to his work with the Sikh community in Milton Keynes. He gives another example of how Sikh temples are not just places of worship, but a hub where the whole community can congregate and do good work for the benefit of others.

The strong work ethic in the Sikh community is worthy of note. Sikhs have been disproportionately successful in business in this country. They have a deserved reputation for having a strong work ethic. I believe that Sikhs are second only to Jews in how financially productive they are as a religious group. Their belief in hard work and the importance of the family has been the reason for their success in the United Kingdom. A cursory look at The Sunday Times rich list throws up a clear and disproportionately high number of successful Sikhs. Their determination to strive for success is a trait that is very much to their credit.

There are many success stories of Sikh integration into the British way of life, but we must ensure that we do not become complacent. In the House in 2010, I raised the searching of turbans at British airports with the then Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond). That issue is important for the Sikh community. We need to preserve security on aeroplanes, but we should recognise the significant impact on a Sikh of searching a turban, and we must ensure that all other measures, such as scanning, are used before doing so. EU regulations have not been appropriate in the past, and I pay tribute to the Department for Transport’s work on tackling the issue with the seriousness it deserves. It seems that common sense will now prevail.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

I pay huge tribute to the enormous contribution the Sikh community has made to life in Dudley over so many years. A hard-working professional constituent who is a respected member of our community was travelling back from Spain with his company. His employers could vouch for him, but he was humiliated at the airport in Spain where the security guards insisted that he remove his turban. There had been no scanning, and there were no facilities for retying his turban—the necessary equipment was in his suitcase and already on the plane. That was absolutely unacceptable treatment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should do much more with the European Community to put pressure on other countries, especially Spain, so that constituents are not treated like that in future?

[Gareth Johnson]

That is an extremely important point, and the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions is worrying.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

It is important to update colleagues. A recent European directive specifies that scanning is compulsory for Sikhs at airports. Many people have tried to take credit for that, but the British Government really can because they campaigned on the matter. It illustrates that we can have a proactive rather than a reactive relationship with Europe.

[Gareth Johnson]

My hon. Friend’s intervention may provide a more accurate response to the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) than I can give. The past humiliation of Sikhs has been at the root of the issue. We all accept that we must ensure adequate security on aeroplanes, but that need not involve humiliation by searching turbans, which form an integral part of their religion.

On general security matters, it is worth noting the extraordinarily low crime rates in the Sikh community. Before I became a Member of Parliament I worked in magistrates courts. When accompanying a group of magistrates around Feltham young offenders institution, they referred to religious worship. It became apparent that there were no facilities for Sikhs to pray, and that worried the magistrates, but the prison officer who was accompanying us said that there were no Sikhs in the institution who wanted to pray. The number at the time was so low that the institution was not required to provide those facilities. That may have changed now, but it illustrates clearly the compliance with the law in the Sikh community, and that should be celebrated.

The hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) referred to the contribution by the Sikh community to the British Army. Many Sikhs have served with distinction in the Army through numerous conflicts and we recently witnessed the first Guardsman wearing a turban instead of a bearskin. That throws up a difficult debate about respect for the turban on one hand, and respect for the traditions of the Guards on the other. The British Army has clearly shown respect for the turban by allowing it to be worn without a bearskin, and I hope that that encourages other Sikhs who are considering joining the Army.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend and enjoying his examples of the challenges and success of the Sikh community, including their distinction in the armed forces. The Sikh community that I represent in Hiltonbury in Chandler’s Ford is very effective at campaigning on issues closer to home. A number of constituents have contacted me about poor bus services, which is relevant to all our constituents whatever their faith. The bus service from Hiltonbury to Southampton, where they must travel to attend temple, is very poor, but they are successful at many different levels, not just on global issues.

[Gareth Johnson]

I commend my hon. Friend on managing to connect service in the Army with bus services. That is a phenomenal achievement, as is his contribution to the Sikh community in Winchester, which will be delighted to hear that it may get a better bus service as a result of his representation.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

On the Sikh contribution to the British Army, yesterday was Commonwealth day and I was at the Commonwealth gates with some children from my constituency who were celebrating the Commonwealth armed forces’ contribution to battles in the first and second world wars. Will the hon. Gentleman work with me to ensure that the history curriculum properly reflects the contribution of many Sikh soldiers to the freedom of Britain?

[Gareth Johnson]

That is correct, and I believe that a ten-minute rule Bill made the same point yesterday. It is absolutely true that Sikhs and other members of the Commonwealth have served this country not only with distinction, but with great selflessness, which has been the most remarkable aspect of the service that they have diligently given to this country. However, we should be aware that the Sikh community in the UK still faces significant challenges. We have been very positive during the debate, as we should be, about the contribution that the Sikhs have made to British society, but let us not forget the challenges that Sikhs face.

It is important to recognise the challenge of the caste system that still exists, or the prejudice—I should perhaps be more specific about it—that is widespread. It is not unfair to say that it can often go further than simple classism; it is a deep-rooted bias of perhaps the most unpleasant kind. The sad aspect of the issue is that the problem is not born outside the Sikh religion, but very often generated within the Sikh community. I have had Sikhs come to my surgery, for example, who are so frustrated and who feel that they are being held back because of prejudices that have been imposed on them. The problem is perhaps little understood by the wider community, but it needs to be tackled.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this important issue. He has rightly identified the positive contribution that Sikhs have made to our economy and our armed forces. I want to turn his attention to the issue of political service. In our hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal), we have a Sikh Member of this House, and my seat on Croydon council, which I vacated to become an MP, was taken by Jeet Bains, the first Sikh councillor in Croydon. Does he agree that it would be great to see more Sikhs represented on our local councils and here in this House, taking a wider role in public service?

[Gareth Johnson]

Yes it would, and what is remarkable is the disproportionate way that Sikhs have generally contributed to public life and punched above their weight in many ways. They have had an impact in this place, with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West and the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall. Many members of the Sikh community have made a significant contribution to the British way of life through politics and other means. I pay tribute to Jeet Bains for being that first councillor, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) mentioned, and for the significant contribution that he is able to make.

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

Last week, the House of Lords agreed to an amendment to add caste to the Equality Act 2010. Will the hon. Gentleman work with us and campaign for the Government to keep that change to the Equality Act, so that we can act against the caste system as we did against race in the Race Relations Act 1976?

[Gareth Johnson]

I know that the Government are looking at that very carefully to see if anything can be done to prevent such prejudice, which certainly exists in some quarters.

Part of the issue is the ignorance of some aspects of the Sikh religion, which can often be behind the prejudices that we see. The typical response to the kirpan illustrates that well. I struggle to find the reasons why we have so many problems with Sikhs wearing a kirpan. The only explanation I can come up with is that it may be to do with the hundreds of years of Englishmen fearing Scotsmen wearing the sgian dubh. The fear of Scotsmen wearing that dagger might be behind what is very often a fearful reaction to Sikhs wearing the kirpan. Perhaps my race needs to move on. We should see the kirpan in its correct context and be less obstructive towards its use.

In conclusion, I do not claim—and have not claimed, throughout this debate—to be any kind of expert on the Sikh religion, but I have seen over the years the enormous, positive impact that Sikhs have had, not only in my constituency, but across the UK. There are still undoubtedly many issues that need to be resolved, yet I want to pay tribute to British Sikhs today for all that they have achieved. Their contribution amounts to so much more than their numbers, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity of introducing a debate that recognises that.

09:55

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

A lot of people want to speak so I will try to be as brief as possible. We are here to celebrate the role of the Sikh community and the contribution that they have made to our community and society. It is also time to give a few thanks as well. We held a conference in 1997, where we brought the Sikh community, the Punjabi community, together to set the agenda for sub-groups of Parliament and the issues that they wanted us to address. I want to run through a few of those and say thanks to a few people.

First, the whole concept of Sikhism is based not only on community, but on family. One issue that we addressed was the inability of families to be united, purely because the visa system was not working properly. I want to thank those Members of Parliament and others—and the Sikh community overall—who campaigned for the opening of the visa office in Jalandhar and the work that was done to free that up. However, the issues on visas remain. We still have constituents coming to us who have not been treated fairly or properly, and who have then been exploited by agents as well.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his comments. Does he agree that there is not simply a problem with visas? A number of Sikh members of our communities have lived in the UK for many years, but due to the refusal of the Indian high commission to issue passports, they are effectively stranded in the UK and unable to visit their families in India.

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Lady is absolutely spot on, and that is one of the issues that we need to work together on. I know that members of the all-party group are working on that now. I have to say that the new Government regulations with regard to students do not help, in terms of maintaining that flow and connection with the Punjab itself and the Punjabi community overall.

The second issue, briefly, is education. I am not a supporter of religious schools; I believe that people should be educated together, but I understand that while we have religious schools, no group should be discriminated against. That is why I supported the establishment of Guru Nanak school, the first Sikh school in my constituency. The resources that have gone into it from successive Governments and from the community overall have made it, frankly, the best school in the country. The educational results are phenomenally good. In addition, the whole ethos of the school, thanks to the head teacher, Rajinder Sandhu, is that everybody is welcomed into the school. In fact, when my son did not attend, I got a bit of stick, and he did not attend because, if he had, I would have been accused of preferential treatment for trying to get my son into such a school. The school says, “We open our doors to everyone, not just Sikhs”, but in addition, “We send our students out into the wider community and we invite other schools to work with us.” It has secured a partnership right across the community, and I want to commend the school, the head teacher and others, for their hard work.

On behalf of the House, I also send our condolences to the family of Poonam Bhattal. Some Members will know that the young girl lost her life on a school trip to Switzerland. Her funeral was last week, and her death has devastated the school and the wider community. I hope that we find the truth of what happened to her. I know the school cared for her very deeply and that the family has suffered badly. I would like to send our condolences to them.

The third issue is culture. The point that came up was that we need to maintain the Sikh culture and the Punjabi language. How should we do that? One of the ideas was to use modern media, and radio in particular. One of the first community radio stations to be given a licence was Desi radio in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). It has been a tremendous success, as a result of the community coming together and, to be frank, because of some heroes and heroines. Ajit Khera, who has been the chair of Desi radio all the way through, has demonstrated how a community can be welded together and how radio can be used, particularly with regard to the promotion of language and culture.

A number of historical projects have been launched by the UK Punjab Heritage Association. Many hon. Members will have visited the exhibition that it held at the School of Oriental and African Studies and elsewhere with regard to the Golden Temple—the Darbar Sahib. I thought that what that did was to introduce the concept of the Khalsa Panth, the Sikh culture and its history and achievements to a much wider circle of people than just the Sikh community here. I am very pleased that last week the heritage lottery fund announced that it is now funding the same group to do a longer project. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are being invested. The project involves working with schools and is entitled “Empire, Faith and War: The Sikhs and World War One”.

I sometimes get anxious about the militaristic impression of the Sikhs. The Sikhs themselves became warriors at one point, yes. Why? Not because they were imperialists or invaders, but because they wanted to protect the Khalsa; they wanted to protect their own community. They transferred that commitment on, into their commitment to serving Britain as well, and that was done in partnership; it never involved acceptance of subjugation. Again, I congratulate the association on the work that it has done.

One of the fundamental issues that has been raised time and time again with us is human rights, and we cannot avoid the issue. We had discussion after discussion about what happened in the atrocities in the 1980s and the injustices that took place, many of which have never been addressed. I do not believe that any discussion on the Sikh community should not involve discussion of the need that there still is to bring to book the people who committed those atrocities during that period, because we have never found the ultimate truth and many of them have never been brought to justice.

In addition, there have been injustices here. We have mentioned the wearing of the kirpan and other religious duties. Injustices still go on. We still get individual constituents who have been turned away at the London Eye, from concerts at Wembley and so on. Madame Tussauds was another example. We tried to ensure that at least some standard guidelines were issued, and to a certain extent, when it comes to public service, we have achieved that. The problem occurs when the individual private contractors are not taking note and not reflecting the culture of diversity in our society. More work needs to be done on that. I echo the point that has been raised. I know that the all-party group recently sent a delegation to Europe. We need to ensure that we are educating our European partners well on how to address that issue.

We had a debate in the House of Commons Chamber a couple of weeks ago with regard to the death penalty. I was impressed by the unanimity across the Chamber. We were saying to the Government of India, as a friend, respecting their sovereignty and independence as a separate democratic nation, that we urge them to abolish the death penalty. We cannot be in a situation in which Balwant Singh Rajoana and Professor Bhullar are still on death row after all these years and at any time could be executed. I repeat to the Indian Government: please lift that threat. I have a final plea with regard to Professor Bhullar in particular. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) and I are meeting his family tomorrow. He is very ill at the moment. I would welcome the Indian Government allowing independent medical support to go in to assess his condition and provide him with additional attention to ensure that his medical needs are properly addressed.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on bringing this debate to the House today and I concur with what he said. We are celebrating the achievements of the Sikh community and thanking all those who have worked with us to address the issues and the agenda that they have set with us. There is also a new agenda for the coming period. A new generation are coming up, with new ideas and new initiatives that we need to ensure we can support. I am pleased that the all-party group for the Sikh community is in place. I am pleased with the work that has been done in the past by the all-party group for the Punjabi community. I pledge my support for that continuing work, as I am sure other hon. Members will do in this debate.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Before I call Paul Uppal, I just say to hon. Members that a number have indicated that they want to speak. If each Member takes five minutes, we will get everyone in. I call Paul Uppal.

10:04

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Owen. It is a pleasure to speak under your stewardship. I will try to be brief, but the nature of this debate is unique, so if you will indulge me a little, sir, I will try to skip through some of the points that I want to make.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on securing the debate. I was going to open the first paragraph of this speech in Punjabi, but I was told by Hansard that that would create a few difficulties. I was inspired in that by Hardeep Singh Kohli, who did a piece for Channel 4 many years ago called “In Search of the Tartan Turban”. He was fretting about how he was going to do a comic gig in a working-class pub in Glasgow. It was going to be a really tough gig, and he was wondering how he was going to do it. He did the first 30 seconds in Punjabi, and hon. Members can imagine the laughter spreading round the pub, but let us be honest: this is not a working-class pub in Glasgow and I am no Hardeep Singh Kohli—that was a slight digression.

If hon. Members do not mind, I would like to paint a backdrop of the spiritual background and the canvas of Sikh philosophy, as I think that many other speakers in the debate will be talking about the contribution of Sikhs in business and other aspects of life and the role that they play in the community. I want to highlight a few of these points, because I believe that it will help hon. Members in all parts of the Chamber to engage with the debate if they get an idea of what Sikhi is and Sikh philosophy. I do not mean that as a rebuke to any Member who is genuine about taking part in the debate today. However, a big part of being Punjabi and a big part of being Sikh is always to be big-hearted and to say it as you see it. That is central to the cultural background.

My own experience, having been a Member for the past few years and reading the e-mails that come into my inbox, is that messages come in saying, “This e-mail represents the message of the Sikh community”, “This is the view of the Sikh community” or “This is what the Sikh community are thinking.” Speaking candidly, I know that sometimes individuals will say, “I will deliver the Sikh vote in my ward”, “I will deliver the Sikh vote for this street” or “I will deliver the Sikh vote in this constituency.” I have to say to all hon. Members that that is absolute tosh. The Sikh community are no different from anyone else.

It is the case, particularly among young Sikhs—I am heartened by what I have learned through my interaction with them—that the issues that Sikhs talk about are the issues that everyone else cares about, such as the education of their children and how they want to advance, but central to them is their passionate belief about what defines them as Sikh. That drives them through their careers, in the community, in business and in many other aspects of life.

The term “Sikh” means someone who dedicates themselves to become a “disciple and seeker” or, to put it another way, to learn to be a student towards spiritual enlightenment. There were 10 Sikh gurus, and the idea of each respective guru was to be an embodiment of scholarly learning, wisdom and discipline. These traits were passed on from guru to guru, starting from the first guru, Guru Nanak Dev Ji, who lived from 1469 to 1539 and who taught that this can be done through a variety of measures. The first thing is Kirat Karo—the Hansard writers should not worry; I will provide them with the written version. That means earning one’s livelihood through honest means, while remembering God—a way of adopting personal responsibility, if you like. The second is Vand Chhako—sharing with others. A striking feature of Sikhism is the idea of Seva. That is the idea of always sharing what we have. The final thing is Naam Japo—constant remembrance of the Lord and always being humble and modest.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) congratulated me on being a Sikh Member of Parliament. I am the only Sikh sitting in the House at the moment. My personal belief is that this is why we do not see more Sikhs coming forward into politics: to be a Sikh, one must always be humble and contained within oneself and always be modest. I have to tell hon. Members that that does not always fit well with politics. As we know, this business is often about self-promotion, and that goes across a central element of Sikhi, which is always to be modest. When I get home on a Thursday evening and my wife is waiting for me, the first thing to do is to bath the three children, read them their stories and always remember who you are. That is the essence of Sikhism.

Sikhs are taught that there are five sinful temptations that take us away from the ethos of Sikhism: Kam, which is lust; Krodh, which is rage; Lobh, which is greed, Moh, which is attachment; and Ahankar, or ego, which I have just alluded to and which is a bit of a stumbling block for many Sikhs in terms of coming into politics.

The first guru was anxious to establish a new central concept of faith that would be open to all, preaching a concept of equality at a time when India was scarred by caste, gender and feudal inequalities. He took in concepts from both Islam and Hinduism and he famously said:

“Na koi Hindu na koi Musalman”—“There is no Hindu or Muslim.”

He said that we are all human beings in front of God. Very early on, there was that message of equality and talk about that concept, which was very attractive to many Indians at that time.

I want to elaborate on the principle that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford alluded to, and make another link between buses and military history. The battle of Saragarhi has not been mentioned in 115 years, and now it has been mentioned in Westminster twice in 24 hours, so there you go—it is like buses coming all at once. That element of history beautifully encapsulates the Sikh philosophy. It was a battle in which 21 Sikhs fought against 10,000 armed Afghans. The battle of Saragarhi, fought by the young men of the 36th Sikhs in 1897, was the epitome of raw courage, sheer grit and unshakable determination.

Saragarhi was a signalling post between Fort Lockhart and Fort Gulistan on the Samana ridge, in what now is the North West Frontier Province between Pakistan and Afghanistan. On September 12 1897, about 10,000 Afghan tribesmen swarmed towards Saragarhi, while another group cut off all links. For the next six hours, the small detachment of 21 men stood firm and repulsed all attacks. The Sikhs fought to the last man. All 21 men were posthumously awarded the Indian order of merit—the highest gallantry award given to Indian ranks in those days and equivalent to the Victoria Cross. When the gallantry of Saragarhi was recounted in the British Parliament, the account drew a standing ovation from the Members of Parliament present and was brought to the notice of Queen Victoria. I highlight that battle, because it illustrates not only Sikh courage, but a second element of Sikhi—in no other community in the world would such a battle occur and nobody talk about it. Only the Sikhs would do something like that. I have gone into such detail because it encapsulates the beautiful concepts and ideology of the Sikh spirit. After his death, Guru Gobind Singh, the final guru, dictated that all Sikh thinking should be embodied in the Guru Granth Sahib. It is often referred to as the Sikh’s holy book, but it is much more than that. It is a blueprint for how we should conduct our lives in a modest, humble and wise manner.

I shall highlight a few elements of what the Government have done. I know, because I was in the room, that Sikhs now celebrate Vaisakhi at No. 10. I recommended it to the Prime Minister at the time and saw how animated he was by the idea. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford and the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) highlighted searches of the Sikh turban at airports, and I commend the British Government for the work they have done on that. It is absolutely fantastic.

The Prime Minster recently became the first serving British Prime Minister to visit Amritsar, and I was lucky enough to accompany him on that visit. There were some poor people there from Uttar Pradesh, and when the Prime Minister went through the Golden Temple—the Harmandir Sahib—I could see that the people who organised the trip were anxious to take him away from them, but he indicated that he wanted to meet them. As was highlighted earlier in the debate, there are four doors in a Sikh temple—one on each side—which mean that it is open to all faiths and communities. The Prime Minister met those incredibly poor people, and I can tell hon. Members how humbling it was for him. That, again, encapsulates the idea of Sikhism.

I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who mentioned Sikh schools. One is coming to my constituency. It will very much have a Sikh ethos, which will encapsulate all the ideas I have mentioned—it is about responsibility and what we give back to society as a whole.

It is with an element of personal sadness that I acknowledge there are not more Sikhs involved in Parliament, but I hope that talking about the concept of Sikhism will encourage more Sikhs to come forward. My parents are here today, because they came for yesterday’s ten-minute rule Bill debate and the debate today. This will annoy my family incredibly, because my wife is always admonishing me for name-checking whenever I make such speeches, but my oldest daughter encapsulated my feelings on Sikhism quite wonderfully when she said, “Dad we have such a cool faith, why don’t we talk about it much more?” I hope that in some small way, by making this speech this morning, I have helped that process.

10:13

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I have not brought my sgian dubh, but I will make a few points in the debate.

According to the recent census, the city I represent, Wolverhampton, has 22,000 Sikhs—the second biggest concentration of those who are of the Sikh faith in the country. Most of the Sikh community in Wolverhampton have their family roots around the city of Jalandhar in Punjab, which I have had the honour of visiting. I also had the honour of visiting the Golden Temple some years ago—a truly humbling and profound experience that I will never forget.

The story of Sikhism in Wolverhampton begins in earnest with the generation who came in the 1950s and ’60s to work in places such as Bilston steel and other heavy engineering works. The national story of course goes back much further that that, as we have heard, with brave Sikh service in two world wars. For those early immigrants in Wolverhampton, life was not easy. They were often packed into crowded living conditions, separated from family and friends and doing heavy physical work. They sometimes met with friendship and good experiences, but they also sometimes met with discrimination, perhaps even hostility and certainly a lack of understanding. That has changed a lot over time, and the community today is a very successful and established part of city life.

There are many gurdwaras in my constituency and throughout the city. The annual Vaisakhi celebration is a major part of its cultural life. Thousands of people take part in the nagar kirtan—the parade—which goes through the streets of my constituency, in a very well organised and joyful celebration of the Sikh faith. Our city will probably be for ever associated with Enoch Powell, but the story of the community and our history since he spoke shows that he was wrong: the Sikh community in Wolverhampton is a success and Wolverhampton’s multi-faith, multi-religious community is a success.

We have proved that such successes can be achieved, provided there is commitment all round, and a great many people can take credit for that success. Walking down Dudley road in my constituency, I can see its physical evidence. I can walk past sari shops and Bollywood films for hire. I can eat the finest Punjabi food. I can walk into the new Lakshmi restaurant—a great investment by Major Singh. We can see the impact of the community on the cultural and economic life of the city of Wolverhampton.

[Paul Uppal]

I cannot resist: it says something about the common sense of the people of Wolverhampton that in 1950 they returned Enoch Powell to the House with a majority of 691, but they returned somebody of Sikh descent in 2010 for exactly the same constituency with a majority of 691. Rest assured, I will not make a speech about race relations in 18 years.

[Mr McFadden]

I wonder what the majority will be at the next election. The voters will decide.

The community is a success in Wolverhampton and around the country, but we should not pretend that there are no issues in the community or challenges for it. Public health issues, which are not confined to the Sikh community, certainly affect it. People are sometimes reluctant to face up to hidden illnesses, including mental illness. There is always the challenge of freedom and greater independence for our younger generation, who ask for more choice and more decision-making power than perhaps their parents and grandparents enjoyed.

We have heard about searches of turbans—the dastar—at airports, about which a great many Members on both sides of the House campaigned, as did Sikh organisations. I acknowledge the good efforts of the Department for Transport in working with the European Union and other Governments to reach a successful conclusion. The result is that the European Commission now says that swab and wand technology used in UK airports can be used throughout the Community. I am a strong believer in good, tough, strong security at our airports. My Sikh constituents agree that it is essential, but if we can achieve it in a way that respects people’s faith, so much the better, particularly because freedom of movement is a founding principle of the EU. The UK Government’s engagement with the issue has produced a far better result than we saw on bank bonuses and other issues. If there is a lesson in that, it is that positive engagement with the EU, rather that withdrawal or turning up so late that we cannot influence the debate, produces results.

The community is a success in the UK, but it sometimes has a strange relationship with India. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, that in large part stems from the events of 1984, when many Sikhs lost their lives. The pain of that experience and the lasting sense of injustice among the Sikh community are very real. There is a lasting desire for greater transparency and honesty in the story of what happened.

If the community’s relationship with India is strained, its relationship with the UK has been a good one. That is a tribute to the Sikh community and its efforts. It is also a tribute to cities such as Wolverhampton and to our country that a community such as the Sikhs and many others over the years can come to the UK, make a new life, put down roots and be part of the country’s success. My own parents came from Donegal in the Republic of Ireland in the 1950s, and the huge Irish community in Scotland has also been successful. It is a tribute to the UK that we have been open to that over the years.

Far too often today, the debate about immigration is couched in terms of limits, dangers and negative stories about what people can bring to our shores. If we take a wider lesson from today’s debate, it should be that what a community such as the Sikhs, who are fantastic, enterprising and educationally aspirational, with values of faith, family and community, has brought to the UK shows that immigration can be a positive part of our national story, and I hope it is in the future.

10:21

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

I, too, begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on securing this debate, giving us the opportunity to recognise the achievements of British Sikhs in our communities and across the country. I will be as brief as possible.

I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) on their words; it is important to give them the opportunity to say what they needed to say.

I am proud to represent Warwick and Leamington, which has one of the largest Sikh communities in the country. It also has one of the largest and—I even dare to say—most magnificent gurdwaras in the country. There is a danger of starting off a bit of competition, but I assure hon. Members that if they visit, they will have the opportunity to agree with me. I look forward to visiting that gurdwara again this weekend.

Warwick district, which is largely made up of my constituency, has more than 5,000 Sikhs. After Christianity, Sikhism is the largest religious denomination. Living in Warwick and Leamington has made me conscious of the importance of our community in every aspect of our lives. Throughout my time as the Member of Parliament, I have always sought to support people who want to give something back.

I have always been impressed by how important public service is to the identity of Sikhs and how serving others is woven into their way of life. Sikhs are always seeking to do more and finding new ways of contributing, and I am grateful for their work in my community and for the time that they give up and the money that they donate to important local projects.

Every year, we host the Leamington Mela festival, which is always well attended by local residents and is well organised by the local Sikh community. Not only does it provide a chance for residents to sample a wonderful array of food and see excellent live entertainment, but it helps to bring people together and reinforce our community’s sense of identity. Our community also has a Sikh community centre, which provides a range of services and a place for local residents, particularly older people, to come together.

There are similar stories across the country of the contributions that British Sikhs make. They are an example of the positive impact that immigration can have on our country: enhancing our local and national life, providing new perspectives and ensuring that our communities remain vibrant and welcoming places in which to live. With thousands of people from across the world settling in our country every year, we need to show the benefits of making the effort to play a full and active part in our public life.

I am glad that the Prime Minister has made every effort to understand and listen to the concerns of British Sikhs. I am also pleased to have attended Diwali celebrations at No. 10 with Sikhs from my community. However, we can and should do more.

The Government should take the opportunity to work with organisations such as the Sikh Council UK, which seeks to act as a national advocate for British Sikhs. We should recognise the potential of working with democratically elected bodies such as the council, so that Sikhs feels that their voice is being heard. I would welcome the Prime Minister and Communities Secretary to have regular meetings with the council and other Sikh organisations in our country, so that we can explain Government policy and take on board the points made by the British Sikh community.

We should also recognise the important contribution that Sikhs make to our local economy. My community has many Sikh entrepreneurs who have started a range of businesses that have contributed millions of pounds to our local economy. The British Asian Business and Professionals Association is a fantastic group and works tremendously hard in Warwick and Leamington.

At a time when we are looking to get our economy moving again and building links with emerging markets, we should recognise the skills of British Sikhs in the business world and ensure that we are giving the right support to the next generation, so that we continue to make the most of the Sikh community’s potential.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more needs to be done to tackle discrimination against Sikh workers in the workplace? Particularly, the Government could do more to ensure that employers understand the special protections for wearers of the Sikh turban.

[Chris White]

I agree with the hon. Lady that more work needs to be done on that aspect, and conversations and debates on it will be worth while.

British Sikhs are seeking to contribute not only locally or nationally, but internationally. Like many hon. Members, I have received a number of petitions from constituents about the treatment of minorities in India and the campaign to abolish the death penalty. I hope that the Government will listen to those concerns and ensure that they communicate with British Sikhs about our country’s foreign policy.

There is always a danger in such debates that we parcel up our communities into different sections. I believe that British Sikhs have many of the same concerns as everyone else, and we have mentioned some of them in the debate, starting with buses. I believe that British Sikhs have a strong sense of their identity, both as Sikhs and as British citizens, and it is right that Parliament takes the time to recognise that. We should build on that and ensure that British Sikhs feel that their work is appreciated.

I am proud to represent a diverse community in Warwick and Leamington. I am confident that Sikhs will continue to make their unique contribution to our community for many years to come, and I hope to do what I can to support them.

10:27

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

I start by saying—I am not going to speak in Punjabi—sat sri akal to hon. Members present and everyone watching at home and in the Public Gallery.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on securing this debate. He did so after we circulated an e-mail to many members of the all-party group, asking them to apply for such a debate because we felt that one was timely. By the attendance here, I think we were absolutely right.

My involvement with the Sikh community in the United Kingdom started in 1988, when I was elected chair of the race equality committee of Leeds city council. Almost immediately following that—one year into my tenure as a Leeds councillor, which I held for 10 years—I was approached by a leading member of the Leeds Sikh community, Mr Thandi, who was a market trader and a great exponent of the virtues of the Sikh faith. He wanted to educate me about what Sikhism meant for him, his community, the city of Leeds and the whole of Great Britain. That he did, and he did it well. He became a close friend and was a member of the Labour party. In 1992, he kindly agreed, with his wife, to be included in my election manifesto for that year. Sadly, I did not win, but to my even greater sadness, he died just two days before the general election.

My memory of Mr Thandi has carried me through all my work on Leeds city council and as Member of Parliament since. I do not represent such a huge Sikh community as hon. Members from Wolverhampton, Birmingham or even London do, but I still have three gurdwaras in my constituency, which are well attended. One of them is in a new building—it was built in 1997, so I suppose it is not so new now—and I was privileged not only to dig the first sod of earth for that temple on Chapeltown road, but to be present at its opening as the newly elected Member of Parliament.

Over the years, I have got to know many members of the Leeds Sikh community, including Dr and Mrs Kalsi. Dr Kalsi has written a very good book about Sikhism and what it means, which I commend to anyone who wants to know more about the faith, although, with a Member such as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) among us, perhaps we do not need to read it. My friend Prem Singh Duggal was president of the Chapeltown road gurdwara and helped me to understand so much about the Sikh faith, and one of the immediate past presidents, Mr Inderjit Singh Gill, always invites me to the Sikh sports events that regularly take place in the city.

I have attended the Vaisakhi celebrations in what is now called Millennium square in the centre of Leeds. It was not always called that—it was just the square outside Leeds civic hall.

[Mr McFadden]

We are pressed for time, but I want to remind my hon. Friend and the House that I will be happy again to host the House of Commons Vaisakhi celebrations on 22 April, to which all right hon. and hon. Members are most cordially invited.

[Fabian Hamilton]

I thank my dear right hon. Friend for that intervention. He has organised that event for the second or third year running, and I thank him for taking on that work and making sure that Vaisakhi is celebrated in the House for everyone involved. It is always a joyous and colourful occasion to celebrate not only the contribution of the Sikh community in the city of Leeds and in Great Britain, but to celebrate the start of spring, although it usually rains actually. Extraordinary colour and life is brought to the centre of the city of Leeds and throughout so many of our towns and cities in the United Kingdom to celebrate that festival, and there is always wonderful food as well. One thing that has always impressed me is the equality between men and women, who celebrate together, not separated. They joyously celebrate humanity, as well as their own faith and belief.

Since 1997, I have tried to bring together the Sikh community in Leeds and the Jewish community that I represent. There are probably about equal numbers of them now, as the Jewish community has declined somewhat and the Sikh community has grown. As hon. Members have said, the values of those communities are very similar. When I walked into the newly built Jewish community centre—the Marjorie and Arnold Ziff centre —on Stonegate road in north Leeds with members of the Sikh community to discuss how we might set up a Sikh elderly housing association and a welfare board, just as the Jewish community had done so many decades earlier, there was a great deal of celebration, with elderly Jewish people embracing many of our Sikh friends who had come along to discuss that with them.

[Paul Uppal]

On that theme, I am a trustee of a Sikh temple that donated a significant amount of money to a local Methodist church, which is very much in line with that collaborative approach. As was highlighted earlier, the Sikh community works very well with other religious communities and all-faith organisations wherever there is a Sikh presence.

[Fabian Hamilton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. The values of family, education and hard work bring the Sikh community together with so many others, including the Jewish community in my constituency—and long may that continue.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend mentioned sporting activities earlier. I draw his attention—I am sure it is the same in Leeds—to the excellent work done by Sikh organisations and individuals in athletics and sport, not just with the introduction of kabaddi into British society, but with the Singh Saba football club in my constituency and the 100 year old marathon runner Fauja Singh, who has just retired from running marathons.

[Fabian Hamilton]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We were all absolutely staggered at that gentleman—his constituent—deciding at 100 years of age that the time had finally come to stop doing marathons. I wish we could all do that when we are 100 years old, but I doubt that that will be the case.

In 2006, as a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, I visited Amritsar for the first time with my hon. Friend and the former Member for Hyndburn, Greg Pope. We were a small delegation of the Foreign Affairs Committee on our way to Lahore in Pakistan, and we stopped at Amritsar for a day and a night. It was one of the most enlightening and incredible experiences that I have ever had.

That of course pre-dated the visit of the Prime Minister, whom I congratulate on being the first British Prime Minister to go to the Golden Temple. My hon. Friend and I were there before him—of course, we are not Prime Ministers. We walked there, as he did, in our suits, barefoot with a head covering, and we admired the peace and spirituality of that holy of holiest places for the Sikh faith. That permeated through to us all. We watched hundreds of people together, preparing food for the langar, which is the free meal given every day to anyone who cares to call in and ask for it. We also experienced the serenity, the sense of spirituality and faith that that place emanates and, of course, its absolute beauty.

Time is short, so I will conclude with some brief remarks. In 2010, we re-formed the all-party group on British Sikhs. I was elected to chair that group, following the defeat of my good friend Rob Marris, the predecessor of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West. Through that role, we have achieved a few things. I backed, although I was not able to go to Brussels, the lobby of the European Union. The Sikh Federation UK has supported our group so well, and I want to pay tribute to it for its work, together with that of the Sikh Council UK. Those two organisations ensure that British Sikhs are well represented. I want to thank all the hon. Members on the all-party group who are here today and those who are unable to join us.

Finally, I want to dedicate my few words to a very dear and close friend, the late Marsha Singh, who was the Member for Bradford West. Marsha was a good friend, and during his life he encapsulated all the values of Sikhism and of being a British Sikh. He died at a very young age and will be sadly missed, but I am sure that the values he lived for will live on.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. We have just a few minutes to go; three Members wish to catch my eye; and Anas Sarwar is the first.

10:36

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

I will be as quick as possible, because of the time pressure. I first congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on securing this important debate.

I put on the record my thanks for all the tremendous support that the Sikh community in Glasgow have given me and my family over a long period. I give them a genuine thank you for that. My constituency is home to one of the largest Sikh communities in Scotland. More than half of the gurdwaras in Scotland are based in Glasgow Central, and the Central Gurdwara is currently being built there. It is the first purpose-built gurdwara in Scotland, and will house 2,000 people every week for Sunday services in the temple. It is a tremendous building, which I encourage all Members to come and visit at any time.

I want to make some quick points about the tremendous contribution that the Sikh community has made to the success of the United Kingdom both in terms of business success—they contribute tremendously to our economy and GDP, and to our public services, particularly to our national health service as doctors, nurses and the like—and in terms of celebrating and vastly broadening our culture in the UK, not only in cuisine, but with cultural events, such as Vaisakhi. I say a massive thank you for that.

More importantly, I thank first and second-generation and now third-generation Sikhs—I too am from a third-generation migrant community—for the tremendous contribution of the first generation in coming here, making the UK their home, and being accepted and recognised as one of their own within the United Kingdom, and the second generation in having built up really successful businesses and faith organisations, while recognising the connection that they still had with the mother country, particularly through charity and in giving in difficult circumstances. The third generation in particular—they see themselves not as Indians or Pakistanis, but genuinely as Scots or Brits—see this country as their own. That is really important, particularly as we come to the debate about the place of Scotland within the United Kingdom, in which I am sure the Sikh community will play a crucial role.

I want to raise a couple of concerns that have been mentioned to me. One is about equality in relation to the turban and the kirpan. Recently, a high street operator refused to employ someone because they wore the kirpan, and in court, someone was expelled from a jury for wearing one. Such things were protected by the equality legislation introduced by the last Government, and we must ensure that education takes place, so that such situations do not occur again.

One of the largest letter-writing campaigns that I have ever experienced as a Member of Parliament has been about the death penalty in India. We must work alongside this Government and the Indian Government to ensure that we are fighting for justice and fairness right around the world.

I will not say much else—I was given only three minutes but I realise that I have gone on to four—other than that we must recognise the tremendous contribution of the Sikh community and ensure that our Parliaments and council chambers reflect society. All political parties must work together to ensure that we have representation of Sikhs in council chambers, the Scottish Parliament and at Westminster.

10:39

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Briefly, I am proud that we have an incredibly strong Sikh community in Wolverhampton; we have the second largest concentration of Sikhs in the country. I pay tribute to the Sikh community for the contribution it makes socially, culturally and economically, and to my predecessor, Ken Purchase who, alongside other Members of Parliament and councillors, has worked so hard over the past three or four decades with the Sikh community and other communities to foster mutual understanding, tolerance and community relations. That success is particularly impressive given that we unfortunately inherited that infamous speech of Enoch Powell, which, thankfully, now seems like a distant memory. None the less, it is important to reflect on the progress that we have made since that time, given that there was such awful discrimination in the 1960s and 1970s and later. We have come a very long way, and the debate is an opportunity to celebrate both the progress that we have made in fostering those community relations as well as the fantastic contribution of the Sikh community.

I would love to have given a bit more of a taster of the fantastic Vaisakhi celebrations that take place in West park every year; the procession from the Well lane gurdwara in my constituency to Willenhall and all the other community events. The community embraces people and is very open, as the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), who secured this debate, said. The gurdwaras that we visit are so welcoming and open, and I want to put on record my thanks to the community.

10:42

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Owen. Let me congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on securing this important debate. It is unusual and actually very nice to participate in a debate that unites the House. We should celebrate, and congratulate ourselves on, that fact.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

On that point about the unity of the House, it is worth while also mentioning that in the debate on the abolition of the death penalty in India, there was a similar unity in the main Chamber.

[Chris Williamson]

I concur with my hon. Friend. I was present for part of that debate. Regrettably, I had a commitment at the beginning and at the end of it, so I was not able to contribute, but none the less, I, too, was struck by the unity of purpose.

[John McDonnell]

It was a sin of omission by me, but that unity was brought about by the mobilisation of the community by the Kesri Lehar campaign. We should pay tribute to all those involved. More than 100,000 petitioners brought that campaign to the House.

[Chris Williamson]

I concur with my hon. Friend on that point. I received a proportion of that petition at the gurdwara in Derby a couple of weeks ago.

There is not time to touch on everybody’s contribution today, but all have been first class. I will, if I may, focus on just one or two. Let me start with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) who talked about Sikhism’s core values. It is important to stress those values and I thank him for outlining them. I wanted to touch on them myself. It is worth reiterating the fact that within Sikhism, there is a recognition of the equality of women and of all people and a commitment to hard work, to sharing with others and to standing up for people and protecting them.

That notion of sharing is something from which I have benefited on many occasions when I have been privileged to visit the local gurdwaras in Derby. As one of the three vegans in the House of Commons, it is nice to go to an event where all of the food on offer is vegetarian, so it is always a wonderful experience.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about the death penalty that still pertains in India. He mentioned the cases of a couple of individuals and pointed out that we will be meeting the family of Professor Bhullar, who is languishing on death row, to discuss his case.

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am sorry that I will not get the chance to contribute in more detail. Does he agree that when we listen to all the contributions here, and read the history and philosophy of Sikhism, we understand that when a true Sikh leaves their country of origin to go to other countries, they carry with them their social values, the teachings of the guru and the traditions of the past? That is why when they go to other countries, their contribution to the society is based on the teachings of the guru.

[Chris Williamson]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. All communities could learn a significant lesson from the way in which the Sikh community conducts itself.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) also made an important contribution. He talked about how the Sikh community illustrates the benefits of immigration. He made the point that very often the immigration debate is a negative one, and that we should celebrate and recognise the benefits of immigration, which can be seen in the contribution of the Sikh community.

There is very little time left, but I want to say one or two other things. It is important to stress the fact that the British Sikh story goes back more than 200 years, and that there is a long, honourable and close relationship between the Sikh community and Great Britain, which is clearly illustrated in the Sikh contribution to our armed forces. Let me relate a personal story here. My dad served in the Enniskillens during world war two and was in north Africa and at Monte Cassino. Serving alongside him in the campaign to defeat fascism were Sikh soldiers, who served with great valour and distinction in the terrible battle that saw the loss of so many young lives.

In view of the shortness of time, Mr Owen, it is important to say one or two final words about the contribution of the Sikh community to the economy, and about the benefits of immigration to the UK. The Sikhs have made a huge economic contribution to the nation, creating many jobs and wealth for Great Britain. I also want to mention here cohesion and integration, which is a topic that I am currently working on. The Sikh community is a model of cohesion and integration and we could learn many lessons on the way in which it has conducted itself in the UK.

In conclusion, I have a few questions for the Minister. If he cannot deal with them today in his contribution, perhaps he could write to me afterwards. Before this debate, I received a briefing note from the Sikh community relating to a number of issues, one of which was about celebrating the Sikh contribution to the UK in the school curriculum. Will the Minister confirm whether that is something that is being considered? As we move towards the 100th anniversary of the beginning of world war one, another request related to the contribution of the Sikh community to that war. It would be appropriate to ensure that the contribution that Sikhs made in that war was recognised and perhaps the Minister could confirm, one way or another, whether that will be the case.

The Sikh Council UK has also asked that the Government formally consult with it on Government policy relating to a range of issues. I wonder whether the Minister might be able to comment on that request.

Hon. Members have touched on issues that persist to this day about employment, whereby Sikhs are still discriminated against and find problems in the workplace in relation to the turban. As a former construction worker myself, I know that that is something that has been addressed on construction sites, but there are still a number of ongoing cases. I think that one relates to a lorry driver who is in danger of losing his job, and there have been a number of other incidents as well. I wonder whether the Minister could say a little about dealing with those employment rights issues for the Sikh community.

Another issue that I have been told there is concern about in the Sikh community is in relation to the funding for Sikh organisations. The feeling is that it is increasingly difficult for voluntary organisations in the Sikh community to obtain funding for their activities from the national lottery, other trust funds and so on. Could the Minister say anything about that issue?

My final question relates to the issue of security at airports. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West for clarifying the latest situation in terms of the EU regulations on this issue. Could the Minister give us any information about whether the Government will continue to monitor this situation? It is good news that the regulations have been updated, but it is important that we continue to monitor the situation to ensure that those more enlightened regulations are actually being implemented on the ground.

10:51

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Don Foster)]

Mr Owen, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on securing this debate, and I join him in congratulating the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) and all other members of the all-party group on British Sikhs. And to respond immediately to the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), I am more than happy to have a meeting with the Sikh Council UK.

May I also just say that, with time so short, I will not have the opportunity to reflect on the contributions of so many Members who have spoken today? However, it has been absolutely clear that the speakers in the debate, from all parties, have gone out of their way to celebrate the enormous contribution that members of the British Sikh community make to this country. I am delighted to be able to join them by making a similar expression of praise, thanks and congratulations to the Sikh community for its contribution.

It is not very hard to see the enormous value that individual Sikhs bring to our community. There are successful Sikhs all around us, including, obviously, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal). There is also Lord Singh of Wimbledon, the first practising turbaned Sikh in Parliament, and there are Sikhs high up in the legal profession, including Judge Mota Singh and Rabinder Singh, QC, who has been made a member of the Supreme Court. And there are noted Sikh sportsmen: obviously Monty Panesar; and the 101-year-old marathon runner Fauja Singh.

We know that, according to the 2011 census, there are about 423,000 Sikhs in Britain, which is just under 1% of the population. However, as so many Members have already said, Sikhs are punching well above their weight: in both national and local government; in the professions; and in industry and commerce.

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

The Minister has just mentioned many professions, but there is also the medical profession. Two of my constituents, Professor Jaspal Singh Kooner and Dr Amarjit Singh Sethi, are leading cardiologists at Ealing hospital and they have contributed enormously to the medical profession.

[Mr Foster]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I am sure that there are other professions that I have also missed out in which there have been major contributions from members of the British Sikh community.

As other Members have mentioned, Sikhs are also renowned for their military skills, with a proud record of service in the British Army in two world wars. I want to make it absolutely clear that we certainly hope that we will see that contribution reflected in the commemoration of the anniversary of world war one which will be happening shortly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West called Sikhism a “cool” religion. As he explained, there are good reasons within Sikhism why individuals are called to serve their local communities and British society in general, because the faith requires believers to put others before self and to stand up for the vulnerable. If someone goes to a gurdwara anywhere in the world, they can get a free meal. Sikhism recognises the existence of injustices, and it reminds Sikhs of their individual and corporate responsibilities to work for a fairer society. That is why Sikhs are often in the forefront of serving their communities. There is a community centre in Handsworth that is run by Sikhs, which is a particularly good example of that service.

As we have heard from a number of other hon. Members from all parties, Sikhs continue to be prominent in the field of education. The five Sikh schools that we have—one each in Hayes and Southall in London, one in Slough and two in Birmingham—are doing a fantastic job. Three of the five are rated by Ofsted as being outstanding.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) referred to the Guru Nanak Sikh academy in Hayes, which is doing some fantastic work, including providing a number of free courses for members of the community. In addition, the chairman of that academy has founded a number of institutions in India to help the poor and underprivileged there.

Sikhs are also very much at the heart of inter-faith activity in this country, because Sikhism teaches the equality of all human beings, including the total equality of women, and Sikh gurus require their followers to show respect for different faiths and different ways of life. That is why we can note with great pleasure and pride the contribution of Sikhs to bodies such as the Inter Faith Network for the UK and in initiatives such as the inter-faith week and the Near Neighbours programme. Sikhs were also very active in 2012’s Year of Service activities, with a range of project around the theme of “bringing sweetness”. We also look forward to Sikhs participating enthusiastically in Together in Service, a new three-year project that is designed to encourage, celebrate and link up faith-based volunteering, which will begin later this year.

As we have heard, this Government believe—as previous Governments did—that not only should everyone be free to follow their faith freely so long as they do not interfere with the freedom of others, but that religious faith and the fact that it motivates believers to carry out good work are things to be actively celebrated.

We have already heard how, with cross-party support, Vaisakhi is marked in Parliament and at No. 10 with receptions. We have also heard about the huge attendances at Nagar Kirtans, with the processional singing of hymns through the community.

Freedom of worship is core to the British way of life. Public displays of religious belief, such as the wearing of faith symbols and clothing or the maintenance of dietary codes, are all vital aspects of religious freedom and we are keen to do all we can to support that freedom. The previous Government did excellent work in this field, but we recognise that there have been problems. As we have heard, some European countries have all too often required Sikhs to remove their turbans during airport security screening, which Sikhs find offensive. Until last month, the European regulations required the hand-searching of turbans if a wearer caused the metal detector to go off. I am delighted that, as a result of work done in this country, we have now been able to make the change to enable the alternative system of passing electronic swabs over the surface of headwear to be used. As requested, we are now working very closely with our European colleagues to persuade them to adopt the same system.

We are also looking at a number of the other issues that have been raised today. For example, I was interested to hear the concern raised about a member of the Sikh community not being allowed to serve on a jury because he was wearing the kirpan. If the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar), who raised that particular case, can provide me with details about it, I would like to take it up.

The issue of hard hats was also raised and I assure hon. Members that my Department is now working with all the other agencies involved with that particular issue to see if we can make progress and enable Sikh turban-wearers not to have to wear hard hats in certain places of work.

I am delighted to be able to sum up this debate, which has shown how much cross-party support there is for the huge contribution that is made by the Sikh community in this country. British Sikhs are among some of our greatest business men and professionals, and they are a peaceful, high-achieving community from whom we all have much to learn. This has been an excellent debate. I am delighted to have participated in it briefly, and I wish everybody a happy Vaisakhi.

First World War Centenary

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. As this debate is, in part, about remembrance, I wonder whether I might ask the House briefly to join me in remembering the life and public service of Councillor Peter Wood, who was until recently leader of Ashford borough council. Sadly, Peter died earlier this month and his funeral is being held in Ashford today. As well as being leader of the council, he was ward member for the Saxon Shore ward in my constituency.

This is the second time that I have raised such a debate in the House. I held an Adjournment debate in the main Chamber about two and a half years ago. This subject is of great importance to the country and of great significance to my constituency. I should declare an interest: I am chairman of the Step Short first world war charity in Folkestone, which I will mention later.

Many families in this country are touched by the first world war in one way or another, through the service of a relative or ancestor. Fortunately, my family did not lose a family member during that war, but many families were touched in that way. My great grandfather, George Lovell, volunteered when he was 16 and was held back from active service until he was 18, when he was a driver in the Royal Army Service Corps.

Like many hon. Members and millions of people in the country, I took the opportunity at school to take part in tours of first world war battlefields, visiting the great Tyne Cot cemetery at Passchendaele and the extraordinary trenches that remain at Beaumont Hamel, where the Newfoundlanders took such severe losses on the first day of the battle of the Somme.

I attended an interesting event in Parliament on Monday, at which the Prime Minister was joined by the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, at a meeting where they mentioned that they intend to visit together a first world war battlefield cemetery for British and Irish soldiers who fought and died side by side.

The first world war is of great significance to many people, in respect of memorial and trauma, and of memory of that time. I was touched by a quotation from one of my predecessors as Member of Parliament for the Folkestone and Hythe area, Sir Philip Sassoon, who was MP during the first world war and also the political secretary to Douglas Haig. Sir Philip wrote to a friend during the war, saying,

“would one ever have believed before the war that one could have stood for one single instant the load of pain and anxiety which is now one’s daily breath? I find that although I can study the casualty list without ever seeing a name I know—for all my friends have been killed—yet nevertheless one feels as much for others as for oneself—just a blur of grief: and one wakes every morning feeling one can hardly bear to live through the day.”

It is in many ways almost impossible for us now to understand what it must have been like to live through the first world war and to have seen such terrible losses—people’s friends and family, and those they had grown up with and known all their life—and to understand the terrific social change that took place as a result of that conflict.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the innovation by Greenhithe Royal British Legion branch in my constituency, which came up with the idea of scattering poppy seeds across the region and is selling the seeds? This idea has been endorsed by the Prime Minister. We hope to see, during the commemoration of the centenary of the outbreak of the first world war, fields of red poppies in the local area, which will be a poignant reminder of all the sacrifice.

[Damian Collins]

That excellent project demonstrates the great wealth of interest that there is throughout the country in communities doing their own, different things to mark the centenary of the first world war.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the worst thing we could do in commemorating the first world war is to repeat what Wilfred Owen called,

“The old Lie: Dulce et Decorum est

Pro patria mori”?

We should remember this as an immense human tragedy, the main consequence of which was the second world war.

[Damian Collins]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The significance of the centenary should not be the celebration of a military victory, for no military victory is final and lasting—certainly not the first world war—but of the sacrifice of millions who fought in the conflict and those who worked on the home front as well, many of whom died. That should challenge us to work and strive not to create the war that will end all wars, but to reach a point where war is no longer necessary. The first world war did not achieve that.

The hon. Gentleman is right: this is not a celebration of victory, but a commemoration of the sacrifice of millions of people. That sacrifice has been written about and debated many times. People have written about the lost generation that was killed during the first world war and about the brilliant lives that were ended. Many Members of Parliament fought and died. The Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, lost his son, Raymond Asquith.

There is the great sacrifice of the pals regiments, many of which were created by people who worked and lived together and joined up, fighting and dying together. The high death toll in certain communities, famously, in pals regiments such as the Accrington pals, which lost so many during the battle of the Somme, meant that during the second world war we no longer recruited in that way, so that communities did not suffer such terrible losses.

There were incredible losses on the home front as the first world war became more mechanised. On 25 May 1917, an air raid in Folkestone was focused on Tontine street, near the harbour. German planes that had hoped but failed to reach London dropped their bombs before re-crossing the channel. In that single air raid, 71 people were killed, 27 of whom were children. We live in a time of war when modern technology makes the most devastating loss possible at the touch of a button, but such a loss of life on one day at home, away from the battlefield, was a truly shocking occurrence for people who lived through it.

When considering the first world war centenary, we should also remember that this was a global war. The conflict was not isolated in the western front, massive though the losses were in the trenches of France and Belgium. British and Commonwealth armed forces also served at Gallipoli and in Palestine, and we should remember the great role of troops drawn from the empire, particularly the British Indian Army, which sent many hundreds of thousands of men to fight for the British empire, across the world and particularly on the western front. Their stories, which are in many ways protected and preserved by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission around the world, are an important part of the centenary.

I see something every year in my constituency that brings home the sacrifices of the first world war for future generations, today. At the military cemetery at Shorncliffe, on Canada day, school children from local primary schools sit by and place flowers on the graves of the many Canadian soldiers buried there, marking a commitment made by the town at the end of the first world war to the families of those troops to tend their graves. It is touching to see young people only 10 or 11 years old sitting by the grave of someone who was perhaps only 18 when they were killed. That is a great way of bringing home to young people today the sacrifices that people made.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The hon. Gentleman rightly talks about the commemorative role that many organisations play. Will he join me in commending the McCraes Battalion Trust in Edinburgh, which built Edinburgh’s only war memorial on the Somme, at Contalmaison? The trust now takes groups of children out there, to ensure that the sacrifice that people in Edinburgh made during the great war is never forgotten.

[Damian Collins]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The project that he mentions sounds excellent, and it touches on an important aspect of the first world war centenary—namely, the work that can be done to preserve memorials. The Government are making funds available, through the Heritage Lottery Fund and English Heritage, to support the restoration of war memorials. In Dover, adjacent to my constituency, there was an excellent project called the Dover war memorial project, in which volunteers, students and children conducted research into the lives of people named on the war memorial. That gave them a real sense of connection and helped them to see that the names carved in the stone belonged to real, living people.

The project led to the rediscovery of Walter Tull, who was born in Folkestone and is commemorated on the Dover memorial. He had the distinction of being the first black officer to be commissioned in the British Army. He was commissioned in the field during the first world war, having previously been the first black outfield player to play professional football in Britain. His story had been forgotten, and it was rediscovered through the project. Such projects are an important way to mark the centenary.

The Heritage Lottery Fund is making funds available for community projects across the country to support remembrance and the education of new generations about the sacrifices of the war. The Prime Minister said in his speech last year at the Imperial War museum that funds were being made available to support schools to send tour parties to the battlefields, so that children could see for themselves the sights of the war. Giving people the opportunity to walk in the soldiers’ footsteps and to gain some understanding of their lives and the sacrifices that they made is an important part of the commemoration process. It is incredible not only that the battlefield tours continue to this day—the battlefields of the western front receive about 500,000 visitors a year from around the world, a great number of whom come from this country—but that they are growing in popularity. Visits to the Menin gate to hear the last post being played and visits to the Somme memorial at Thiepval are growing in number, which shows the huge appetite for them.

I want to talk briefly about the Step Short project in my constituency. Folkestone was a focal point in the war effort, and 10 million servicemen passed through the town during the first world war. It was the major port of embarkation to, and debarkation from, the trenches of the western front. It was home to tens of thousands of refugees from Belgium and tens of thousands more servicemen from Canada, who were based at Shorncliffe barracks just outside the town. Most families in the country will have an ancestor who was in Folkestone at some point during the war.

Some of those people are recorded in the visitors’ books that were kept by two sisters who operated a temporary canteen on the harbour arm, from which they gave free cups of tea and bits of cake to men who boarded the boats. Lloyd George, Churchill, Haig and private soldiers in the Army signed the books, which provide a great living memory of those men’s stories and give us a date, time and place, so that we know where they were at that point during the war. For some men, signing those books may have been their last act on English soil, to which they would never return because they would make the supreme sacrifice in the trenches.

After the first world war, Slope road in Folkestone, which ran from the Leas on the cliff tops in the town down to the harbour, was renamed the road of Remembrance, because it was the road down which so many men marched. As they marched down the steep road with heavy packs on their backs, the command of “step short” was given, which told them to break their steps. Marching downhill on the cobbles, wearing boots and carrying heavy packs must have been quite an exercise even on a dry day, but the soldiers managed it. Folkestone was the last stage in the journey that they made to the trenches.

In the inter-war period, a memorial arch was constructed over the road around the time of the coronation of George VI. On it was written simply, “In our rejoicing, we still remember them.” That sentiment is an important part of the remembrance process, and it reminds us that future generations have an obligation to remember the sacrifices that people made.

Many people had forgotten the story of Folkestone during the first world war, and the community have got together to tell it once more. For the centenary of the outbreak of the war in August 2014, they want to invite the country to Folkestone to be part of that story again. For the past two or three years, we have organised a memorial march along the route that the soldiers took down the road of Remembrance into the harbour. We hold that march on the first Sunday of August each year, close to the anniversary of the outbreak of the war, to remember the story of the men’s departure. People go to the battlefields of France and Flanders to walk in the soldiers’ footsteps, and they can also do that by taking part in the march in Folkestone.

The Prime Minister wrote an article on Remembrance Sunday for The Sunday Telegraph, in which he set out some of the Government’s plans to mark the centenary. Those plans include the great investment in the Imperial War museum, where new first world war galleries will be opening. He also noted that there would be “big outdoor commemorations” to mark the outbreak of the war. In particular, he mentioned the large outdoor event that we are planning in Folkestone, which, he noted, is

“the port where so many left for France.”

We look forward to welcoming people to Folkestone on 4 August 2014. Folkestone is fundraising to place a new memorial arch at the top of the Leas, at the start of the road of Remembrance. People can walk under the arch and remember the soldiers’ journey. That is an important part of the first world war remembrance process. We are also raising money for a visitor centre to tell that story. It is important for future generations to be able to understand that ordinary people—people like them from all over the country, and people from around the world who came to this country to fight on our behalf—made incredible sacrifices during the first world war. It is a story that future generations must tell, and we must give them all the chance to participate in it.

I mentioned earlier the expression “the lost generation”, which is often used to refer to the sacrifice people made during the first world war. I believe that Gertrude Stein originally coined the expression; certainly, Ernest Hemingway credited her with having done so. He used it at the beginning of his book “The Sun Also Rises”, which was published in the early 1920s. In it, he quoted from Ecclesiastes, which in some ways touches on the point made by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn):

“One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh; but the earth abideth forever… The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to the place where he arose.”

That reminds us that, in our remembrance, we must also look forward; that each generation has an obligation to defend the freedoms that were fought for in the first world war and to seek peace in the world; and that each is challenged to do that in its own way.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister more about the Government’s plans for the centenary. During the first world war centenary, as we look back and remember, we should also look forward, learning from that terrible period in our history, to how we can work to secure a more peaceful world for future generations.

11:17

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)]

I welcome you the Chair, Mr Owen. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on securing the debate. He is not quite my constituency neighbour, but he is pretty close to it, and of course he is a fellow Kent MP. As he spoke, I was reflecting that many of us are familiar with Folkestone. I suspect that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who speaks for the Opposition, may have done some training at Shorncliffe camp, as I have. Many of us did our Northern Ireland training there. I did not know about the link with the Canadians, but it is good to hear that that is still celebrated in the way my hon. Friend outlined. I apologise for not being the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who would normally respond to such a debate. He is away at the moment, but I hope that, with my Kent and military connections, my responding to the debate will not be too much of a hurdle. I would like to associate myself with the remarks that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe made, most appropriately, about Peter Wood.

Rather than running through a prepared speech, I will pick up some of my hon. Friend’s comments and detail how the Government might support the efforts he is making. Part of the Government’s approach is to set out a general strategy around remembrance, youth and education, and then, in a sense, to encourage a thousand flowers to bloom. The schemes that have been mentioned in Edinburgh and Folkestone are perfect examples of what we hope will happen.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his chairmanship of the Step Short campaign, which sounds like a fantastic example of what I am talking about. Those of us who have worn Army boots—especially those with studs on the bottom, which soldiers would have worn in those days—will know just how difficult it would have been to march down a hill, especially with a heavy pack and particularly if it was raining, as it often does in Kent at certain times of year. It is fantastic to see that that is being commemorated. I had not really considered that Folkestone was the major port of embarkation, but that was very much the case. I encourage my hon. Friend to keep the Department for Culture, Media and Sport closely informed about the project and to see what we can do to help him and the town as it undertakes those commemorations.

I was struck by my hon. Friend’s remarks about school visits. I think that for many of us who have visited the first world war battlefields, however much we might know about the military, or conflict, their sheer size and scale is what is striking. That strikes me every time I go there. In my regiment three squadrons were wiped out within half an hour, at a place called Zandvoorde ridge. Many regiments will have had similar experiences, and the striking scale of what happened makes it important that later generations should be reminded. My hon. Friend referred to the £5.3 million scheme that will enable a teacher and two pupils from every secondary school to visit a first world war battlefield.

The story of the air raid in Folkestone is a quite well known Kent story, and, as my hon. Friend said, a shocking one. I guess that it may have been the first large-scale air raid of any sort in this country.

[Damian Collins]

It is believed to be the first major civilian air raid, but I should point out that today is the anniversary of a Zeppelin raid in Hartlepool in 1918, which killed eight people.

[Hugh Robertson]

I stand corrected.

We touched on Shorncliffe camp. I did not know that Walter Tull was born in Folkestone. I think we all know his extraordinary story. Rather encouragingly, when we were in opposition, I visited a community scheme at Tottenham Hotspur as part of black history month—he played initially at Spurs. The area is clearly quite a testing one educationally, and all the children were working on a project about that extraordinary man who, as my hon. Friend said, was born in Folkestone and, having played professional football for Spurs and other clubs, became the first black officer on the western front. I think that he was put up for a military cross towards the end of the war. He is an extraordinary figure, and not the only sporting figure from my hon. Friend’s part of the world. Colin Blythe, the cricketer, who is commemorated at the county ground, was another.

[Ian Murray]

As the Minister has mentioned sporting icons, I wonder whether he has read the wonderful book about McCrae’s battalion. It was born from the Heart of Midlothian football club team, which signed up en masse in 1914, leading tens of thousands of supporters to sign up. Because of that the team lost the championship by a point.

[Hugh Robertson]

The lovely thing about these debates is the fact that we always learn something new, and that is a wonderful piece of sporting trivia. The hon. Gentleman has reminded me of something important, which I thought might be what he was going to say in his intervention: next year provides us with a unique opportunity north of the border, because of the Commonwealth games. The Department is considering how to make use of the presence of many Commonwealth leaders and athletes in this country to mark the Commonwealth contribution. My hon. Friend has mentioned that, and I freely admit to having been a little slow in picking it up early on when it was being discussed in the Department. We should not be for a moment too parochial about the anniversary. This country must recognise the enormous Commonwealth contribution. I was struck, when I went to Australia just before the Olympics to launch the GREAT campaign—for a weekend, actually; oh joy—by what a seminal moment Gallipoli is for Australians. It was the first time that they came together as a nation to fight for Australia, and Gallipoli is extraordinarily important to them, as places such as Palestine are for other countries.

We have talked a little about the Government’s approach. It is concentrated around remembrance, youth and education. There is £53 million of funding available, including £5.3 million for schools. The Heritage Lottery Fund has open grants of £10 million. The centrepiece of what is happening is of course work being done by the Imperial War museum, and I encourage all hon. Members to become acquainted with that. As I have said, the idea is to set up an umbrella under which other projects can bloom.

[Ian Murray]

Has the Minister had representations from the Scottish Government about their plans? I understand that many hon. Members have made representations to them, as have many of my constituents, about holding commemorative events, but they seem reluctant to do so. The Commonwealth games would seem to be an opportunity, and, if the Minister has not received any representations, will he contact his counterparts in the Scottish Government to encourage them to do what is right for 2014?

[Hugh Robertson]

Personally, I have not had that conversation, but that is perhaps not surprising, as I am not in day-to-day charge of those matters. However, I have, if not quite daily, then weekly, contact with the Scottish Government, about the Commonwealth games. The matter is a devolved one, so it is down to them, but I think that I would say, on the basis of my decade of military service—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central would agree—that Scotland is the home of some of the proudest and finest regiments in the British Army. They have made an enormous contribution in every conflict that this country has undertaken, in pretty much every combat zone where it has ever fought. I think for most who have memories of the British Army, the earliest ones are of being shouted at by someone with a Scottish voice. I would expect the Scottish Government to treat the occasion in the fashion that it warrants. I will be talking to them about the Commonwealth games, and the hon. Gentleman will have our full support in encouraging them to take the anniversary seriously.

[Damian Collins]

There is a great deal of good work being done by the regimental museums, as part of the centenary commemoration. My right hon. Friend and I have both mentioned the Imperial War museum, which is a central heritage museum, but I also want to mention the regimental museums and the National Army museum. I am particularly grateful that they have decided to bring some of their first world war collections to Folkestone for an exhibition in summer 2014.

[Hugh Robertson]

Unsurprisingly, I agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to mention the National Army museum. Of course other single service museums and the National Maritime museum have plans, including the use of a boat. I should also be amazed if the Buffs, as they were at the time, did not have a particular Kent-based exhibition, and I would encourage such plans.

[Paul Flynn]

One of the documents produced by the Government in anticipation of the commemoration quotes a poem by a young man who rejoices at being alive at such an important historical moment. The poet died within a fortnight of writing it. Can we have an assurance that the commemoration will be marked less with Rupert Brooke and more with Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen?

[Hugh Robertson]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point to an extent. The right balance is necessary, and everyone will understand that. I am not in a position now to decide what script, and which poet’s words, will be used, and I would not want to presume to do so. Those are properly decisions for the Imperial War museum, and others, who will make judgments, and whom I trust to get the balance right.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, and the other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and commend him on the work that is being done in Folkestone. I assure him that the Department and I—on a county basis as a near constituency neighbour—will do all we can to support that work. He has made a strong case for Folkestone to have a unique part in the commemoration, as a major port of embarkation, and I wish him the best of luck with his plans.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Probation Service

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Crausby in the Chair]

14:30

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I am delighted to have secured this debate, but I am more delighted to have the opportunity to introduce it under your distinguished chairmanship, Mr Crausby. You have already informally warned me to behave, and I promise that I will.

This is an important debate that will be of vital interest to Members, whatever their constituency. I intend to direct my remarks to the consultation paper, “Transforming Rehabilitation,” which the Government see as a revolution in the way we manage offenders, with particular emphasis on the problem of reoffending.

Before I go into detail, it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the probation service’s extremely professional, dedicated and hard-working staff. Those words exactly describe the staff in West Yorkshire. I find the Leeds staff to be first class, and they do a first-class job. I am sure Members echo my comments for the staff in their areas. It is difficult to reconcile the proposal to transfer some 70% of the probation service’s work load to other providers with the quality of its present endeavours. In 2011, the probation service met or exceeded all the Ministry of Justice targets. In October 2011, the service won the British Quality Foundation gold medal for excellence, which is given to an organisation in recognition of its

“continued commitment to sustained excellence over a number of years.”

The award came with a commendation:

“The Probation Service comprises 35 independent probation trusts annually supervising a caseload of some 247,000 offenders. The successful pursuit of continuous improvement has confirmed that they are on the right path to achieving and sustaining excellence and essentially to being the best providers of these essential services.”

The award was noted by the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), who said:

“This prestigious award recognises the professionalism of probation staff and the excellence of their work. This very public recognition of not just what they do but, perhaps more importantly, how well they do it, will be a source of pride for probation staff.”

Members might be even more impressed when they learn that all that excellent work was carried out against a background of falling staff numbers. In 2011-12, there was a fall of just under 7%. A total of 1,313 full- time equivalent staff were cut from the service, and there was a 10%, or £80 million, cut in resources over a slightly longer period from, I think, 2009.

I will address the Government’s proposals against that background of a dedicated, professional service. The proposals include privatising some 70% of probation service work; introducing, for the first time in the field of criminal justice, a payment-by-results scheme for private companies that receive the new contracts; and abolishing the 35 probation trusts and replacing them, initially, with 16 geographic units. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head. It is rumoured that the figure is now down as low as six or eight.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I shook my head because, as he will know from his close reading of the consultation document, the 16 contract package areas are a starting point, and not necessarily a finishing point. We will listen carefully to what people say to us during the consultation.

[Mr Mudie]

I will touch on that later in my speech, but I am interested in the Minister’s comments.

It is interesting that the private sector will be commissioned, not locally by the individual probation trusts, but from Whitehall. The Government justify decimating this 105-year-old, well regarded service—which has received all the commendations I have read out—at considerable risk to public safety, on the specific grounds of reducing reoffending rates.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate.

Humberside probation trust has a gold award, too. The current level of trust and information exchange between prisons, probation staff, police and others involved in the management of risk has taken a long time to establish, and they fear that that might be compromised if medium-risk and low-risk offenders are managed outside the public sector. Does my hon. Friend agree that such fragmentation of risk management is a real difficulty for the future?

[Mr Mudie]

My hon. Friend has taken a page out of my speech, to the great relief of everyone present. Levels of trust and information exchange are key, and they have grown bit by bit as the relationships, and the benefits of those relationships, have grown. That is now to be swept aside, with private sector firms being forced on the trusts.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I hear what he has to say, but does he not recognise that reoffending rates are far too high and that, as a result, we need to consider the structural reasons why that is happening? We must consider how to bring about change and innovation in the way the probation service functions.

[Mr Mudie]

The hon. Lady anticipates page 2, which I am just about to start.

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

Further to the previous intervention, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is the premise on which the Government are making their judgments? On 9 January 2013, The Guardian reported that the Secretary of State for Justice had said that

“a radical overhaul is needed to tackle the high reoffending rates with 58% of short-sentenced prisoners reoffending within a year and half a million crimes committed each year by released prisoners.”

The actual reoffending rate of those subject to state supervision—they are not short-term prisoners but those sentenced to more than 12 months—has dropped by 1.55 percentage points to below 10%. Does that not underline the wrongness of the Government’s approach?

[Mr Mudie]

My hon. Friend has taken the second part of page 2 by making an important point that I was just about to address.

It is no secret, and it is accepted, that reoffending rates are high. The figures for the period between April 2010 and March 2011 show that more than one in four criminals reoffended within a year, which is a reoffending rate of 26.8%, marginally up from 26.3% in the previous year. Over the 10 years in which records have been kept, the reoffending rate has gone down.

It is sad but interesting that the Secretary of State used a higher figure when making his statement to the House. He said that, in 2010, “nearly half” of those leaving prison reoffended. He was correct—the reoffending rate for those leaving prison is around 47%— but that suggests the overall reoffending rate is double what it actually is. It would have been more straightforward had he used the 26.8% figure to justify the programme.

It is interesting that the Ministry of Justice’s annual figures break down those figures. Some 26,000 of the 56,000 people who left prison reoffended, but 18,000 of those 26,000 were not covered by the probation service because they were serving sentences of less than 12 months, which is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) made. If the aim is to eliminate or reduce reoffending, why must the Secretary of State use a figure attractive to him rather than giving a true reflection of the situation?

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and I apologise to him, to Members and to you, Mr Crausby, for not being able to stay all the way through. Does my hon. Friend think that that is why the Treasury is so worried about the proposal? Would it not have been more logical to have tested and piloted the proposal for offenders serving less than 12 months with the probation service, given its growing expertise in working with the social enterprise and voluntary sector, in defined areas that coincide with police areas, so that people could work together? Instead we have prime contracts, detached from the community and the problem, with Serco and G4S taking over virtually all public services.

[Mr Mudie]

My right hon. Friend raises a number of points that I hope I will have time to touch on. They are all valid, not because they are in my speech but because they are important points about the attack on the probation service.

Any real scrutiny of the Ministry of Justice figures demonstrates that the reasons for our disappointing reoffending rates are complicated and numerous, but it is wrong and unfair to place them at the door of the probation service. As I have said, a major proportion of reoffending is outside the statutory remit of the probation service. I pay tribute to the proposal in the White Paper to bring it within the probation service’s responsibilities for the first time. It is one thing that I straightforwardly applaud.

Although I wish for improvement, due to those facts, and because of the quality and professionalism of the probation service, I am not convinced that there is a pressing need for the upheaval suggested in the consultation document, or for the pace and scale of change. I want to make it absolutely clear that reoffending figures should unarguably be improved, and that the proposals to address short-sentence prisoners are long overdue and welcome. I have no dogmatic opposition to the use of the private and voluntary sector in rehabilitation. My concerns are overwhelmingly about public safety, protecting the existing good work of the probation service, questioning the suggested and untested payment-by-results methods that will be introduced to the private sector, ensuring that management and structure changes are sensibly modified to suit the proposals and, importantly in this age of austerity, ensuring that the costs are acceptable. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the costs are starting to worry the Treasury.

Against that backdrop, it is critical that these large-scale reforms of our rehabilitation and probation policy are well thought through, investigated from all angles and brought together on a basis that puts evidence first. What is before us is none of those things. It is hasty, ill thought through, dogmatic, cobbled together and risky. I have indicated my concerns, and I will expand on them.

First, the Secretary of State describes the approach as revolutionary, but there is a clear need to demonstrate that the policy changes are evidence-based. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), started a number of pilot schemes in that area of work, which were abandoned within days after the present Secretary of State took office. When questioned by the Select Committee on Justice, the present Secretary of State admitted that he was unable to provide MPs with any evidence to support his change in policy. He excused his peremptory ending of the pilot schemes by stating that it

“will take us much of the rest of this decade to see through to a conclusion, evaluating the data and coming up with an analysis. We are talking about the core principle of trusting the professionals and making them take a bit of the risk themselves”.

We are less worried about the professionals than about the public taking the risk of the proposals.

When pressed by the shadow Secretary of State to produce evidence to justify, for example, the controversial payment-by-results proposal, the Secretary of State derided what he termed the Opposition’s obsession with pilots, saying revealingly:

“Sometimes those in government just have to believe in something and do it”.—[Official Report, 9 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 318.]

That warms the heart, but it worries us to death.

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

Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is especially concerning that the Justice Secretary has decided to proceed without gathering the evidence, given that perhaps the best example of a similar programme under this Government—the Work programme—seems to be performing spectacularly badly?

[Mr Mudie]

I agree with my hon. Friend; this is a bad example of a politician and a Department feeling right in proceeding on such a sensitive matter involving so much public risk. If the Minister feels that I am being unfair, the Select Committee and I would welcome it if he produced the evidence to justify the risks inherent in the policy changes.

The more the proposals are scrutinised, the more apparent it becomes that giving the majority of work to the private sector is the major objective. To my mind, it is also a major cause of the opposition to the proposals and of some of the difficulties in the consultation paper. I said earlier that I saw nothing amiss in involving the private and voluntary sector—it is, of course, already involved, and such arrangements have grown and are appreciated—but the scale and spread proposed are entirely different. The proposal to hand over 70% of the work load of existing probation officers so quickly to firms untrained in and unused to the work raises obvious questions.

The division of the work distribution—low and medium-risk to the private sector, high-risk to the probation service—looks clear on paper but ignores what professionals in the service say happens in real life. Medium-risk individuals can move dangerously quickly to being high risk. If the signs are not spotted immediately, high risk may escalate into dangerous behaviour with harm to individual and general public safety. That is a reality that experienced probation officers live with every working hour, and it is a tribute to their skill and dedication that it does not happen on a wider scale.

It would be wiser to introduce the private sector, if it must be introduced on this scale, to deal initially with the low-risk group alone. Even if that were seen as weakening the proposals’ profitability for the private sector, it would have the opportunity to take on the new work load of prisoners serving less than 12-month sentences. That would create a clear division and stop the overlap, which will certainly cause a problem. It could also help with the vagueness of the relationships and objectives of the differing cultures.

The private sector has the responsibility to ensure that court or licence agreements are adhered to. Obvious situations arise when individuals are in breach, and they are processed by the probation officer, but in areas of work where trust and relationships are all-important, the probation officer will have to accept the judgment of private sector personnel and haul the offender back to court. On the one hand, we have a public servant—a professional—who has no monetary motivation and whose only objectives are public safety and working with integrity with the person on probation. On the other hand, under the proposals, we will end up with large private companies tied to a scheme of payment that will pay largely on results.

Is it impossible that, to protect or maximise payment, the person on probation who could be a difficulty and a danger to that payment might necessarily be passed back to the probation officer? The probation officer would then have to pick up the relationship and process the matter through court.

If the Minister does not accept that argument, he should at least consider the divisions of the responsibilities proposed. A more distinct role for the private sector is needed, but one that allows distinct accountability, which is paramount in this sector. Every day, there is the possibility of something going wrong, and any ambiguity in responsibility is unwelcome.

Another reason to suggest that privatisation is uppermost in the Secretary of State’s mind is the winding up of the 35 trusts. Why are they being wound up? They have just been praised as excellent; they have been doing the job for 10 years; they have built themselves into the area and built up their relationships; but now they are being converted into 16 or perhaps six geographical areas, with all the dangers to the relationships that lie with that. Can the Minister spell out the reasons for cutting the trusts and the agreed criteria for the number of replacements?

[Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend touched on the benefits of having longevity in a service, so that the contacts are built up over time. Longevity should never be unchallenged by those of us who are public scrutineers, but it builds up valuable expertise, as his own service has shown. One of my concerns is that the reducing offending and supervision hubs—in the emerging jargon, ROSHs—could be open to competition every three or five years. Surely, different organisations will therefore run the hubs every few years and the connections locally will be broken when they have to start again. Is that a good thing for local public safety?

[Mr Mudie]

It is a very harmful thing. My hon. Friend makes a valuable point and allows me to take further chunks out of my speech. I will not go further into the relationships, but I worry about how the contracts will be procured and the effect on the existing small companies and voluntary organisations that work with the probation service. I warn them that small companies and voluntary organisations often cry out for privatisation or for procurement or break-up of public services, in the belief that they will get the work, but they are dreaming. The Minister has provided some arrangements and money to assist small companies to bid, but the reality is that the big international and national companies will get the contracts, while small companies will be pressed to the margin.

[Nic Dakin]

I underline that point. I have observed probation working locally in the Scunthorpe area, and it is doing so effectively with voluntary initiatives such as MPower—small activities, voluntary organisations and private companies that are locally based. That local anchorage is crucial in dealing with the work and in keeping our communities safe. I share my hon. Friend’s concern, which he is right to express.

[Mr Mudie]

My hon. Friend makes another page of my speech unnecessary, which is a blessing.

One of the main things that we want the Minister to consider is the question of commissioning from Whitehall. The urge to privatise and to bring in the big companies is distorting the remaining parts of the service and causing real questions to be asked, one of which is about procurement. Why are the contracts being specified from Whitehall? We would welcome an answer. Why are the existing public trusts not able to set up the contracts? Whitehall setting up contracts for probation trusts’ computers fills them with some worry, given its record on computers.

A real problem is the business of payment by results, which is allied to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett). Payment by results has not been a feature of the culture or practice of the Ministry of Justice, and the general feeling was in favour of pilots if it were to be done; the Secretary of State, however, cancelled the pilots. The Minister would do everyone a favour if he indicated why that was so, apart from the mystical belief that the Secretary of State knows best. The introduction of payment by results in so sensitive an area is extremely worrying. The pilot schemes wisely set up by the previous Secretary of State to test that out have now been scrapped, and it would be good to know on what basis other than that mystical belief.

I am sorry, Mr Crausby, that I have overrun my time, although I have taken a few interventions. My last point, however, is on costs, which I make not so much to the Minister but to the Treasury. It has been confirmed that the Treasury is looking at costs. I understand that, and as a member of the Treasury Committee, I hope that that is a good look. When the Ministry of Justice budget is under severe threat, however, the Secretary of State is suggesting the pulling in of the 30,000 people who leave prison after small sentences; he is also suggesting doing that rapidly. That 25% increase in work load will involve a fair cost, especially as he is talking about individual mentors and so on. Can the Minister tell us whether that policy has been agreed with the Chancellor? Is the money available? It will be surprising if it is; it will also be surprising, because the Treasury has publicly voiced worries about whether the rest of the business has been tested and costed. Untested payment by results could cause not only operational but financial problems, yet the Secretary of State has committed himself.

I welcome the fact that people on 12-month sentences will be included and looked at for the first time. That will have a good effect on lowering the reoffending rate, but I find little to enthuse about in the rest of the proposals, other than recognising that they are another dash for privatisation and an attack on public services and public service finances.

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

I intend to call the first of the two Front Benchers at 15.40. I think that five Members have indicated that they wish to speak, so if they could keep their contributions reasonably short, I hope to get everyone in.

14:58

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I shall be brief, Mr Crausby. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) for securing the debate, which is important because our probation service faces an imminent threat from a Government intent on cutting budgets at any cost to the service.

I will set out three core reasons why I am so concerned about the reforms: the cancellation of pilot schemes; the effects of payment by results; and the removal of probation trusts. To start, I concede that I am somewhat perplexed by the Government proposals. Our probation service is staffed by a dedicated army of workers, who do an important job keeping our community safe. It is vital and unglamorous work, away from the spotlight of public and media attention. Indeed, as has been mentioned, in 2011 the probation service deservedly won the British Quality Foundation’s gold medal for excellence in recognition of its outstanding and continued commitment to sustained excellence over several years. That is not to be taken lightly. The probation service is a proven success story and I simply do not understand why the Justice Secretary is intent on its dismemberment.

The previous Government recognised the importance of a secure and properly funded probation service. Funding rose by 70% in real terms, the number of offenders supervised by the probation service rose by 53%, and there was a rise in staffing of more than 7,000. During the Labour Government’s time in office, we proved our commitment to the probation service and its important work. The present Government are proposing to undo the hard-earned gains made under the Labour Government. Cuts to staffing and office closures will be the only way to achieve the deep cuts, and that will mean fewer probation orders made and the risk of an increased prison population.

I welcome the spread of best practice and the introduction of innovative ideas, such as bringing in outside expertise, but experience shows that a headlong rush to privatisation risks breaking up the system unnecessarily. Whatever the Justice Secretary might believe for reasons of expediency, a pilot is not some half-baked measure, nor a dirty word. It is how proper, well thought out, empirically driven policy is developed. Without it, we have what the Justice Secretary calls “believing”, and what everyone else calls “a step into the unknown”. Impervious to criticism from the Treasury, the National Audit Office and the probation service, he is taking a risk with a system that deals with vulnerable and sometimes dangerous offenders, and in doing so is taking a risk with safety.

Similarly, payment by results carries risks that the Government seem to be ignoring. It is primarily dependent on accurate data, which are not always easy to produce. Furthermore, the data, when available and correct, are often crude. If the Government believe that offenders least likely to reoffend and those most likely to reoffend are equals, private companies will simply focus on those who pose the lowest risk to people, and ignore the most prolific offenders, to turn a profit.

The system of payment by results is likely to lead to fewer, larger corporations in the hunt for those contracts. Many smaller organisations, such as charities and local groups—the very people with the experience and networks to work with offenders most effectively—will be unable to risk non-payment and will have to withdraw. That would be a disaster, yet it is already being played out under the guise of the Government’s Work programme, which for many people has been a contradiction in terms. One reason for the Work programme’s failure is that smaller organisations have been squeezed out by larger firms, citing lack of viability.

Finally, I am worried about removal of probation trusts. Northumbria probation trust is my regional trust and covers my constituency. It was given the highest performance rating for 2011-12 by the National Offender Management Service, and was declared to be exceptional. The success of my local trust should be celebrated and copied; instead, it is being dismantled. The irony, which is lost on few, is that a Government who proselytise localism are replacing local trusts with Whitehall centralisation. These reforms represent yet another false economy from this Government, and I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to think again.

15:03

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) on securing this debate. I come to it from a slightly different perspective. There is no doubt that the probation service plays an important role in our criminal justice system, and particularly reoffending. I have already said that we all agree that reoffending levels are far too high. I believe the Government deserve great credit for focusing on reducing reoffending. It is extraordinary that 58% of criminals who are sentenced to less than one year in prison are convicted of further offences within 12 months of their release. That says something about all Governments, whether red, blue or coalition. The issue has not been given sufficient focus and emphasis.

[Meg Hillier]

We all agree that the reoffending rate overall is too high, but the 58% of short-sentence prisoners who reoffend are not under the supervision of the probation service. The figure for those within the probation service has fallen. Any reoffending is too much, but it has fallen. Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that?

[Priti Patel]

I do not, because at the end of the day we must also think about the other side in the criminal justice system: victims. The point is that all the figures are far too high and not enough has been done historically to tackle reoffending. Victims are hit hard and they suffer most from reoffending. They never feel satisfied if they are hit again and again by serial criminals who reoffend.

Reoffending creates significant financial cost. The National Audit Office has estimated that the cost to the economy could be as high as £13 billion, and as much as three quarters of that could be attributed to the cost of short-sentence prisoners who served less than a year in prison.

Reoffending is a serious problem. We have heard from the two speakers thus far that there is concern about the future of the probation service and its structure. It needs improvement, because if reoffending rates are too high we must look at what has not been working in the service. There are serious concerns, and we should look at previous reports. In November 2009, inspectors looked into failings in the probation service in London in the aftermath of the Sonnex killings, and found that barely half of its cases were being handled at a level to ensure that the public were protected.

Only 20% of offenders are in employment at any stage during the 13 weeks following their release, and 40% claim out-of-work benefits in that period. We must look to the future and the structural improvements that the Government are introducing to reduce reoffending.

[Meg Hillier]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Priti Patel]

I am about to close. We must bring others into the system to add value. We have heard about so-called privatisation, but it is right that the Government are encouraging new providers not just from the private sector, but from the third sector, to deliver services under the payment-by-results model.

Charities have a role to play, with small and medium-sized enterprises. We should not speak disparagingly of the role that SMEs can play. The sweeping generalisation is that corporate players will automatically obtain contracts, but I believe that SMEs and the third sector, including charities, can provide innovative support to help offenders. We should not exclude opportunities for them to improve services. The Prince’s Trust, the Apex Trust and other trusts are doing great work, and I urge the Government not to be put off by some of the comments thus far. We should not generalise at this stage. Consultation is taking place and I urge the Government to encourage all participants and players to come to the table and to be part of the solution.

15:08

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Crausby, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) on securing this important debate. I have spoken several times in the Chamber to raise concerns about the Government’s latest reform proposals, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak further about them.

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) who made some incredibly important points, and highlighted the performance of her probation trust. We are discussing a high-performing part of the public sector and the criminal justice system. We are not saying that the probation service could not be better, and we all agree with the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) that we want it to be better, but the core of my argument, which my hon. Friends are also making, is that we should build on what is good and successful in the service and not disrupt it as the Government’s proposals will.

[Meg Hillier]

The hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) talked about not making assumptions, and not dissing the idea that the voluntary sector and others might play a part. The Opposition are not doing that. In fact, changes made over the years introduced other players to work alongside the probation service. My concern is that there will be a wholesale sloughing off of people with talent and of local co-ordination. Nothing in the hon. Lady’s speech identified what the future would look like under the new model; it was about hope, rather than evidence. Would my hon. Friend like to comment?

[Andy Sawford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I want to talk about how such local organisations are working to good effect in Northamptonshire and about my concern that that will be disrupted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East made clear, our concern is that payment by results in the criminal justice system is untested. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), was responsible for the Work programme, which is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central has said, a contradiction in terms. Will the Minister explain why the Government are rushing headlong into the changes and ignoring the pilots, rather than learning from them and developing reforms from them?

Our probation service does a good job in difficult circumstances and on stretched budgets, and the Government rated the performance of every probation trust as good or exceptional in 2011. After the proposed changes, probation will deal with an extra 60,000 offenders a year. Will there be additional funding or will the current money be spread even more thinly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East suggested? Poorly resourced support for rehabilitation will not effectively help to reform offenders, and that poses a serious risk to our constituents’ safety.

The proposals have been strongly and widely criticised. The National Association of Probation Officers said that they were

“being rushed through without proper thought to the consequences.”

NAPO pointed out:

“Although these offenders are deemed medium and low risk of harm, they include…offenders at high risk of reoffending, such as prolific burglars, chaotic drug users and gang members…who require professional expertise in their management.”

In Northamptonshire, such offenders currently receive that professional expertise. The Howard League for Penal Reform calls the proposals “untested and opaque.”

[Kate Green]

Does my hon. Friend share the concern that has been expressed about the Government’s plans? If contracted providers carry out supervision, but probation takes the final decisions where there is a breach, probation officers will be taking decisions about whether there has been a breach, and how to respond to it, without having had the benefit of a long-standing relationship with the offender. To some degree, they will be making such decisions in the dark.

[Andy Sawford]

I agree with my hon. Friend. One problem with the reforms is that they will threaten the co-ordination and the relationships that different agencies and professionals in the probation system have built up.

I want to share the views of three of my constituents who are officers in the local probation service. They are

“shocked to hear that the Justice Secretary intends to put out to tender the majority of the Service’s core work”.

They are “astonished”, particularly because

“the probation service is currently performing extremely well”.

They also believe there is “no evidence” that the payment-by-results scheme will deliver, and they feel that the decision

“has been made on purely ideological grounds”.

One of the probation officers stated:

“I am fearful that if this plan proceeds it will be chaotic and will compromise public protection”.

The probation service is operating in the context of serious budget cuts, and we have to bear those in mind as we consider the potential additional costs of the reforms. The budget allocated to probation trusts was cut from £820 million in 2011-12 to £814 million in 2012-13. That is part of a 23% cut to the Ministry of Justice over the spending review period. Probation services face serious cuts, and the total number of staff fell from 19,000 in 2010 to 17,800 in 2012. The Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed yesterday that another spending review is looming on the horizon, and we expect staff numbers to be squeezed further.

I am concerned that, as public bodies, trusts will not be allowed to bid on their own or with partners for commercial contracts for the delivery of probation services, because they will not be able to bear the financial risks involved in taking on a payment-by-results contract. The financial objects of trusts specifically forbid them from taking on such a financial risk. I have spoken to the Minister about that, and I look forward to his response. Trusts have worked on the assumption that they could get around that impediment by setting up arm’s-length commercial vehicles to take on the financial risks involved, but now I understand that the National Offender Management Service has told trusts that that is ultra vires. Will the Minister clarify whether that is correct? Under right-to-provide legislation, individual staff may bid if they can set up an independent mutual, but such a mutual would have to compete alongside other providers. As I understand it, probation trusts may not take the lead in the development of a mutual. Will the Minister tell me whether that is correct?

I have a number of specific questions, on which I will write to the Minister. However, will probation trusts, as public bodies, be permitted to bid, either on their own or with partners, for commercial contracts? Can they set up special-purpose vehicles? Can they set up mutual delivery organisations? Staff, including those in my constituency, are proud of their probation service. They want to know what future they have, and whether they will have opportunities to work around the reforms to sustain the good work that has been done. If probation staff were to set up their own mutual delivery organisation to bid for commercial contracts for the delivery of probation services in the community, would they have to resign from their employment with the probation trusts to take part in the competition?

According to informed estimates from various commentators, the reforms will result in the contracting out of about 70% of the work of a local probation trust. The Ministry of Justice claims that there will be a role for a surviving public probation service, but will that not be a tiny outfit of perhaps 3,000 staff—similar to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, for example—which will operate as a courts and public protection service? I am concerned that a rump of 3,000 staff will simply become a national agency of NOMS, and the probation service as we know it will disappear.

Finally, I want to touch on the success story in Northamptonshire. The Minister will be aware of the high performance of Northamptonshire. I do not want to dispute the claims that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central has made about the performance of her probation trust, so let us just say that they are both excellent. The Northamptonshire probation trust is small, and it provides offender management services for the benefit of people across Northamptonshire. It excels against the Ministry of Justice performance targets, and the county has one of the lowest reoffending rates in the country.

The trust has certain features that are worth highlighting. The staff work very effectively in partnership with other local organisations. For example, operational probation and police staff work closely in the Northamptonshire integrated offender management team to monitor the most prolific offenders and to intervene where necessary. The trust’s strong working relationship with the police is reflected in the multi-agency public protection arrangements, and issues relating to the most serious offenders are well managed in Northamptonshire. There is strong strategic partnership working with the local authorities, with health providers and in areas such as housing and education. The offender management approach in Northamptonshire, which is working by reducing reoffending, is about really strong local partnership working, and that points the way to the approach for the future. The hon. Member for Witham mentioned reform, which we all agree is needed, and I believe we need to build on the incredible, strong local success story in Northamptonshire.

My time is running out, but I point the Minister to proposals that I made in a publication called “Primary Justice”, on which I worked with several Members of Parliament, including the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), as well as Lord Ramsbotham and other eminent professionals in the area. That report, which I believe was excellent, proposed a model that would build on a public sector success story. It would be far better to adopt that model than to proceed with the current proposals, and I commend it to the Minister. I look forward to his answers to my specific questions.

15:19

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be able to take part in the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) on securing this important debate and on his comprehensive critique of the Government’s proposals. I am sorry that several pages of his speech were lost, owing to interventions, but that shows the strength of concern about the proposals.

My speech will be relatively brief, and I want to focus on some of the concerns of the South Yorkshire. Without wanting to compete with those of my hon. Friends who commented on the trusts in their areas, I will mention the fact that it recently received a five-star accreditation in the British Quality Foundation’s Recognised for Excellence programme, on the strength of its organisational performance. I hope therefore that regard will be paid to its views. We can all agree that we need to increase rehabilitation levels, to support a reduction in reoffending, but the South Yorkshire probation trust’s concerns deserve proper consideration.

The trust points out that although the Justice Secretary is looking for improvements in the reoffending rate, such improvements are already being achieved by the probation service. According to the Ministry’s figures, performance in relation to offenders under statutory supervision has improved year on year over the past decade. The data show that adult proven reoffending was 3.1 percentage points lower in 2010 than in 2000; 66% of offenders subject to statutory supervision by the probation service do not go on to reoffend. Those include a range of offenders with a mixture of complex and demanding needs who are assessed as being at low, medium or high risk of both harm and reoffending. Conversely, according to National Audit Office figures, 60% of offenders who are not subject to statutory supervision by the probation service—those who receive a prison sentence of less than 12 months—go on to reoffend.

A key concern of the South Yorkshire probation trust about the new proposals is the proposal to split responsibility for offenders between public and private providers, depending on the level of risk. Its concern is that that could introduce a dangerous, artificial divide, which would fail to take account of how risk levels fluctuate. It sees the management of medium-risk cases in particular as a “fundamental threat” and points out that there seems to be a belief that medium-risk cases are assessed as such on the basis of the seriousness of the current offence. However, that is not always the case. Medium-risk offenders have already caused, or are assessed as having the potential to cause, “serious harm”. They can include those on life sentences, individuals who have a history of domestic abuse, members of gangs, and individuals who pose a risk to children.

The proposed model fails to recognise that circumstances can change abruptly. Thus, someone who is deemed to be of low or medium risk could subsequently become high risk, and the staff in the contracted organisation might not be equipped to recognise that. Even if they did, they would then presumably need to arrange a hurried transfer back into the public sector. That would clearly be nonsense, and a bureaucratic nightmare.

[Kate Green]

Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as being nonsense and a bureaucratic nightmare it would be a financial disincentive for a private provider?

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is a significant financial disincentive, which underlines what nonsense the proposal is at every level.

The South Yorkshire probation trust also considers that the proposals show a failure to understand the complexities of accountability in the criminal justice system. If a judge or magistrate has concerns about the supervision of a contracted-out court order, with one or more organisations involved, whom should they ask to appear before them? Information sharing, particularly with the police, will become complicated and relevant information in relation to risk issues will be lost. Only a qualified probation officer should be the offender manager of medium-risk cases: that is how the trust operates, and it believes it is a reason for its high performance. I would underline the importance of learning from high performance to reduce reoffending. The model that the trust believes fully supports the Government’s plans to bring other sectors together is based on the approach of the offender manager and offender supervisor relationship; it builds on current successful practice in working with many agencies from the public, private and third sectors, often in the same premises, to manage difficult and dangerous offenders in the community.

Like many of my hon. Friends, I am concerned about the proposal to reduce the number of trusts. South Yorkshire had also raised that matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who is no longer in his place, talked about the importance of local anchorage. The proposals for a reduced number of trusts would make it more difficult for the probation service to retain local links and a local profile, and what my hon. Friend called anchorage. Those changes to structures, coming at the same time as changes to who provides services, and how they provide them, will be such an upheaval that it will put the success of the Government’s scheme at significant additional risk. I ask the Minister to listen not only to all my hon. Friends but to the professionals in the field; to take account of the responses to the consultation; and not to rush through changes that would increase the risks to public safety.

15:25

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

It is a great pleasure to speak in this important debate, Mr Crausby. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) and thank him for the opportunity to speak on a subject about which I care deeply. I have cared about it for many years, having served as a magistrate from 1993 to 2009, when I got to know probation officers closely. I am concerned that the Government’s proposals are based on no evidence that a payment-by-results model will work in the context. By contrast, Greater Manchester probation trust, which supervises offenders in my constituency, has a good track record. Other hon. Members have also spoken about the successes of their probation trusts this afternoon. The Justice Secretary himself has, indeed, recognised Greater Manchester’s innovativeness, and has said he wants to consider the lessons learned there. I hope that that is sincere.

As others have pointed out, we need first to be clear about who is currently supervised by probation, and about the fact that we cannot assess the service’s performance in relation to offenders whose supervision was never in its remit. The probation service does not supervise those who leave custody after receiving sentences of less than 12 months. That group of offenders has been missed by public policy to date. The Government are right about that, and I welcome their intention to introduce new supervision for that group. However, the Minister will be interested to know that Greater Manchester probation trust has already experimented with a programme to look after that group of offenders. The Choose Change programme, a through-the-gate initiative for those serving shorter custodial sentences, offered support and supervision before and after release.

The evaluation of Choose Change shows the scale of the challenge in dealing with prisoners who have had short custodial sentences, on release. They were people with long histories of offending behaviour, and often chaotic lives. It is clear to me that one reason why Choose Change was less successful than we all hoped was that it was necessary to intervene much earlier in those offenders’ lives. For those with 10 or 15-year histories of offending behaviour it was far too late to start looking at through-the-gate solutions. However, we should also recognise that Choose Change offered support to an extent that was both intensive and costly. It is not clear to me that such intensive through-the-gate supervision can be made attractive to the private sector. In the absence of any wide-scale national provision against which to measure it—that group of offenders has not been supervised on a national scale to date—I am curious about how the Minister intends to specify the provision, and about the sort of pricing model that he envisages, to make it viable for commercial providers.

Secondly, Greater Manchester probation trust has led the way in important initiatives such as intensive alternatives to custody and integrated offender management. Crucial to those programmes and, indeed, to Choose Change, as other hon. Members have said, has been effective inter-agency working, founded on long-standing close relationships. I visited the Spotlight team at Stretford police station, shortly after I became a Member of Parliament, where police, probation, the local authorities, social services and so on are co-located. Workers are very effective and are a well targeted, integrated team that spotlights—as the name says—follows, tracks and intervenes constantly on offenders who are either living during or post-sentence in the community. It is absolutely vital that the success of that programme, which is founded on those inter-agency relationships, is protected. I know already that Greater Manchester police are expressing concern that those relationships could be disturbed by the roll-out of the Government’s proposals. I would be grateful if the Minister could say how he envisages those inter-agency relationships being sustained and protected when new private providers appear on the scene.

Thirdly, we would all rightly acknowledge the importance of employment in preventing reoffending; it is well understood to be crucial in keeping offenders out of trouble in future. I very much welcomed the Government’s decision to introduce “day one” entry to the Work programme for those leaving custody, but we have to acknowledge that the Work programme has not, so far at least, been a roaring success.

By contrast, the Achieve programme, developed by the Greater Manchester probation trust, has proven very successful both with those on community sentences, who make up 70% of the Achieve caseload, and with those leaving custody, who make up the other 30%. Achieve is a programme that works with partners such as Procure Plus, which is a social enterprise based in my constituency, to offer real work and real wages to offenders. It has been very successful in getting offenders into sustained employment. Some 13.5% of those going through the Achieve programme have remained in employment. As I think the Minister would agree, that is a much better result than we have seen from the Work programme, and we want to build on that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) said, we are now deeply uncertain about the future for programmes such as Achieve.

The Secretary of State for Justice has talked of probation staff forming co-operatives or social enterprises, and, as my hon. Friend said, probation trusts—including Greater Manchester probation trust—have been anticipating, over the past 12 months or so, the need and opportunity to create separate non-public sector provider organisations, but with the probation element integral to their success. It seems now as though probation services, such as GMPT, that have created those models will not be able to use them to bid for contracts, and we really need to understand from the Minister whether that is right, and if so, why on earth is it right? There is a situation of total confusion out there now. We do not know whether it is considered anti-competitive for those bodies to bid, or whether them bidding is considered ultra vires, as my hon. Friend mentioned. We do not understand why the Justice Secretary seemed to be so positive about it but now seems to be rowing back. I would be really grateful if the Minister—I am glad that he is shaking his head—could put it on the record clearly this afternoon that they will have the opportunity to bid.

Fourthly, the Minister will not be in the least bit surprised that I want to raise concerns about programmes for women in the contracted-out model, because as he is well aware, they have special needs and circumstances in the context of the criminal justice system. I welcome the appointment of his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), as champion for women in the criminal justice system. I very much regret that this afternoon, we see the Government rejecting the amendment that was passed in the House of Lords to the Crime and Courts Bill, proposing that there is a champion for women at the heart of the criminal justice system. I am very pleased that the Select Committee on Justice is conducting an inquiry into women in the criminal justice system, and I encourage the Committee to look at how payment by results would work for women offenders, because that is not at all straightforward.

In Greater Manchester, we have developed the Women MATTA programme, which is a partnership between the Pankhurst centre and Women in Prison. It offers holistic support for women offenders or those at risk of offending, and it has been able, by wrapping holistic support around those women, to deliver substantial savings to the public purse. Again, it is founded on a network of carefully developed relationships between different non-governmental organisations, but it is very hard to see that that voluntary approach would fit easily into the payment-by-results model, and I worry that that very good, specialist work could be lost.

The problems are that the number of women in the criminal justice system is relatively small, as everyone knows; their needs are high and often very complex; they are often mothers, so there are extra dimensions to the support that is needed, because children are involved; and they have often also been victims of crime and abuse over a very long period of time. We can already see services to support women offenders and women’s centres being squeezed. Ring-fenced funding that had been provided by the Ministry of Justice is now being spread more thinly across more women’s programmes.

The conclusion I draw is that it could be very costly for private providers to develop the kind of dedicated programmes that are necessary to meet the special needs of women. There is a real concern, therefore, that they will not do so and instead, we will see women shoehorned into the standard offer. I am sorry to draw yet again on the analogy of the Work programme, but that is exactly what is happening there, where we can see particularly poor outcomes for lone parents, because again, their special needs as women and mothers are simply not being regarded in that programme.

I am really grateful for the opportunity to raise those concerns at this early stage, as Ministers are considering how they intend to roll out the model. My concerns are very real, in terms of holding on to the good practice that we have. Nobody in Greater Manchester probation trust is against competition, or against the appropriate involvement of the private and third sectors, but I know that the Minister will not want to choke off successful initiatives and programmes that already exist. I am very concerned that top-down, large-scale, nationally let contracts will prove especially problematic, in relation to the very effective local programmes that have been developed. The voluntary sector will be squeezed out, as has happened again in the Work programme, and the outcomes will be poorer as a result.

I urge Ministers to proceed with their plans with great caution. We are proud of our track record in Greater Manchester, and Ministers must provide us with the assurance and the evidence that the private sector payment-by-results model will do better. It is not good enough to say that it will do okay, because we are not at all clear at this stage that that evidence exists.

15:37

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. It is also pleasing that many Opposition Members are here to attend this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) on securing it and on providing us with such a comprehensive opening speech, which flagged up very effectively many of the major issues that I and other Members have touched on.

Most Members who have contributed this afternoon recognise the hard work and high degree of professionalism in the probation service. It is worth pointing out that in October 2011 the probation service was awarded the British Quality Foundation’s gold medal for excellence, which was an eloquent tribute. The then Minister with responsibility for probation, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), said

“This prestigious award recognises the professionalism of probation staff and the excellence of their work… This very public recognition of not just what they do but, perhaps more importantly, how well they do it, will be a source of pride for probation staff.”

That was an important statement and an important award.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) underlined the fact, as did others, that real improvements have been made on reoffending rates. We all recognise that there should be no complacency, and we need to ensure that those reoffending rates are significantly reduced. We believe that the way to do that is to build on the work that is being done, not to undermine it with a set of proposals that are untried, untested and a leap in the dark.

I would suggest that payment by results is ideologically driven. If we are going to improve the probation service and tackle reoffending rates, it is absolutely vital that improvements are based on empirical evidence objectively collected and that we have a well tested plan for improvement on which to work.

It worries me that two pilots were established, as my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), for example, pointed out—there was one in Wales and one in Staffordshire and the west midlands—yet both were scrapped by the new Justice Secretary within weeks, I think, of his taking office. I would like to know why that happened. Why did the Government not believe it necessary to collect objective information and then plan properly their response in relation to the work that still needs to be done on reoffending issues? He seems to have based his thinking on his experience as a Minister of State in the Department for Work and Pensions and what has been experienced so far in the Work programme. That is seen as the model, but it is worth pointing out that only 3.5% of people on the Work programme are in work after six months. When that goes wrong, it is bad for the people who are unemployed, but it is extremely worrying when potentially dangerous offenders may go without proper support and monitoring because this scheme is based on that scheme, which is certainly not succeeding. That is bad for the individuals involved and for society as a whole. The bottom line for many people is that there is not a great deal of public confidence in G4S. In many ways, that is stating the obvious.

Other questions have been raised by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby, for example, posed a number of important questions, and I will be one of the Members who leave this room today and go to the Library to get a copy of his report, “Primary Justice”. I am sure that it is well worth reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) also posed a number of important questions. I would be more than pleased to hear the Minister’s response to those questions.

I would like to ask five questions in particular. They are in part an elaboration on what has already been stated. First, it is a very real problem if there is a division of responsibility between the private and public sectors. We must acknowledge that the risks can change, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central said. Prisoners are not the same individuals always; the risks can change. That is a genuine concern, but the Government’s proposals will lead to a lack of co-ordination between the private and public sectors. There is an inherent incoherence, therefore, in the Government’s proposals.

My second concern is about resources. To be fair, I think that it is good that resources will be allocated for those on sentences of under 12 months. It is good that they are being catered for—let us be clear about that—but where is the extra money coming from? We are talking about cuts in the public sector generally and in this area in particular, so where are the extra resources for this important work to come from?

Thirdly, what we have in the Government’s consultation document is a highly centralised approach. It is very much being driven and will be driven from Whitehall, and it does not recognise the important co-operation and networking that exists at grass-roots level, at local level, among the private sector, the public sector and, indeed, the voluntary sector. Moreover, this is happening at a time when probation trusts in England and Wales are being reduced in number. There is bound to be—it is inevitable—tremendous turmoil. To introduce these changes at the same time as that fundamental change in the structure of trusts is very worrying indeed.

Fourthly, a very big question to be answered is how success will be measured. It has been suggested by some—I think by some of the Government’s own Back Benchers—that full payment will be given to private companies only if individuals commit no more crimes within a given period. Is that the case? Will the Minister confirm that or state the position otherwise? That would be welcome because mixed messages are coming from the Government on that point, which is central to their proposals. We want coherent answers, at least, to be provided, so that everyone knows where they stand. The Government must do something to address the very real risk that the private sector will cherry-pick; it will seek to work with the offenders who are easiest to rehabilitate, not the rest.

My final question is about the sharing of information, which is central to tackling reoffending. At the moment, the police and the probation service share information. Generally, they do that very well indeed. What will happen when the private sector has a large stake in the system? Will the police and G4S, for example, share information on the same basis? If the answer is yes, certain implications stem from that and they need to be addressed by the Government.

In essence, the consultation document that the Government have produced is not sound. It is essentially based on dogma. It is motivated by abstraction rather than hard facts. I very much hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will listen not only to what has been said in the debate but, more importantly, to what has been said by people who are actually involved with the probation service from day to day. I hope that the Government will listen to those comments, display some common sense and think again about this programme.

15:46

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Crausby. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) on securing the debate. I thank him and all the other hon. Members who have spoken in the course of what has been a good debate. I shall try to deal with as many of the points as I can in the time that I have.

The first thing that I want to say is that it is no part of my case today, or the Government’s case for reform, to make the argument that there is not good work going on in probation trusts already. Clearly, there is. I have seen it, and other hon. Members who have spoken have seen it for themselves, too. However, I am also sure that the probation officers whom they have seen and I have seen would agree—as many of those who have spoken in the debate agree—that we can do better than we are doing at the moment.

The hon. Member for Leeds East was right to accept that reoffending rates are too high and that we need to bring them down. That has been a common theme in the debate. The truth is that despite significant extra investment, of the order of 70% over the past 10 years, reoffending rates have not come down by as much as they should have. I think that it was the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) who said that the rate of reduction in reoffending—we are talking now not about short sentences, but about the overall rate of reduction—was 3.1%. That is 3.1% for a 70% additional investment. We can do better than that. I think that people in the probation service accept that, too. It is therefore sensible to consider how we can do things differently.

Bringing prisoners serving sentences of 12 months or less into the ambit of rehabilitative services is another thing that also has widespread agreement in the debate, and I do not think that it met with disagreement in the consultation or beyond. We will include such offenders in the cohorts dealt with by those taking on the work across a set geographical area. The crucial question, which was raised a number of times is, how do we pay for those extra offenders? It is a fair question, so I shall start there.

The truth is that payment by results and competition for the rehabilitation of medium and low-risk offenders will release the savings that enable us to pay for those additional offenders. The difficulty we have, which is again widely recognised, is that we are not in a position to expect large amounts of extra investment to pay for the additional offenders, so we need to find another way of doing so. If the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) has a way in which he intends to pay for them, beyond releasing savings from the existing budget, it would be interesting to hear what it is, but we do not believe that such funds are available.

[Andy Sawford]

The Government have made disappointing progress with community budgets, which are precisely the kind of approach, building on Total Place, that would enable us to look at the kind of interventions that would release funding though better social outcomes to make the investments we all want to see.

[Jeremy Wright]

I very much hope that the kinds of projects the hon. Gentleman describes are successful, but we do not believe that the funding necessary to do what we are discussing will be released quickly enough in this case. The best way to do it is to engage in exactly the course of action we have set out. Payment by results is not, as some believe, ideological at all. It is very practical. It is about paying for what works and investing taxpayers’ money in it. After all, taxpayers expect us to invest their money wisely in effective outcomes. In this case, the outcome is simple: the reduction of reoffending. That is what we are after. It means fewer victims, less misery for communities and lower costs to the taxpayer.

An argument has been made about pilots. Why not pilot? Why not spend more time exploring and experimenting? It is a myth that we do not already have learning on payment by results—we do. We have learning from pilots undertaken and stopped early. It is not the case that one can learn nothing from a pilot unless it runs its full course. It is equally not the case that one can learn nothing from a pilot unless it succeeds; sometimes you can learn as much from what does not work as you can learn from what does.

I shall change the subject entirely. The Work programme has also been mentioned. Of course, I do not accept that the Work programme is a failure in the way it has been characterised, but it is true the programme is a source of learning for this project. We do not intend to lift the Work programme from the Department for Work and Pensions and deposit it into the Ministry of Justice, because it is different. There are differences because we expect those who take on the work to carry out the orders of the court and meet licence requirements, which is why such contracts, under any payment-by-results arrangement, will not be 100% payment by results.

[Kate Green]

I suggest, in passing, that it might be sensible to wait for the Work programme to demonstrate its successes before using it as a helpful model to run ahead with this programme. Some Work programme providers will undoubtedly bid for contracts for probation provision and supervision provision. Given that we have identified employment as a key way out of offending behaviour, are those providers likely to be paid twice, once as an offender’s Work programme provider and a second time for providing their criminal justice supervision?

[Jeremy Wright]

In our system, we will look for justice outcomes under the payment-by-results contracts. We will be interested in whether people have reoffended. I shall come back to some of the difficulties with metrics, which were mentioned, in a moment. The Work programme is different in that providers are rewarded for getting people back into work. On the hon. Lady’s first point, I must say that if we should wait two years to find out whether the Work programme is a success, she should wait two years before she deems it a failure. Until we wait for those two years, she cannot say what Opposition Members have been saying loudly for some weeks.

15:52

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

15:59

On resuming—

[Jeremy Wright]

I was talking about what else is needed to make a PBR-based system work. For a start, the areas over which contracts operate need to be large enough to enable the PBR figures to be meaningful. That really is why we cannot continue with the same number of probation trusts that we currently have. Probation trusts, by their nature, are not capable of taking on the financial risk that PBR requires. That is why existing trusts, as they are currently constituted, cannot participate.

That brings me on to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Corby about what options are available to those who are currently working in the public sector probation service. We are keen to see the opportunity made available to them to be part of either mutuals or other types of vehicle that will enable them to compete for the rehabilitative work. Many people currently working in probation trusts will want to consider the alternative option, which is to work in the public sector probation service and look after high-risk offenders. There are a number of complexities around that, and I hope, in view of the time, that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I write to him on the detail. I hope to reassure him that opportunities will be available.

Concerns have also been raised about central commissioning. Payment by results requires particular commissioning expertise, and it is difficult to see how that can be done successfully on the existing local commissioning model. However, I have made it clear throughout the process that if there are ways in which PBR-based commissioning can be effectively done at a local level, or at least a less national level, we are open to hearing about them. We will see what comes out of the consultation.

There is the crucial point about local partnerships. I accept entirely what has been said by many, that it is vital to have fully effective local partnerships that bring together a variety of agencies to work on the re-offending challenge. We will want to ensure that all bidders for the contracts can demonstrate that they will be able to sustain those local partnerships.

There are a number of significant design challenges, and I would not wish to minimise them. We are already looking at a number of those challenges through the consultation and the responses to it. The consultation closed on 22 February, and we are still going through a number of detailed responses. I cannot therefore give specific answers about how we will address all those challenges, but we will address and find ways round them.

Let me highlight one or two of the challenges that have been mentioned. The first is the direct management of offenders. The proposals currently say that we wish to separate direct management of those who pose the greatest risk of serious harm and reserve them for the public sector probation service, while the management of medium and lower risk offenders would be competed for.

The point has been made about the dynamic nature of risk, which I entirely understand, because people might not stay in the categories in which they are initially placed. It is therefore important that public sector probation officers—they will retain responsibility for the management of risk of serious harm for all offenders, not just the highest risk ones—have the opportunity to do that job, which involves the transfer of information and good relationships between those engaged in what I might describe as the life management part of the job and the public sector probation officer who has oversight of risk of serious harm.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) was right to highlight that as a significant challenge, but it is important to recognise that, in the world we are in now, probation officers often have to deal with people in the voluntary sector who provide particular interventions. They must have a good relationship with those people and make sure that the flow of information is effective. When I talk to probation trusts, I always ask whether that flow of information is good and gives them what they need, and the answer is invariably, “Yes, it does.”

The concept is not therefore entirely alien, but we will ensure, in the design of the system, that the flow of information is good. I stress that the decision whether a defender remains as a medium-risk offender or is transferred to a higher risk category will be taken by a public sector probation officer based, as I have said, on the information flows that they receive.

Another concern is about opportunities for smaller voluntary and community sector organisations in the new landscape. Again, we entirely understand and share that concern. We want such organisations to play an important part in rehabilitation. Clearly, much of the expertise and many of the skills that have the greatest effect are located in those organisations.

We will want to look not only at the bids when they come in—assessing them for quality and price—but at the sustainability of the relationships that they put forward. It is highly likely that organisations, including smaller voluntary sector ones, will come to us with a bid, and we will ask, “How do you demonstrate that you will maintain those good relationships over the course of the bids?” We will also want to have contract management mechanisms in place to ensure that that happens.

Of course, we must design a system that avoids the perverse incentives around cherry-picking and choosing to look after only those offenders who are easiest to turn round. We are very conscious of that challenge, much of which, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly said, relates to exactly how we measure and pay for success. We are exploring several options for that at the moment, and carefully considering what people have told us during the consultation, so that we can introduce a solution that will avoid those perverse incentives.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston was quite right to mention the specific needs of female offenders. I am glad that she welcomes the appointment of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), which is a significant move because it will bring together management and responsibility for female offenders in the criminal justice system more broadly. As the hon. Lady will recognise, we will ask a specific question about that in the consultation and consider carefully what people say. We will also include those specific offenders in our plans.

I will finish where I started—with the basic premise about making sure that we do better on reoffending than we currently do. We can do that only if we include in our proposals the 46,000 offenders a year who now receive very little statutory intervention and support. It is vital to extend that intervention and support to them and that we find the money to pay for that. That brings us to payment by results, which is a sensible concept. It is a common-sense principle to pay for outcomes that work in driving down reoffending, which are highly valuable because they mean fewer victims of crime, less misery for communities and lower cost to the taxpayer.

On that basis, we believe the proposals are well worth pursuing, but we will carefully consider the many design challenges, what we are told during the consultation and the points made during this debate.

Operation Jasmine (Care Home Abuse)

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

We now come to the debate in the name of Nick Smith on the conduct and outcome of Operation Jasmine into care home abuse. Although elements of this subject would engage the House’s sub judice resolution, the Speaker has agreed that, because criminal proceedings now appear unlikely to go ahead in the foreseeable future, the resolution should be waived to allow the hon. Gentleman to air his concerns. I am confident that he will exercise due caution in what he says.

16:14

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue. I speak on behalf of the alleged victims of care home abuse in south Wales and their families. This debate is timely and of great concern. This matter deserves scrutiny for my constituents, the south Wales region and, indeed, UK colleagues.

We cannot underplay the significance of Operation Jasmine. Spanning seven years, it is the biggest investigation into care home abuse ever undertaken in the UK: 75 police officers and staff worked on the case; more than 4,000 statements were taken; 10,500 exhibits were collected; 12.5 metric tonnes of documents currently lie in a Pontypool warehouse; and it cost £11.6 million, including £500,000 for 11 experts to advise the police.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

I commend my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour on his efforts in this campaign, and the work of Gwent police in putting together the investigation. Is he not concerned, as I am, that the case has taken seven years and cost £11.6 million, as he mentions? At a briefing, he and I saw harrowing photographic evidence of some of the alleged abuse. Is he not worried that that situation has caused more pain and anguish to the relatives, family and friends of those who suffered the abuse?

[Nick Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for his point. That situation has caused much pain and anguish to relatives of the victims of the alleged abuse, which is why it is important to have this debate and seek more information about what occurred.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend concerned that in Operation Jasmine, chlorpromazine was found in the hair of three of the victims? It is an antipsychotic neuroleptic drug that is meant to be used on the deeply psychotic. The misuse and over-use of drugs to turn patients into zombies and make the home cheaper to run is a significant feature of this disgraceful affair.

[Nick Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. All the evidence collected by the police in this long-running case must be brought to the public’s attention, so that it is open and available for them and they can form their own views about what happened.

On 1 March, at Cardiff Crown court, the key prosecution collapsed, when the director of care home owners Puretruce was deemed unfit to stand trial. Relatives have been left angry and despondent. In the meantime, the human cost has been devastating: there are 103 alleged victims, 60 of whom have died since 2005. That cannot be the lasting legacy of the inquiry, or the legacy for those who died and their families.

In a former job, I was a National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children campaigner, and I saw terrible images of child abuse. The pictures that I have seen from Operation Jasmine are no less terrible. I was shown graphic photos of pressure sores that proved fatal, and of sores that were so infected that the bone beneath was visible. They were sickening, and in the words of one expert, the worst that they had ever seen.

A senior employee in one home has told me that the director sought tight control of the business. If full-time staff were off, no agency staff were brought in. Budgets were squeezed across the board, and even food and incontinence pads did not escape budget cuts. Six Puretruce care homes were investigated for alleged neglect. In my view, there was a systemic failure across many of the homes, with residents’ care being compromised. It led to what police have called “death by indifference”.

In July 2007, the director was arrested on charges covering both neglect of residents and financial irregularities, but the charges of neglect faltered as the bar for conviction was said to be very high.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate for the families, the police and the Health and Safety Executive who have worked so tirelessly on this case for many years. The central issue here is that proving deliberate acts of harm is relatively straightforward, but proving deliberate neglect is hard, so does he agree that that is something the Minister should consider urgently?

[Nick Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and it is one of the direct questions that I intend to ask the Minister.

In 2011, the Health and Safety Executive became involved, too, in the hope that its additional evidence would be the final push over that bar. Sadly, that did not happen. Instead, the charges against the director, who had a GP practice and 26 care homes across south Wales—a profitable empire—will lie on file.

A small number of convictions have been secured in relation to the neglect of elderly people, but no one served a custodial sentence. We have to ask ourselves whether that sorry conclusion could have been avoided. MPs have been told that a change in the QC part way through the case brought a different perspective as to the likely success of the case. We know that the Crown Prosecution Service decides the charges and the standard of evidence it requires, but given the enormous quantity of evidence collected, it does beg questions about the evidence threshold, how Operation Jasmine progressed and the management of the operation. It is clear, as others have said, that local police worked very hard on this case, but the results do not match that fine effort. Was there a well founded and unified understanding between the CPS and the police about what evidence was needed?

Given that the case took seven years, did anything slow down the operation and how could such roadblocks be avoided in the future? What advice does the CPS give to the police and others investigating abuses in care, and does it have a plan for lowering the bar for prosecutions in the future? Were high-level project management tools brought to bear on this investigation from the start, and is the legal definition of “neglect” fit for purpose in cases such as this?

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and colleagues in Wales on pursuing this case on behalf of the victims and in the interests of higher standards in home care. Am I correct in my understanding that while the principal prosecution collapsed because the principal defendant was unfit to respond to the charges, the co-defendant is not in such a position and yet action is not being proceeded against him? Does my hon. Friend have anything to say about that, and would he like to put that point to the Minister and ask why that person cannot be prosecuted?

[Nick Smith]

My right hon. Friend makes a fair point. That is indeed the case, and it would be good to hear from the Minister why that prosecution was not taken forward.

I have written to the Director of Public Prosecutions to ask for some answers. He has now promised a substantive reply, but further action might be needed. We have a duty to those elderly people who have passed away, the families who are still fighting on their behalf and those with no family and with no voice. We must ensure that their story is put on the record.

The inquiry into poor care at Stafford hospital showed how important it is to record individual cases and to make the information public. I want the QC’s final opinion on the allegations in this case to be made public, and the Director of Public Prosecutions or the head of the CPS in Gwent to meet MPs and members of the victims’ action group. I want them to be joined by representatives from the police, the Health and Safety Executive and the Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales, and I want key evidence collected for this trial to be made public.

There have been calls for a public inquiry. I need to know what criteria the Minister will bring to bear when considering such calls.

16:24

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:30

On resuming—

[Nick Smith]

Thank you, Mr Crausby, for allowing me to continue my speech.

There have been calls for a public inquiry. I need to know what criteria the Minister will bring to bear when considering such calls, given that this case is the biggest inquiry into care home abuse in the UK. There are 106 alleged victims, the evidence suggests that there was systemic failure and there has been no closure for the victims. These calls for a public inquiry become compelling.

The deputy chief constable of Gwent police has said:

“There is a likelihood that there are cases like this occurring every day of the week across the country”.

Staff and relatives must not be afraid to challenge care that they are worried about.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

On the issue of an inquiry, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the major problems now is that, because one of the accused is unwell and is deemed unable—at the moment—to go on trial, information cannot be provided for any kind of inquiry because there may be a trial in the future? What is absolutely essential is that we get definitive medical advice on whether or not that accused person is able to stand trial in the near future—yes or no.

[Nick Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. We have to take this further, if we can.

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, even if an inquiry cannot be held at this stage because of continuing investigations, the Welsh Government, who I suspect could be responsible for an inquiry, could in principle agree to one as soon as the judicial proceedings are over?

[Nick Smith]

My right hon. Friend and neighbour is an experienced parliamentarian. He may have found a route through this, so that we can get to the bottom of this issue. His point should be explored.

Staff in such cases must also be supported if they draw attention to care that does not meet agreed guidelines. A woman told me that her mother suffered pressure sores while in the care of a Puretruce home. Even though the family had visited mam every day, they were never told about these sores. They only found out when the police investigation came to their door. She said:

“Only the families now know what went on. People need to be told.”

We must not ignore the lessons of this sorry tale. We all have a responsibility to see that residents are well fed and that rooms are clean. If not, we should be asking why and those concerns should be acted on.

Many people can expect to live for nearly 80 years. As we live with conditions such as dementia for longer, many of us will see a partner or loved one, or ourselves, in a care home at some time. Across the country, hundreds of thousands of people are well cared for: their care homes will be spick and span, and their health will be a priority. But we must ensure that a gold standard of care is there for everybody. Lessons must be learned. But with all the evidence Operation Jasmine has collected, there is no doubt much more for us to learn. We must keep the spotlight on residential care, to stop further abuse behind closed doors.

16:42

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) on securing this debate on an important issue, and I agree with his concluding remarks. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for waiving the sub judice rules so that I can set out some details that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with, but which it would be helpful to get in the public record.

The hon. Gentleman has a particular interest in this issue because one of the care homes covered by the investigation was in his constituency. He and other hon. Members will know about family members of those who were neglected, or those who sadly died, who will be affected and will be concerned about what happened. I am sure that his interest, and the interest of other Opposition Members, will keep this issue at the forefront, to ensure that we learn lessons from it.

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

Marilyn Jenkins’s mother was in the Brithdir home and died. She is unaware whether her mother was properly treated or not. Will she ever be able to get answers to that question?

[Mr Harper]

I should have said that hon. Friends, as well as Opposition Members, will know of such cases, too. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent asked whether the prosecuting authorities would meet family members. That seems sensible. I have had experience of cases in the criminal justice system, in which—even if the outcome was not everything that people wanted—understanding what happened and having the facts, and understanding the thinking, at least gave people a sense that a proper process had been followed.

In my hon. Friend’s constituent’s case, and I suspect in that of many other families, even if they may not be happy with the outcome because the prosecutor has not been able to proceed with the case, it is important to know what happened to their family member and whether they were properly treated. Although that may not give them satisfaction, at least they may understand what happened and can ensure that they and other people learn the lessons, so that it does not happen again.

The hon. Gentleman is right. There is no place in our society for anyone who abuses anyone for whom they are supposed to be caring, whether a child, a vulnerable adult, or any other member of the community. We should always be vigilant about dealing with that.

Operation Jasmine was a long and difficult case for all those concerned, with 103 alleged victims, 63 of whom have subsequently died. That must be incredibly distressing for their families. I thought that it would probably help, given the hon. Gentleman’s questions, if I gave the House some facts about the operation and the outcome of the police investigation, which commenced in 2005.

[Paul Flynn]

In March 2000, a ten-minute rule Bill was introduced, seeking better control of neuroleptic drugs in residential homes. Some homes did not use the drugs at all, but in other homes 100% of residents were on those drugs, which meant that they often lived shorter lives and died in misery and confusion. Has there been any improvement since 2000?

[Mr Harper]

I am not familiar, apart from in general terms, with the specific point that the hon. Gentleman raises. I will draw that to the attention of my hon. Friend with responsibility for care standards. I am sure that the relevant Minister in the Welsh Government will also hear of the hon. Gentleman’s question.

The investigation commenced in 2005, when an elderly resident at Bryngwyn Mountleigh nursing home was admitted to the Royal Gwent hospital, where she then died. Partner agencies brought to Gwent police’s attention significant potential failings at Brithdir nursing home, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). Both homes were owned by Dr Prana Das. Following the investigation into this incident at Bryngwyn, further investigation by Gwent police identified a series of deaths at the home that required further thorough investigation, with the police identifying a further 11 cases where elements of neglectful care may have been linked to the deaths of those residents.

Initial work at Brithdir nursing home identified 23 further cases of concern where allegations of neglect had been investigated. The operation eventually investigated allegations of abuse at two further care homes. Gwent police took this very seriously—I think that that was the general sense of the contributions from Opposition Members—and allocated a dedicated police lawyer and Crown Prosecution Service counsel early on in their investigation. I think that they sensed how significant it was going to be.

As the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent said, it was a thorough police investigation, involving 75 police officers, more than 4,000 statements, more than 10,000 exhibits and 12.5 tonnes of documentation. The Home Office provided special grant support for the police authority in Gwent, so that the costs of this investigation did not fall entirely on the police authority and cause detriment to wider policing in Gwent. That was right and proper.

There were three convictions against care home staff in 2008 for wilful neglect. The investigation then continued with further charges being sought against the main defendant, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, for manslaughter by gross negligence or wilful neglect. However, in February 2010 interim advice from CPS was that the cases had not reached the threshold required for criminal prosecution. The investigations were then completed. Further CPS advice to Gwent constabulary in February and June 2011 was that the threshold for manslaughter by gross negligence or wilful neglect had not been met in any of those cases.

I understand that the chief constable, not being satisfied with that advice, met the Director of Public Prosecutions to challenge the advice that he had received. The DPP reiterated the advice that, despite the thorough investigation, the case simply had not reached the threshold for reasonable prosecutions, given the difficulties of proving wilful neglect.

Hon. Members will be aware, from what the hon. Gentleman said, that the case was then taken forward as a joint investigation with the Health and Safety Executive. The decision was taken by the HSE to prosecute Dr Das, his company Puretruce Health Care Ltd and its chief executive, Mr Paul Black, in relation to neglect and fraud at two care homes, Brithdir and The Beeches in Blaenavon. The trial was set for January this year, but on 9 September 2012 Dr Das was badly assaulted in his home in an unrelated incident of aggravated burglary and has remained in hospital ever since, suffering from permanent brain damage. As the hon. Gentleman said, on 1 March Judge Neil Bidder, based on medical evidence that he had received, ordered that all charges relating to Das, Black and the company lie on file. If Dr Das ever recovers from his injuries, which I understand from the medical evidence is unlikely, the trial could continue.

I cannot remember whether the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) or the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who is sitting next to him, mentioned this, but the judge also ruled that Paul Black, the co-defendant, should not stand trial because it was not deemed appropriate to try him alone. I can understand, of course, that the fact the prosecution could not continue leaves families with a real sense that justice has not been done, but given that the judge decided the defendant is not in fit condition to stand trial, it is not obvious that there is an alternative prosecution scenario.

The judge also decided that, in the absence of the primary defendant, Dr Das, the company could not be tried either, because it is not possible for the company to have a fair trial given that the main individual controlling the company is not able to respond. The positive thing is that the charges lie on file, so if Dr Das ever recovers from his injuries, family members may be reassured that the case will continue, although, as I have said, the medical evidence is that that is very unlikely.

One of the questions that underlies what the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent said is whether something like this could happen again. Important issues arise on whether we have proper arrangements to protect vulnerable adults from those who might seek to abuse and exploit them.

[Wayne David]

I heard what the Minister said about the evidence remaining on the table, as it were, but does he not accept my point that we need some sort of time scale? In theory, the evidence that has been accumulated could remain on the table indefinitely without there ever being an inquiry because it might not allow consent to be given for such an inquiry.

[Mr Harper]

I was just about to come on to the question of an inquiry. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) alluded to there being another factor in the case, because, obviously, some of these issues are for the UK Government and some of the issues on health and social care are for the Welsh Government.

If either Government decided that a public inquiry would be the right thing, they would need to think through whether the charges remaining on file were a roadblock and whether, therefore, steps needed to be taken. They would also need to consider the balance in terms of the interests of justice and openness.

At the moment it is important that lessons are learned, and I will set out what I think some of those lessons are. If we are to have a public inquiry, we need to think through the objective of that inquiry and what it is that we would learn that we do not already know. Given the exhaustive nature of the police investigation, and without doing some further thinking, I am not clear whether the answer to that question is that we would learn something from having a public inquiry.

Clearly, if it turned out that the fact the charges are lying on file and are pending is a roadblock, and if either Government wanted to have some sort of public inquiry, we would need to come back to that and the various agencies would need to think about the right solution. Without that being on the table, the fact that the charges are on file means that people can be reassured that there is no sense that someone could get away with it if they were ever in a position to stand trial. The fact is that the evidence is there, the charges are there and it would be possible for a prosecution to proceed if the defendant were ever in a position to be able to stand trial in a way a judge determined to be fair.

I have six minutes left, so I will try to address some of the other issues. As a result of the operation, 42 individuals were referred for consideration under the Care Standards Act 2000, which introduced a duty on care providers to refer care workers who have been dismissed or suspended or otherwise left their employment for misconduct that harmed a vulnerable adult or placed a vulnerable adult at risk of harm to the protection of vulnerable adults scheme. In October 2009, all cases under that scheme were referred to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, which has since been replaced by the new Disclosure and Barring Service. That is a mechanism for ensuring that any care worker who does not perform at the level they should is unable to work with vulnerable children or vulnerable adults in the future.

More widely, the Government are completely committed to protecting vulnerable members of the community. Work is under way, as part of a Department of Health-led, cross-Government effort on safeguarding vulnerable adults, to legislate to put safeguarding adults boards on a stronger statutory footing to ensure that they are better equipped to prevent abuse and to respond when it occurs.

Given the role of the Welsh Government, as the right hon. Member for Torfaen suggested, I have taken the trouble to understand some of the issues they were dealing with. I know they have maintained close contact with Gwent police throughout the police operation, and I know they have taken account of lessons from the operation in developing their own policies and legislation in this area. The Welsh Government have introduced new statutory guidance on managing escalating concerns within care homes. They funded a dignity in care programme to improve practice, and I understand that, later in the year, they will publish a White Paper on the regulation and inspection of social care. The Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales has also modernised its approach to inspection and regulation to give a stronger voice to care home residents and their families.

Protecting vulnerable adults from abuse is clearly a core part of the police’s safeguarding and public protection responsibilities. The Association of Chief Police Officers recognises the importance of working together with statutory agencies, local authorities and their safeguarding partners.

ACPO has reviewed the overall learning from Winterbourne View, another very serious case in which adults with learning disabilities were treated incredibly badly. The one direct recommendation relating to the police was on the early identification of trends and patterns of abuse, the lessons from which will be disseminated nationally across England and Wales through training and practice.

[Wayne David]

Given that Gwent police has already said it is more than happy to co-operate with the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales on an immediate inquiry, does the Minister agree that that would be a positive step forwards?

[Mr Harper]

I will go away and look at that. From everything they have done, the police come out of this very well. The investigation was very thorough, and everyone seems to think they did the work that was required. The College of Policing has a public protection learning project that brings together a range of public protection disciplines, including adults at risk, and it will consider the training materials used by police forces across England and Wales.

What the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent said at the end of his remarks is absolutely true. Protecting vulnerable members of our society is an absolute priority. This has been a difficult and disturbing case, and it has been very lengthy for everyone involved. The charges lie on file, and the case has happened.

From what the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire have said, it sounds as if some work may be needed to ensure that all the families involved are properly briefed about what happened to each and every one of their relatives so that they fully understand the situation.

I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about the DPP and the CPS meeting the families, and I will raise that with the DPP through the Attorney-General—I cannot think of any reason why such meetings could not happen—and report back to the hon. Gentleman.

If there are lessons from the case, they clearly need to be learned. It is right that all parties, including the UK Government and the Welsh Government, should consider what they can do. I know the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will continue to pursue the matter to ensure that whatever lessons can be learned are learned and that we are never here again with a similar case. I hope what I have said has helped the hon. Gentleman in what he has been trying to establish today, and I am sure this will not be the last time he raises the issue either in Westminster Hall or in Parliament more widely.

Secondary Schools: Newark

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Westminster Hall

16:59

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)]

This is an important debate for Newark and the Newark area, and I thank the Speaker’s Office for selecting this subject. It is a pleasure to be working under your hand yet again, Mr Crausby. I thank the Minister and his assistants for finding time to be here today. Most importantly, I thank my constituents who have come all the way from Newark today to listen to us debate a subject I know is very close to their hearts. I have to rattle through my speech, because I want to leave the Minister at least quarter of an hour to reply to my important points.

This is a long-standing problem. I have campaigned on it three times under two different Governments. We in Newark do not have secondary schools that are fit for our children. It is the most important subject in my constituency. Although siren voices in the town talk about other subjects, this is 100% my first priority and will remain so until the problem is solved.

The difficulty is that although the fabric of the schools leaves a great deal to be desired—I will expand on that in a moment—the schools themselves are absolutely first class in the product that they turn out. The children are well-taught; leadership is exemplary; and the boards of governors are first class. It is desperately important that we build confidence in schools such as the Newark academy, which only recently became an academy, and the Magnus school, rather than simply criticising them, given that the criticism rests on the fabric of the school, not on the product being delivered.

If I undermine confidence in those schools and ensure by the words that I speak in this debate that parents do not send children to them, I will exacerbate the problem of the so-called Lincolnshire drift. I am trying not to get excited about it, but it is terribly difficult when children from Newark seek to have their secondary schooling in Lincolnshire or at schools such as Toot Hill in Bingham or the Tuxford academy rather than in their home town. The fewer children go to our schools, the less money those schools will attract and the more their fortunes will decline.

I must argue about the fabric of the schools, while trying to build confidence in the teaching delivered, in which I have huge confidence. However, there is a problem. For instance, the principal of Newark academy, who is here today, tells me that 180 places are available for the forthcoming academic year, yet only 91 applications have been made so far. The town’s two desperately important secondary schools are under capacity.

Mrs Sue Jenkins says:

“My concern is the environment of my year 7 daughter, who eats lunch squatted on the floor because the building she learns in fails her. Unless the school is rebuilt sooner, she and her cohort will do this for the rest of their time at secondary school. As parents, we do not expect our children to be mistreated in this way. We chose Newark academy because it is a great school in a great area, but the building is letting the school and the community down… Local council money has been used for years on numerous projects to patchily keep the failing structural fabric of the building going, throwing good money after bad.”

The principal, Mrs Karine Jasper, makes the point clearly:

“The Newark Academy, formerly the Grove School, has been seeking a new build for years. Everything has been done and is under way to ensure that all parts of the jigsaw are in place to catapult the school to providing an outstanding education. It is now an academy…a new board of governors is in place…the senior leadership team has been restructured, the students are ready to learn…staff are working hard to rapidly improve lessons and outcomes. One vital piece is missing—the building. This is urgently needed for the community. The final piece of the jigsaw is a building simply fit for purpose, where children are nurtured, success is realised and high aspirations are the norm.”

Those are two desperately heart-touching and important quotes from different parts of the community. The Minister knows that I appreciate that I am not pushing against a closed door—he is completely sensitive to such functions—but he will forgive me if I bring up an issue straight from the heart of my community. We could discuss all the technical stuff. I could talk about engagement, tranches, waves of money and so on. Can we cut through all that? Why is the rebuild of the academy taking so long? I do not know whether the Minister can answer that, but it is not as important as what we can do about it. How can we bring forward the rebuild?

The Minister is fully aware of what a difficult state the school is in. For instance, under the Building Schools for the Future programme, for which I hold no brief and I know he holds none, it was proposed that the Grove, as it was called at the time, would become a sample school. I humbly suggest to him that we might be able to resurrect that plan. I know that the schemes are in place. It might save time and money if we considered it. I ask him, with respect, to address the matter as urgently and carefully as he can in his reply.

That brings me to the fact that last summer, more than £2 million was spent on the academy. As we have heard, it was spent just patching it up. Yes, it is fit for purpose; yes, children can learn there adequately; but by golly, it is sensitive and difficult. For instance, I have recently been told that if more than 2.5 inches of snow falls, kids cannot be taught in the flat-roofed areas of the academy in case the roofs collapse. As a result, the school’s heating is concentrated in those areas to melt the snow. They may as well have a snow sentry standing outside with a ruler saying, “Ay up! We’re approaching two and a half—everybody out.” We cannot continue to lose teaching days at the school. It simply does not answer in the 21st century.

I could spend the whole of my brief time talking about the academy, but I must mention the Magnus school, which I also ask the Minister to consider. What plans does he have for refurbishing it? I understand that the Magnus school cannot be rebuilt—I love it, but that is not going to happen—but I cannot pass on without mentioning it, any more than I can without mentioning Toot Hill school in Bingham, which is not in Lincolnshire but which leaches students away from the academy and the Magnus school, despite being in barely better condition than the academy, from which it tends to take a large number of students. I would be awfully grateful if he shed the light of his countenance on that issue.

Last is the Exemplar free school. I know that the Minister is across the problem and understands it. I have terrible difficulty explaining to my constituents why, when the maintained schools are in such a state and under capacity, it appears that a new and completely separate school is receiving the go-ahead. I appreciate that that is not quite right, as the Exemplar school has been delayed by a year. It is also difficult to explain to people that the pot of money for the free school would never be accessible to the maintained schools in the town. I would be grateful if he referred to that in passing.

Before I conclude, so that we can listen to the Minister in detail, I will quote Mrs Elaine Winter:

“Note that many of the people who campaign hard are not going to have children that benefit from any build now as their children will be leaving before any bricks are laid, but they carry on tirelessly not because of their own self-interest but because they believe in the community at large. They are fighting to keep it from having its heart (the secondary school) left to rot.”

I believe in my community, as I know the Minister believes in his. Such schools are not good enough. The coalition is not delivering on the issue on which I campaigned so hard and for the sake of which, as the single most important issue, I was returned as a Conservative Member of Parliament with a 16,000 majority. The Minister says that he is a Gladstonian liberal. I am delighted and pleased. He will be in absolutely no doubt that the spirit of Gladstone lives on in the place where he was elected—namely, Newark. We would be absolutely delighted, if we cannot insist, for the Minister to visit at his earliest convenience, so that he can talk to constituents such as the ones who have come down to London today, to head teachers and others and see the problem for himself.

17:10

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) on securing this extremely important debate. He has been and clearly continues to be a strong advocate for high-quality schools in his constituency. He has raised a number of important issues today for his constituents and I will seek to address the three major areas during the course of my speech. He has also helped to tempt me to Newark in future by mentioning the Gladstone link that I should have known about but was not aware of, and I would be delighted to visit the constituency. I will be in trouble with those who organise me if I make any commitments to particular dates, but I would like to visit at some stage.

I am grateful for the opportunity to address some of these important issues. It is clearly not right for pupils and teachers to work in buildings in such poor condition that learning is disrupted and staff time is diverted from the necessary focus on teaching. Even if those two things are not happening, having high-quality school buildings sends out an important signal to young people and to those who teach in schools about the importance that we place on education. It can also help to raise the aspirations of many young people, in particular those from more disadvantaged backgrounds, if they are educated in appropriate settings. The Government regard this area as extremely important.

The coalition Government, as my hon. Friend hinted in his opening comments, had no alternative on coming to power but to bring to an end the previous Government’s wasteful, delayed and ultimately unaffordable Building Schools for the Future programme which, remarkably, did not prioritise those schools in the worst condition. That was not the central criterion to allocate funding under the programme. The Priority School Building programme that we have introduced will replace those schools in the worst condition; it will replace the 261 schools assessed to be the greatest priority on the basis of condition. In the majority of cases, those were not even in the previous Government’s Building Schools for the Future programme, which shows the stark gap between the previous plans and the priorities in many areas. In difficult economic times, we have to focus the limited resources that we have where they are most needed—on the repair and refurbishment of schools in the worst condition—and to tackle the urgent demand for new good school places as a result of the rising birth rate in large parts of the country.

Since May 2010, the Government have allocated £4 billion for the maintenance of the school estate to meet the needs of maintained schools and academies, and more than £5 billion to local authorities to support the provision of new school places. On 1 March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced an additional £4 billion for the period from 2012-13 to the end of the Parliament. Over the Parliament as a whole, therefore, my hon. Friend can be pleased that the Government that we both support will have allocated some £18 billion for school capital investment, notwithstanding our difficult times.

We invited bids to the new Priority School Building programme from schools in need of urgent repair. We considered every application on a fair and objective basis, which involved officials visiting every school to validate the accuracy of building condition data. Two hundred and sixty-one schools throughout the country, therefore, will be rebuilt, or in some cases have their condition needs met substantively through the programme. As my hon. Friend is probably aware, 15 of those schools are in Nottinghamshire, including the Newark academy in his constituency. Nottinghamshire has more schools in the programme than any other local authority in England.

The Priority School Building programme is being delivered by grouping schools together into batches to ensure healthy competition for the work which will deliver value for money for the public purse. We expect to deliver the school works for considerable savings on the previous Building Schools for the Future programme. We will continue to investigate every option to accelerate the entire programme, but as far as possible the needs of the schools in the worst condition will be dealt with first. We are making good progress on the delivery of the programme. We have appointed contractors to build the first two groups of capital-funded schools, and construction work is expected to start in May. Contractors are currently tendering for the remaining six groups of capital-funded schools. Obviously, the first two groups consist of the schools that we consider to be the highest priority out of the 261 on the measures we used.

We are also working with the schools that we believe will form the first three privately financed groups. Work will start with further groups of schools later this year. We plan to release the first privately financed batch to the market in the spring, and further batches will be released as soon as possible thereafter. The programme is delivering a more efficient, faster and less bureaucratic approach to building schools. We have developed and are now using new baseline designs that are increasing efficiencies, and we have also reduced the regulations and guidance governing school premises.

The Education Funding Agency will commence engagement work with the Newark academy next year. The EFA will work with the school and other stakeholders to undertake a thorough study to determine the best way to address the condition needs, to manage the procurement process and to enter into the delivery contract.

[Patrick Mercer]

Has the Minister factored in the likelihood of Newark being the subject of a growth point bid? That will give us an extra several thousand houses in Newark, attracting ready-made families and a large number—explosion is the wrong word—of extra children suddenly arriving inside the town over the next 10 years.

[Mr Laws]

We have, and I shall come to that point specifically in a minute, when I touch on another issue that my hon. Friend raised in his speech.

I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that it is important to consider all options available to address the need at the Newark academy and to ensure best value for the public purse. Our current plan is to engage with the school, as I said, at the back end of next year, to ensure that we complete the academy building in 2017.

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern about spending to maintain the condition of the current school buildings at the Newark academy while waiting for the school to be rebuilt. Of course, all the 261 schools are in the programme precisely because they have urgent expected need—that is how we made the judgment on which schools we wanted to take and put into priority need. They are schools that otherwise we would have had to spend a huge amount on just refurbishing buildings that would eventually have to be replaced. I must also thank Nottinghamshire county council for continuing its support for the academy by allocating funds from its capital refurbishment programme to tackle the most urgent repairs at the site. Furthermore, I believe that we have committed some £170,000 through an environmental improvement grant to help fund some aspects of the works. I will ask officials to work with the school and the local authority on identifying sensible solutions to bridge the gap between now and the date when we are able to complete the school.

I understand that, as my hon. Friend indicated, there are proposals to rebuild the leisure facilities currently located adjacent to the academy on a new site, and funding is being secured to enable that. We are more than happy to work with him, the county council and the school on whether any economies of scale can be achieved in the school building project. In fact, we are already working with other local authorities to deliver facilities on their behalf as part of the Priority School Building programme.

I recognise that many other schools in the area have significant condition needs, and quite a number of schools that bid to be in the PSB scheme were sadly not successful. My hon. Friend expressed concern about the condition needs at Magnus and Toot Hill secondary schools. Although they did not apply to be in the PSB programme, their condition needs could be addressed through other funding that we have made available for maintenance work.

As I said earlier, the Department for Education provides capital funding to local authorities to carry out maintenance and repair work to existing school buildings. Nottinghamshire has received £27 million for condition maintenance in the last two years and will receive a further £9.6 million in the coming financial year 2013-14, with further money after that. In addition, schools in Nottinghamshire have received a further £5.1 million in devolved formula capital in the last two years and will receive a further £2 million in the coming financial year.

Toot Hill school is an academy and is able to apply to the Academies Capital Maintenance Fund for funding to carry out maintenance and repair work. The Department is currently providing capital funding of £392 million for academies to access in the coming financial year 2013-14. I understand that Toot Hill school has submitted an application for approximately £3 million for a new teaching block. That application is currently being assessed against the others that we have received from across the country and we expect to be able to notify the academy on the outcome of its application shortly, probably in April.

In addition we will use the information from the national programme of surveys that we are conducting across the country of every school to ensure that, subject to funds available in the next spending review period, those schools that need renovation will have their needs addressed as quickly as possible. By the autumn, we will have details about the condition of every school in the country—information on the condition of all schools was last collated centrally in 2005—and we are waiting for that survey data before announcing the capital allocations for maintenance for 2014-15 because we want them to be informed by the outcome of that survey.

We are pleased to have agreed with the Exemplar Academy Trust to delay the opening of the Exemplar Newark business academy to September 2014. In this case, both the Department and the academy trust judged that the plans for the free school had not progressed sufficiently for it to proceed to opening in September 2013. The academy trust came to that conclusion after reviewing early feedback from its consultation events. Parents told it they supported its plans to open a free school in Newark, but they wanted to know the precise details of location and the head teacher before requesting a place for their child.

I thank my hon. Friend for the time he has taken to talk to members of the academy trust about the local issues. I know that the trust valued the opportunity to talk to him, and his willingness to take part in local events that it has held to consult properly on the issue. Our priority must be to open free schools with the best chance of performing strongly from the outset. We are in agreement with the trust that opening later will give it the extra time it needs to develop and progress its plans. It will allow more time to identify a head teacher and to secure a suitable site for the new school.

Returning to a point that my hon. Friend made, the free school will help to reduce the number of pupils within the Newark catchment area currently attending schools outside Newark. In time, the school could also help to provide the extra school places that will be needed if the planned housing developments in and around Newark go ahead.

Setting up a free school is not an easy task, and I am pleased that the academy trust has recognised the challenges it faces and shown its willingness to be flexible in resolving them. We want the free school projects to meet local needs, to be realistic about the challenges they face and to take the lead in finding solutions to provide the best chance of enabling them to perform strongly from the outset and to deliver positive outcomes for pupils.

[Patrick Mercer]

Can the Minister offer any crumb of hope to my constituents and me that the programme for the academy’s rebuild could be accelerated?

[Mr Laws]

I must be straightforward with my hon. Friend. Our challenge is to try to deliver the programme in a sensible and prioritised way. Our current information about the schools in his area suggests that other schools are higher on the priority list. Senior people from the Education Funding Agency have been looking closely at the matter in recent months, and have already carried out some scrutiny, but unless we can change our assessment of the school’s needs compared with those of other schools, and accommodate some change in the batching arrangement—it is incredibly important to take them to market in batches, as he will understand—all we can do is move as rapidly as possible to put in place the plans that we are discussing. I assure him that I will do everything I can to move the whole programme forward—it was always a five-year programme—as early as possible. We want all the buildings to be replaced as soon as possible, but I do not want to give false hope to my hon. Friend.

I have said that I will ask my officials to communicate with the school and the local authority, and to look at the transition issues between now and 2017, which is our current working assumption. If there is any evidence of misjudgement in prioritisation, I will ask for another close look to see whether we can do anything, but that will have to be based on careful evidence because it would be inevitable that if one school came forward, others would go backwards because of our scarce resources. All the 261 schools that we have prioritised regard their challenges as real, and my hon. Friend can imagine their reaction if the dates that have been indicated to them slipped backwards.

I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the funding issues facing schools in his area. I am sure he agrees that it is important to focus our limited resources on those in most need. I hope that I have explained the transparent process to prioritise the delivery of schools in the programme. I congratulate the pupils, staff and parents at Newark academy on last year’s GCSE results which, despite the disruption to school life because of premises issues, continue a four-year upward trend which will, I am sure, continue to improve with the sponsorship of Lincoln college.

Question put and agreed to.

17:28

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Written Statements

Wednesday 13 March 2013

CPS Report

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Written Statements

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is today publishing a study undertaken by the Crown Prosecution Service into perverting the course of justice and wasting police time in cases involving allegedly false rape and domestic violence allegations.

The DPP published new legal guidance on perverting the course of justice in July 2011 and, for a period of 17-months, required CPS areas to refer all cases involving an allegedly false allegation of rape, domestic violence or both to him to consider.

The report examines all of those cases and in only a very small number of cases was it considered that there was sufficient evidence and that it was in the public interest to prosecute a person suspected of making a false allegation of rape or domestic violence.

While the report shows that false allegations of rape and domestic violence are very rare, they are nevertheless very serious where they do exist. The report’s conclusions suggest that the CPS guidance for prosecutors on this issue is broadly in the right place and the findings will help the CPS ensure that they are able to make consistent and sound decisions in these difficult cases.

This publication is part of a wider programme of work for the CPS to improve its handling of cases involving violence against women and girls.

Copies of this report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Local and Mayoral Election Guidance

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

Guidance has today been issued to civil servants in UK departments and those working in non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) on the principles that they should observe in relation to the conduct of Government business in the run up to the forthcoming elections to local authorities in England and Wales, and for the directly elected mayors in Doncaster and North Tyneside. These elections will take place on Thursday 2 May 2013.

The guidance sets out the need to maintain the political impartiality of the civil service, and the need to ensure that public resources are not used for party political purposes. The period of sensitivity preceding the elections starts on 11 April.

Copies of the guidance have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Cabinet Office website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/election- guidance-for-civil-servants.

Falkland Islands Referendum

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Written Statements

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

I would like to update the House on the Government’s response to the Falkland Islands referendum on their political status as a British overseas territory.

On 10 and 11 March 2013, the Falkland islanders voted overwhelmingly to maintain their current constitutional arrangements with the United Kingdom. The result is a clear democratic expression of the islanders’ wishes and was conducted in a free, fair and transparent way.

We believe that the result should be recognised by the whole international community as a definitive act of self-determination. It has sent the clearest possible message to the Argentine Government that their demands to control the Falkland Islands against the wishes of the people who live there are fundamentally incompatible with modern democratic values. Attempts to intimidate the islanders must cease.

Representatives of the Falkland Islands Government will travel widely in the coming weeks to convey the result around Latin America and elsewhere. More broadly, the Government will continue to strengthen our engagement with Latin America, as I set out in my Canning House speech in November 2010. The UK has considerable interests in the region, with high potential for future economic growth. I am confident that this increased co-operation and partnership with the countries of Latin America is consistent with our desire to ensure that the interests and wishes of the Falkland islanders are respected and protected.

House of Lords

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Wednesday, 13 March 2013.

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

Marine Conservation Areas

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:07

Asked By

[Lord Eden of Winton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they are making in the designation of sites as marine conservation areas.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley)]

My Lords, we are currently holding a public consultation on proposals to designate a first tranche of up to 31 marine conservation zones in 2013. These will complement the large number of existing marine protected areas to contribute to an ecologically coherent network.

[Lord Eden of Winton]

My Lords, I first congratulate the Government on carrying this project forward, and especially commend the impetus given to it by the Minister, Richard Benyon. Ought we not now to be pressing ahead much more urgently? Could the Minister say when the next tranche of marine conservation zones will be announced and how many there will be? Is it not the case, if further evidence is required, that existing marine conservation zones demonstrate remarkable replenishment of fishing stock? Does that not give longer-term security to commercial fisheries? Could we not have an early ban on the sort of scallop dredging that has taken place off the coast of Yorkshire, which effectively scalps the seabed?

Finally, I ask for a clear timetable to be given now for an ecologically coherent network of marine protection plans.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, my noble friend asked first when additional sites will be brought forward in a tranche. We will shortly be in a position to assess how the consultation has gone. I very much hope that we will be in a position to make a further announcement on more sites thereafter.

My noble friend essentially asks whether we do not already have enough evidence. I give him some examples of the type of evidence that we require, which goes a little further than he suggested. We are doing additional habitat and seabed mapping, an in-depth review of the evidence base supporting the recommendations from the regional projects, a study of the value of spatial protection measures for mobile species, and studies to enable the quantification of benefits from the impact assessment.

[Baroness Whitaker]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that most marine protection areas benefit very much from the original inhabitants living there and helping to look after it, unlike those of the Chagos Islands, whose disgraceful exile means that they can play no part?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I would not want to criticise what other countries are doing, but I agree with the noble Baroness about the protection that these zones can give to the species and habitats that we are seeking to protect.

[Lord Boyce]

My Lords, I declare an interest as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. Taking the second part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Eden, further, can the Minister say what consideration has been given to the small inshore fishermen whose livelihood depends on fishing in some of these designated areas?

[Lord De Mauley]

The noble and gallant Lord is absolutely right to raise the issue. These fishermen have been involved as stakeholders in the regional projects and their representations will certainly be taken into account in the consultation.

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, 58 marine areas are said to be seriously threatened and in need of immediate protection. Will the Minister say when the scientific evidence that the Government are commissioning at a cost of £3.5 million will be available, so that decisions about further designations can be made?

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords. First, it is worth saying that a sizeable proportion of the 58 are included in the 31 that are currently out for consultation. As regards the others, there are questions over data certainty and cost to which my noble friend Lord Eden referred earlier. We will have new scientific evidence to use along with responses to our consultation when making our final decisions on which sites should be designated this year. Further evidence will continue to become available thereafter and will be considered when making decisions on future tranches of marine conservation zones to complete the network.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, the aim of the marine Act was, as the noble Lord, Lord Eden, said, to establish an ecologically coherent network of sustainable conservation zones. The Government’s current suggestion of just 31 falls way short of achieving that aim and ignores the Government’s own science. The environmental and social gains of protecting our marine environment are obvious, but has the Minister seen the analysis showing an economic gain of £10 billion in Scotland alone through this sort of protection? Instead of trading insults with Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall in the Guardian, should not Richard Benyon, the Minister in the noble Lord’s department, build on what the previous Government established and, as the noble Lord, Lord Eden, has asked, give us a clear timetable—not “shortly”—for further implementation?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I cannot accept very much of what the noble Lord has said. Far from what he has said, over the past three years we have been changing the way we manage our seas. We have introduced marine planning, set up new organisations to police our seas, improved marine licensing, reformed domestic fisheries management and, vitally, introduced marine conservation zones.

[The Duke of Montrose]

My Lords, can my noble friend give us a little more detail on the timing that will ensue from the 31 areas that he has out for consultation at the moment? At what point will these receive European recognition as proper conservation areas, and what powers do the Government seek to enable us to control these, when they are outwith our immediate territorial boundaries?

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. I have done the best I can to address the issue of timing. We will complete the consultation and, as soon as we can, we will announce its results and move on to further tranches. As regards the involvement of the European Union, and indeed individual member states, of course they will be listened to when they make their responses to the consultation.

[Lord Greenway]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government will continue to take a balanced approach when designating these sites, taking into account all interests? Will he also confirm that any site will not inhibit the free passage of international shipping on which we, as an island nation, depend for almost all our needs?

[Lord De Mauley]

Again, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that all sides of the argument must be listened to. They have been in the process through the regional projects, they will continue to be listened to through the consultations, and similar processes will apply in future tranches.

Children: Care

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:14

Asked By

[The Earl of Listowel]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they have consulted early years practitioners on their plans to increase the maximum ratio of carers to babies and toddlers under two years old to 4:1, and carers to two year-olds to 6:1, where high-quality carers are available.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash)]

My Lords, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Childcare, and officials at the Department for Education, have consulted a wide range of interested parties on our proposals through a series of meetings and workshops. Officials have also visited a number of early-years providers to discuss the proposals. The Government launched a public consultation on 29 January, seeking views on these proposals from parents, early-years practitioners and others.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, and for the Government’s consultation on this implementation. However, is the Minister aware of the widespread concern among parents, practitioners and experts, and among organisations such as the Pre-School Learning Alliance, that the Government are even considering reducing the ratio of carers to babies and carers to pre-schoolers? Will the Minister now consult with his colleagues and consider pausing, taking off the table the proposal to reduce ratios, and will he take the advice of those in the sector on how to improve quality and affordability of childcare?

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, our consultation on adult/child ratios will continue until 25 March. We should not pre-empt its outcome. The changes that we have proposed to the ratios are not obligatory. Providers will be under no obligation to change the way in which they operate. Our proposals are about giving freedom to high-quality providers to use their professional judgment to decide for themselves how to deploy their staff to best meet the needs of the children for whom they care.

[Baroness Benjamin]

My Lords, from September, 20% of two year-olds—those from the poorest backgrounds—will become eligible for free early-years education for the first time, which will be so important for their brain development. How will the Government make sure that there are enough new, high-quality nursery places to take those extra children, and enough early-years workers, who will be responsible for their emotional, social and language development as well as their safety?

[Lord Nash]

We are doing a great deal of work with local authorities and other providers to ensure that these spaces are available. The department is allocating funding to local authorities at an average hourly rate of £5.09 for statutory two year-old places. This is a competitive rate that will encourage providers to deliver the places. We know that private and voluntary-sector providers and childminders are already delivering more places for two year-olds, paid for by local authorities. The proposals set out in More Great Childcare will encourage investment in better-qualified staff and in their training, so that more two year-olds can be cared for by professionals who are well equipped to help them develop, learn and prepare for school.

[Lord May of Oxford]

My Lords, will the Minister reassure me that he will correct the inadvertent carelessness here? Taken literally, the Question states that the Government want four carers for each toddler under two and six carers for each toddler over two.

[Lord Nash]

I can assure the noble Lord that we will make that correction.

[Baroness Afshar]

My Lords, will this cause the usual problem of exacerbating the difficulties of those who cannot afford better rates by providing minimal care for second-class citizens whose children will be cared for at this level, while intense, high-quality care will be reserved for those who can pay better rates and employ more people?

[Lord Nash]

The noble Baroness raises a good point. This is something that we will consider carefully in the consultation. It is not our intention, which is to provide higher-quality care by more highly qualified staff. All the evidence is that children from deprived backgrounds in particular, who have a deficit of structure and language in their home lives, need higher-quality staff to care for them.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, the Government’s proposals will allow childminders, for example, to look after six babies at any one time: two aged six months and another four aged 12 months. Does the Minister think that it is possible for one childminder singlehandedly to provide safe, good-quality care for such a group of babies? If so, what evidence have the Government examined to support this, and to form their view that this will not be detrimental to the development of those children?

[Lord Nash]

As I said, the evidence is clear that high-quality childminders are what we need. The ratios that we propose compare favourably with those of other countries that we have visited. We will take these matters into account in the consultation.

[Baroness Deech]

Does the Minister agree that it is quite unrealistic to expect women to take half the seats in boardrooms and half the top jobs if there is no affordable childcare? Does he agree that, while one may quibble about changes in ratios, there is also too much pressure on women these days to stay at home and be perfect mothers? What steps will the Government take to make sure that, as in other European countries, there is ample affordable childcare to allow women who want to go to work to fulfil their potential?

[Lord Nash]

We are taking steps with our two year-old offer. I agree with the noble Baroness, and Polly Toynbee herself points out that British mothers have one of the lowest employment rates in the OECD because we have the third most expensive childcare, often of mediocre quality. We believe that our proposals will go some way to solving this problem.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, does the Minister remember, or has he read, the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, on children with special needs, many of whom are concentrated in less advantaged backgrounds? Would he agree with me that those people providing childcare, whether they are carers at home or in provided accommodation, ought to be able to devote time to individual children? I am sure that the noble Lord would not be quite so sanguine had he done the job of bringing up very small children, not even family members, in difficult circumstances.

[Lord Nash]

I have not read the report to which the noble Baroness refers, but I shall now do so, and I thank her for pointing it out to me. I go back to the point about quality. The EYFS is an inclusive framework for all children, which specifically requires that providers implement policies and procedures that promote equality of opportunity for all children, including those with SEN disabilities. Since 2012, the EYFS has included a new progress check for all two year-olds to identify early their specific needs.

Health: Cancer Drugs Fund

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:22

Asked By

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to replace the cancer drugs fund with a new scheme.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and refer noble Lords to my health interests.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, we will ensure that there are arrangements in place from 2014 to protect individual patients receiving treatment with drugs funded by the cancer drugs fund. From April 2013, the NHS Commissioning Board will take on oversight of the fund. For the longer term, we are considering ways in which patients can continue to benefit from drugs provided through the fund, at a cost that represents value to the NHS.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, my understanding is that the Government’s original intention was that the fund would be replaced from January 2014. Can I take it from the Minister’s response that the Government are no longer continuing with the introduction of value-based pricing for drug remuneration in future?

[Earl Howe]

No, my Lords, negotiations are now in train with the pharmaceutical industry with a view to introducing a value-based pricing scheme for medicines licensed after 31 December this year. That is still the Government’s intention.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, as regards the introduction of value-based pricing, can the Minister confirm whether cancer patients will be consulted about the definition of value within that concept? Can he confirm that the impact on quality of life will be included in the assessment of value?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we consulted on our proposals for value-based pricing between December 2010 and March 2011, and as part of that process a number of patient organisations contributed their views, which were reflected in the Government’s response to the consultation, published in July 2011.

[Lord Turnberg]

My Lords, what will happen to the panels of cancer experts that gave such valuable advice to SHAs about which drugs should be provided?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, when the arrangements for the cancer drugs fund pass to the NHS Commissioning Board in April, there will be standard operating procedures for the fund, which will provide greater consistency of access across the country while also preserving the right of clinicians to request any drug that they think will help a patient. The standard operating procedures will be published very shortly, and the noble Lord will then receive a fuller answer to his question.

[Lord St John of Bletso]

My Lords, can the Minister elaborate on what reports, if any, have been produced from the Chemotherapy Intelligence Unit in Oxford on the efficacy of the cancer drugs fund? What will be done for those patients who have received relief from this fund for their treatment in future?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very important point because clinical audit of the drugs in the cancer drugs fund and their use will be extremely important in informing the use of these drugs going forward and, indeed, in determining their price under a value-based pricing scheme. As yet we have not heard from the Oxford Cancer Intelligence Unit although I understand that we will receive a preliminary report quite soon. However, as I mentioned earlier, when the current fund comes to an end we will ensure that those patients who are receiving drugs under it will continue to do so.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that the cancer drugs fund has been very helpful? Will he find some way of getting more orphan drugs for the very rare cancers, because that is a problem?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Baroness raises another important point about orphan drugs and indeed ultra-orphan drugs as they are termed—drugs which are efficacious and helpful for patients with very rare conditions. It is likely that we will need to put special arrangements in place for the pricing of those drugs. Overall, however, I agree with the noble Baroness that the cancer drugs fund has been immensely helpful. So far, since October 2010, the funding has helped more than 28,000 patients in England to access the cancer drugs that their clinicians recommended, which they would not have done otherwise.

[Lord Patel]

Will the Minister confirm that whatever new arrangements are put in place will be on the same principle and basis as the current cancer drugs fund?

[Earl Howe]

I cannot confirm that we will replicate the current cancer drugs fund in its entirety—no decision has been taken—but we are clear about the principle behind the fund. The reason for creating it in the first place was to help the thousands of cancer patients and clinicians who were having difficulty accessing some cancer drugs mainly as a result of funding constraints. I assure the noble Lord that we will continue to retain that thought very much at the front of our minds.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, can the noble Earl assure the House that the introduction of a value-based pricing system will not delay the introduction of new drugs into the UK, given that the current system of remuneration for drug companies provides a clear incentive for early introduction in this country as opposed to other countries in Europe?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. That, again, is a point that we are bearing very closely in mind in our discussions with the industry.

Pesticides: Bees

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:28

Asked By

[Lord Moynihan]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to support European Commission proposals, to be discussed at the Standing Committee on Phytopharmaceuticals on 14 March, to reduce the use of a range of neonicotinoid pesticides hazardous to honey bees.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley)]

My Lords, the Government take very seriously the need to protect honey bees and other pollinators. We are completing our scientific assessment of neonicotinoids and have carried out new field trials. We have urged the Commission to base any proposal on a proper assessment of the science and not to make a hasty decision which might have significant knock-on impacts. We have concerns about the Commission’s current proposal as it does not appear to follow this course.

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, given that the European Commission is not proposing an outright ban on neonicotinoids but recommending their suspension, under the precautionary principle of using just three pesticides on crops attractive to honey bees as further research is undertaken, will my noble friend the Minister explain to the House why France, Germany, Italy and other European countries will support the recommendations of the European Food Safety Authority, which has concluded that these insecticides pose “an unacceptable danger” to bees? If we vote against this proposal tomorrow, there is scientific evidence that British bees, already in serious decline, will suffer.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend not only for his Question today but for his long-standing interest and for initiating a recent debate in your Lordships’ House on bees. I assure noble Lords that, contrary to what they may read in the press, we approach this question with an open mind. We are, indeed, doing further analysis on fieldwork we have had carried out specifically to address this issue because it is vital that what we do is proportionate and based on the science.

[Lord Willoughby de Broke]

My Lords, I declare my interest as an arable farmer in Warwickshire. I should like to ask two questions. First, can the noble Lord confirm that there is currently no other valid protection for seeds other than neonicotinoids? Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, will he please follow the recommendations of the Government’s own committee, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides? In July last year, its minutes stated:

“The ACP had reviewed the evidence currently available. It was noted that this evidence did not include any evidence of significant impacts in practice in the UK. Based on the current evidence ACP had concluded that there was no justification for regulatory action at present”.

Can the Government confirm that they will follow the recommendations of that committee?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord’s first question about whether there is any other valid form of protection for seeds, neonicotinoids are, as I understand it, the prime seed dressing. Yes, that is the case. However, there are other treatments such as pyrethroids, which can be applied after the crop has been planted, although there is increasing evidence that the pests we are talking about are becoming resistant to pyrethroids. That is a concern. In answer to his other question about taking the advice of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, that is precisely why we are doing extra fieldwork.

[Lord Glenarthur]

My Lords, what has been the reduction, if any, in the bee population over the past few years? Is there any particular threat to the availability of honey in this country as a result?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the whole point of this debate is that it is quite finely balanced. That is why we are doing extra fieldwork. As to whether there is an effect on the honey harvest, it is difficult to say because we do not have categoric evidence that there is an unacceptable level of harm to bees.

[Lord Christopher]

My Lords, if I may answer the previous question, this is not about the availability of honey; it is about pollinators. If these chemicals are damaging bees, they are damaging other pollinators at the same time. Is the noble Lord aware of the five principal problems that appear to be arising from the use of these chemicals: fatally late swarming activity, large numbers of virgin queens not returning to the colony after mating, failure of mated queens to continue to lay fertilised eggs, a high proportion of queens producing only unfertilised “male” eggs, and abnormal supersedure?

[Lord De Mauley]

First, I categorically agree with the noble Lord that we need to talk about all pollinators. Bees are an important pollinator, but there are several other important ones. As regards his other question, those are assertions that have come out of eminently acceptable laboratory trials. Our proposal is that what is needed, and what is lacking, is evidence of what actually happens in the field.

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, given that multiple threats face these important pollinators, do the Government plan to introduce a national bee strategy to reverse the decline in bee numbers?

[Lord De Mauley]

That is an important question. There is a considerable body of government-funded work that benefits bee species and other important pollinators, but we are open-minded about the introduction of what I might call a holistic strategy. My noble friend will be pleased to hear that I am meeting Friends of the Earth on Tuesday to discuss our current work and to get a better understanding of whether there is added value in bringing it all together in a holistic strategy, such as that organisation’s proposed national bee action plan, or what the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, might like to call a national pollinator action plan.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, as your Lordships know, bees as pollinators play an essential part in the lifecycle of the fruit and vegetables that we eat. The honey bee is just one of 276 native species of bee, all of which are under threat from the combination of agricultural practice, disease and pesticides. In his department’s negotiations with the EU to reduce hazards to bees, what is the Minister aiming to achieve to protect wild bees, such as the bumble bee that pollinates tomatoes and the long-tongued bees needed to pollinate field beans? As we have heard, with Friends of the Earth calling for a national bee action plan, does he agree that it is finally time for a “plan bee”?

[Lord De Mauley]

That was suggested to me this morning and I pointed out that it might not be something the Government would want to call it. The noble Lord makes several very interesting points, most of which I have forgotten in the hilarity. I thank him for his points.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that neonicotinoids are applied as a seed dressing and are therefore in the soil? One of the questions the Government need to look at under the precautionary principle is how long they last in the soil as they are lethal not only to bees but to many of the invertebrates that live in that soil.

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords, and indeed persistence in soil is one of the tests that is considered.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall]

My Lords, going back to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, does the noble Lord agree that among the many things that are important in preserving and developing the health and safety of bees is the increase in domestic beekeeping and encouraging people who have gardens to garden with an eye to what is good for bees? Do the Government have any plans to encourage people in either of those areas?

[Lord De Mauley]

I am very happy to say that I do encourage people. When we had the debate the other day I said to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who was leading for the Opposition, that I was sorely tempted, when I finished doing my current job, to become a beekeeper myself. The proposed national bee action plan could well be the sort of forum one needs to get a ground swell of opinion behind such an idea.

Global Green Growth Institute (Legal Capacities) Order 2013

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:36

Moved by

[Baroness Northover]

That the draft order laid before the House on 29 January be approved.

Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 6 March.

Motion agreed.

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Motions to Approve

15:37

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4 February be approved.

Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 7 March.

Motions agreed.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Report

15:37

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord True]

1: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Royal marriages: heirs of the body
(1) A marriage is a Royal Marriage for the purposes of establishing the claim of any person to succeed to the Crown as heir to the body if that Marriage is a marriage between a man and a woman.
(2) A person is disqualified from succeeding to the Crown as an heir to the body of a Royal Marriage if they are not the offspring of both parties to that Marriage.
(3) This section does not apply in any case where both Houses of Parliament pass a resolution to the effect that it shall not apply.”

[Lord True]

My Lords, as this amendment was on the Marshalled List in Committee I can be brief, because I set out the detailed points then. However, I repeat that I do not make these points in relation to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill and would deplore any attempt to obstruct that Bill by invocation of any issue involving the Crown. I believe that that would be a dereliction of Parliament’s duty.

My concern arises from the security of the 17th century term “heir of the body”, the governing definition for the right to succession, as it might be constructively tested in the courts in modern conditions: namely, the emerging legislation for same-sex marriage and the techniques of surrogate childbirth. On the first, it will clearly be lawful for a monarch or an existing heir of the body to enter into a same-sex marriage when that Act becomes law. After all, one hesitates to imagine the circumstances in which either Clause 3(3) of this Bill were used to frustrate an intended same-sex marriage —a novel interference with rights, as others have pointed out—thereby denying that person succession to the Throne, or indeed where there was no intervention and the marriage was accepted in some of the realms and not others.

In such circumstances, the then Prime Minister would find himself in the uncomfortable position of Lord Salisbury in 1890, when Queen Victoria suddenly became enthusiastic about a possible Catholic marriage for the second in line to the Throne. I do not want to take this issue further; I simply lay on the record the potential for conflict.

However, I do want to pursue the issue that follows inevitably from the possibility of a lawful same-sex marriage. From that, and indeed from the position of a royal couple who cannot conceive a child, there follows the question of whether a child could be argued, in the 17th-century language, to be an heir of the body. I pointed out in Committee that the relevant statute refers to an heir of the body being defined from one person, not from both, in a couple.

In Committee and in a most courteous letter to me, my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace, whom I thank for his handling of the Bill, which has been outstanding, said:

“Only a natural-born child of a husband and wife can succeed to the Throne”.—[Official Report, 28/2/13; col. 1217.]

If that is so, and it has always been understood to be the position, those words would also exclude any claim to becoming a monarch made in the future by a child born of a Queen—an heir of the body of a Queen—who was not engendered by the sperm of a consort, even though that would-be heir might have been from an egg of the Queen, carried by the Queen and born of the body of the Queen in a lawful same-sex marriage. We all agree that that is the common law. I simply ask whether the common law is proof against any claim to a right that might be entertained in future, either in the European Court of Human Rights or anywhere else. It need not arise directly in the case of an existing heir but in a less proximate person, who then, by accident, became the heir to the Throne.

In his letter to me, my noble and learned friend said that the European Court of Human Rights would not entertain such a claim because the right to succeed is not a family right, a property right or a civil right. Let us hope that that is so, although it is territory into which I am not qualified to go. He further argues, however, by citing to me the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2005, that an heir of a Queen’s body alone could not succeed. I raised this in Committee and referred to it as being potentially less than conclusive as a defence of the definition of “heir of the body”, given the nature of the drafting of the statute.

The relevant section refers to,

“any dignity or title of honour”.

The words “of honour” were left out in my noble friend’s letter, although I think they are significant as, by my interpretation, honour is surely something that flows from the Crown. My noble and learned friend also argues that a lesser dignity must surely encompass a greater dignity. Again, I am not qualified to answer that question, but clearly removal of any doubt as to whether the Crown is encompassed in that 2005 Act would simply solve the matter. It would debar an heir of the Queen’s body who was not the genetic heir of the monarch and his or her consort in whatever form of marriage.

Amendment 9 in the name of my noble friend Lord Elton, which I support, picks up the point that I made on this in Committee and suggests a simple amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. It would not offend against the Perth agreement, as it simply clarifies beyond doubt what the Government and most of us in this House believe to be the law, and it fireproofs it against attack.

It may be that these occasions seem remote but, as history shows, nothing is ever certain. In Committee, I raised the d’Este case—a challenge for legitimacy by the son of Queen Victoria’s uncle, the Duke of Sussex—as an example of a would-be royal heir having recourse to the law. Although my noble friend argued that he did not appeal to the courts, he did appeal to your Lordships’ Committee for Privileges, which was, and still is, the appropriate place for the test of a peerage.

My noble and learned friend, in his letter, says that Sir Augustus did not challenge the legitimacy of the Royal Marriages Act. That is technically correct, but he was arguing that his parents’ marriage, and therefore his right to succession, was valid on other grounds in that the Royal Marriages Act did not apply. It would be a parallel case for a future claimant to go the courts here or abroad to argue that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act did not rule out his or her legitimate claim.

Human nature is such that what happened once, however unlikely it may seem, might happen again. Given that it is the duty of Parliament to relieve the monarchy of any potential controversy, this matter could and should be put beyond doubt. I believe that my noble and learned friend has offered a simple way to do that. While I shall not in any circumstances be pressing my amendment to a Division—I never intended to do so—I support my noble and learned friend in seeking to clarify the 2005 Act beyond all doubt. If it is not appropriate to do it in this Bill—I have heard that argument from the Front Bench—I hope that this potential loophole can quietly and efficiently be closed some time in the future. I beg to move.

15:45

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, my amendment has been grouped so that the first and last stand together. My noble friend has fully explained the circumstances that make the amendment necessary. He has traced the identification of the monarch from the Act of Settlement through various other Acts to the present. The question is whether that is a continuous and incontestable line or whether there is doubt thrown upon it. He has demonstrated that there is doubt—a point that I picked up in Committee. Doubt is thrown on it by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. We have discussed that in Committee but there are rather more noble Lords here than there were on that day, so it is worth repeating that Section 48(7) of the HFEA 2008 recites what is not to be altered or touched by what is in that Act.

The two things caught out are titles and other honours. To the lay mind, that does not embrace the possession of the Crown, which is the subject of this Bill, and therefore does not seem to offer any of the protection that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate says that it offers. I cannot see the principle by which it could. The principle will apply to the 1987 Act—that is in the same letter from the Lord Advocate referred to by my noble friend. Another letter refers to “us”—being the Government—and the Lord Advocate says that the, “lesser includes the greater”. I think that was the phrase. If that is right, my noble and learned friend should know that that brings instantly to my mind an image of a bar, other than the one to which he was called, and a quart being poured into a pint pot with an awful mess on the taproom floor. The greater surely includes the lesser, rather than the other way round. However, that is irrelevant because that referred to another Act, and he did not advance that argument in the case of this Act.

My simple point is that the Act that the Government say purports to provide protection for the succession of the Crown does not do so. It specifically mentions other objects. Incidentally, my noble and learned friend referred to this in Committee, almost subliminally. If I were a psychiatrist, I would be interested to know how he would interpret the fact that he said:

“The Bill will maintain the position under the Adoption Act and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 referred to above. It will not change the way the Crown, or titles”—

not “and”, but “or titles”—

“or dignities, descend”.—[Official Report, 28/2/13; col. 1217.]

It seems to me that that betrays the fact that it is a separate concept; it is not contained in that definition. Therefore, I ask my noble and learned friend to consider before Third Reading putting in the words of my amendment, which would clarify this beyond doubt. Even if my noble and learned friend and the Government think that this is unnecessary—like him, if I embrace the lesser and the greater—it is still not harmful. If they are wrong and we are right, it needs to be done.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I broadly support my noble friend Lord True in his amendment. Indeed, at an earlier stage of my deliberations about today’s proceedings, I thought of tabling an amendment to do something similar to what he is now proposing. Having read my noble friend’s amendment, however, I thought better of it and withdrew my amendment for the time being.

My only reservation about my noble friend’s amendment is proposed new subsection (3) of the new clause, which says that the proposed new section,

“should not apply in any case where both Houses of Parliament pass a resolution to the effect that it shall not apply”.

I would have thought that proposed new subsections (1) and (2) were absolute considerations, thought to apply willy-nilly, and Parliament ought not to have the right to overturn them. However, that is a small point compared to the principle of what he is proposing, which, in general, I support.

[Lord Jopling]

My Lords, I am afraid that I have not been able to play a part in the earlier consideration of this Bill. However, I looked at proposed new subsection (2) of my noble friend Lord True’s amendment, which says:

“A person is disqualified from succeeding to the Crown as an heir to the body of a Royal Marriage if they are not the offspring of both parties to that Marriage”.

That takes me back 20 years when, in another place down the Corridor, I had cause to study the embryology Bill, which was going through the Commons at that time. A constituency case came to me of a couple who had found that they could not have a child; the lady had no uterus, but she ovulated. They therefore found a surrogate mother and had the egg from the wife, which was fertilised by the husband, implanted in the surrogate mother. In this case, the surrogate mother gave birth to twins. My constituents brought the twins back to have them registered, and the registrar of births, deaths and marriages said, “Sorry, although you may be the genetic parents of these children, you are going to have to adopt them”. They said, “Don’t be so stupid—we are the genetic parents. Why should we have to adopt our own children?”. This was an anomaly that I took up and caused that Bill to be changed with the help of my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke, who was the Home Secretary at the time. The change meant that in a case such as that, if an application were made to the High Court, a judge could deem that parents of children who were the genetic offspring of those parents were full parents by an order of the judge in the High Court. That, as far as I understand it, is still the law.

My question to the Minister, thinking of my noble friend’s amendment, is: what would happen in a case like that, where the offspring of both parents are created in circumstances such as the ones I just described? Would it be necessary for the royal parents to apply to the High Court? Surrogacy is becoming much more common and it is not impossible that this could happen in the future. In this sort of circumstance, when the child of a royal marriage was created in this way, would it be necessary to apply to the High Court for that child to be deemed, in the words of the amendment, the “offspring of both parties”? It is rather important that this should be clarified now because it could give rise to considerable difficulties in the future.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, this is an interesting discussion but, as the House will know, the Bill has three purposes, all of which are about changing the succession to the Crown. One is to allow women to inherit if they are the eldest; the second is to allow people not to have to forgo their place in respect of the Throne if they were to marry a Catholic; and the third is to allow people to maintain their position should they marry, in certain circumstances, without the monarch’s permission. Those are the three changes to the laws of succession. It seems to us that nothing in the Bill alters the current position that only a natural-born child of a husband and wife can succeed to the Throne. Interesting though these questions are, we would not seek to have them included in this Bill and therefore do not support these amendments.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord True and Lord Elton for bringing forward these amendments. As my noble friend Lord True said, he brought forward a very similar amendment in Committee and it is important that he has given us an opportunity to debate these issues again. Following on from the Committee stage, I assure my noble friend and the House that I have given this matter thought. It is an important matter. When the phrase “heirs of the body” was incorporated into the Act of Settlement no one could conceivably—possibly—have anticipated the kind of advances that we have seen in the past 50 years, which raise these kind of issues, particularly with regard to human fertilisation and embryology.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, the laws governing succession to the Crown require that the descendant be the natural-born child of a husband and wife. As I indicated in Committee and, indeed, as I said to my noble friend Lord True in the letter from which he quoted:

“Although the Adoption Act 1976 and the Family Law Reform Act 1987 refer only to the succession of titles being left unchanged by their reforms, the Lord Chancellor stated at Second Reading of the Bill that became the 1987 Act that there was no intention to alter the rules on the descent of the Crown”.—[Official Report, 28/2/13; col. 1217.]

My noble friend Lord Elton raised the important point about Section 48(7) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 concerning England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which has the effect that nothing in the sections concerning parenthood in cases of artificial reproduction,

“affects the succession to any dignity or title … or renders any person capable of succeeding to or transmitting a right to succeed to any such dignity or title”.

Although I acknowledge that the Crown is not expressly mentioned, it is the Government’s view—we have given this considerable thought, and the phrase “the lesser must include the greater” has already been used—that if titles are not affected by this then, a fortiori, neither is the Crown. Therefore, we do not believe that there is a need for this amendment.

The Government also consider it unnecessary to define marriage as is set out in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause under this amendment, as only a natural-born child of a husband and wife can succeed to the Throne. We believe that that is clear as a matter of common law, as I think my noble friend Lord True acknowledged. I do not think that my noble friend referred to this in moving his amendment, but my noble friend Lord Trefgarne did pick up on proposed new subsection (3), on which I was going to reflect, because I think my noble friend Lord True said that the last thing that he wanted to do was engender controversy. I fear that this could become quite a controversial matter if Parliament is asked to pass a resolution on whether proposed new subsections (1) and (2) would apply, but it may be that he was not particularly pressing that leg of his amendment.

16:00

My noble friend also mentioned, as he did in Committee, the issue of a court challenge being brought concerning the meaning of “heirs of the body” in the Act of Settlement, and he inquired whether we were certain that this term in the Act of Settlement would not be widened by the courts. I think perhaps he had in mind a case brought in the domestic courts on the possible application of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act as an aid to interpret the legislation. A claim based on constructive interpretation of the Act of Settlement using Section 3 of the Human Rights Act takes us back to the issue of whether any convention rights would indeed be engaged in these situations.

I reassure both my noble friend and the House that, as the Explanatory Notes to the Bill make clear, it is the Government’s view that the right to succeed to the Crown does not fall within any of the convention rights, not being a property right, a family right or a civil right. Indeed, there is some elaboration on that point in the Explanatory Notes. Rather, it is a public right to the office of head of state and if, as the Government believe, the convention rights are not engaged, the Government also believe that the court would not adopt a constructive interpretation using Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 so as to include a person who is conceived using a donor.

As far as a claim at the European Court of Human Rights is concerned, we do not believe that convention rights are engaged. In any event, we believe that it is clear from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights that decisions on a state’s constitutional arrangements, such as succession to the Throne, are a matter for the state and not for that court.

My noble friend Lord Jopling raised an important point born of his experience as a distinguished Member for Westmoreland, if I remember correctly. I say to him and my noble friends Lord True and Lord Elton that of course these are important issues and I will consider them again. I particularly want to consider the point raised by my noble friend Lord Jopling. I will write to him and others who have contributed to this debate because these points are important.

[Lord Elton]

Before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps he could clear up one thing in my mind. I certainly support my noble friend but if he were to withdraw at a later stage, I would be minded to continue unless I was satisfied.

My noble and learned friend has again rested importance on the definition within the HFEA 2008, but he preceded that by saying that the real defence was in the interpretation of “heirs of the body” and “natural-born”. Therefore, that is not relevant, if that is the full defence. If the lesser must include the greater, the Crown is the fount of honour and if you imagine it as just that—a spring of water—it can be pure until he upsets his picnic basket into it. It seems to me that the picnic basket defence is in what he proposes but the actual spring water is not protected.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Without a lot of thought, I am not sure that I want to embrace that particular analogy. The point I was seeking to make was that if the transmission of a title of the peerage is not affected by the developments that appear in the legislation, a fortiori nor should the succession to the Crown be affected. It is obviously far more significant—I am searching for the right adjective—and of far greater importance than the transmission of a title. Therefore, our belief is that that would not be affected and that in this case the lesser must include the greater.

I have also indicated that with regard to the heirs of the body, it is the position, which my noble friend Lord True accepted, that only a natural-born child of a husband and wife can succeed to the Throne. That is quite clear as a matter of common law. He then went on, as my noble friend has done, to raise more recent statutes. However, as I have indicated, my noble friend Lord Jopling raised an important point about where the child is the natural child of the mother and father. I want to reflect on that; it is only proper to do so. I shall certainly advise and write to my noble friend, and copy the letter to others who have taken part in this debate. On that basis, I invite my noble friends not to press their amendments.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend and all those who have contributed to this short debate. I fully accept the comments made on subsection (3) of the new clause proposed by my amendment.

As I said at the outset, I do intend to press this matter, although I remain troubled even after what my noble and learned friend has said. I make it clear to him that, although I accept his argument that a marriage is a man and a woman and natural-born child thereof as a matter of common law, my concern arises that, as the law may evolve, that understanding may be challenged. I hoped and thought that I had made that clear to your Lordships. Once same-sex marriage becomes part of the settled life of our kingdom, the law will inevitably evolve in response to that reality. A birth of this kind would not be open to a monarch who was in a same-sex marriage. The question would therefore arise about whether such a monarch could have a legitimate heir of the body.

This may seem fanciful to some; it may seem long in the future. However, I believe that Parliament should reflect on the points made in this debate—I was grateful to hear my noble and learned friend say that he would do so—including on the very important point raised by my noble friend Lord Jopling.

The position as I understand it as a layman is that there are certain defences against a potential claim. One is the common law, which may or may not evolve and which may or may not be challenged in the European courts. I hear what my noble and learned friend said, although I have heard that said about many other things which have come to be challenged in the European courts. Furthermore, as I said, the position may not be challenged absolutely on the question at the moment of succession; it could be a matter that arises within the Royal Family. A right is established, and then a right of family and right of property, and then, by accident, that person at a later stage becomes the heir to the Throne. I remain a little concerned as to whether that is a defence.

I heard what my noble and learned friend said about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. I was extremely grateful for the assurances that he gave and the promise to look at it further. The Crown to my mind is something sui generis; the law of the Crown is something separate. It seems to me, as a humble layman construing that reference to dignity and titles of honour, that that was not intended to refer to the Crown.

Therefore, the question potentially lies open and I submit with respect to your Lordships that, at some stage in the future, the matter should be closed. I do not intend to press my amendment, but I shall watch with interest what my noble friend Lord Elton may do at a later stage. However, I hope that, at some point, any scintilla of uncertainty—and I believe that there is uncertainty—will be removed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendment 1A

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

1A: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Succession to the Duchy of Cornwall not to depend on gender
In determining the succession to the Duchy of Cornwall, the gender of a person born after 28 October 2011 does not give that person, or that person’s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever born).”

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, this amendment was tabled in Committee. My purpose in tabling it again today is gently to take issue with the Minister on one aspect of his letter to noble Lords dated 7 March in connection with the title of the Duke of Cornwall. Before I do that, I draw your Lordships’ attention to this wonderful statement on page 2 of his letter, which says:

“The Crown is the source of all honour and dignity”.

That is absolutely wonderful. It reminds me of the inhabitants of the town of Titipu in “The Mikado”, who defer to the Lord High Executioner. I wish we could move on from some of the Crown’s “all honour and dignity” because part of the Crown is the Government, as we all know.

Turning to the issue I want to raise, page 1 of the Minister’s letter states:

“The title of the Duke of Cornwall can only pass to the eldest son and heir of the monarch”.

I have had some interesting advice from a public notary called John Kirkhope, who is a real expert on these issues. He challenges this statement. He says that the charter establishing the Duchy of Cornwall was dated 1337 and is in Latin. He has kindly given me a 14-page translation, which I will not read out, but if the Minister wants a copy I will be pleased to give him one. Basically, he says that there is precedent for other options besides what the Minister says in the letter. Mr Kirkhope says,

“if I am King and have two sons A and B, A would be Duke of Cornwall. If A dies before becoming King making B Heir Apparent, B would not be the Duke of Cornwall”.

However, he goes on:

“The eldest son of Henry VII, Arthur, died before becoming King leaving his younger brother Henry as Heir. Henry VII got Parliament to agree that his son Henry should become Duke of Cornwall. The eldest son of James I, Henry, died before becoming king leaving a younger brother Charles. In this case James I got the courts to agree that Charles should become Duke of Cornwall”.

It seems that in those days the eldest living son of the sovereign would become heir to the title of Duke of Cornwall, so the devolution of the title has already been varied from that envisaged in the founding charter. I cannot see why this variation should not be applied today. It is consistent with the devolution of the Duchy of Lancaster, the title of which is always with the sovereign, regardless of gender. I suggest that it would be perfectly reasonable for Parliament simply to change the rules to say that the heir to the Throne is the Duke of Cornwall. I beg to move.

[Lord Lexden]

My Lords, we are deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for raising this important matter again. A valuable discussion took place in Committee, drawing attention to the fact that the Duchy and its properties tend to flourish most conspicuously when they have a Duke in charge of them. They have been particularly blessed and fortunate in this regard since the 1950s with the current Duke, the Prince of Wales, at the helm. Incidentally, this was also true under the previous Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, who later and briefly became Edward VIII. The tenants of his Kennington estates were the envy of those who rented their homes from London County Council.

Our discussion in Committee also established that the experience gained by the heir to the Throne in administering the Duchy estates is invaluable in equipping him for his wider duties. So why not for “him” read “or her”? The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has consulted experts, as he told us, about the Duchy’s founding charter laid in Parliament in 1337. It is clear from what he has told us today that the charter has not remained inviolate over the centuries. Should Parliament not be invited to change the charter again, to incorporate the principle of gender equality, which is one of the founding principles of this Bill? The Bill itself may not be the vehicle for making the change. If not, will my noble and learned friend give a commitment that a measure to provide for it will be introduced? Its rapid progression through both Houses could hardly be in doubt, although I hesitate to use that dreaded term “fast-tracked”.

16:15

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I support the principle underlying the amendment. It seems to me the logical extension of the principle underlying the Bill itself, but I can see that this might not be the most suitable vehicle for bringing about a reform which I continue to regard as being very desirable in itself. I will not repeat the reasons which I gave in Committee for taking that view. If the amendment is not accepted now, I hope that the council of the Duchy of Cornwall, with the help of the Government, will consider introducing legislation to amend the ancient charter to enable that principle to be effected.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I, too, broadly support the principle behind the amendment, but I ask my noble and learned friend about a related matter which I raised in Committee but did not get a full and clear answer. Is it in order and open to the sovereign to confer on his or her eldest daughter the princessdom, if I may call it that, of Wales? We know that the princedom of Wales is in the gift of the sovereign—my noble and learned friend explained that at the previous stage, but he was not clear whether it could go through the female line if that was the wish and view of the sovereign of the day. I hope that he can help me with that.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, as we said in Committee, the Duchy is about property, business, title and, indeed, money. Although we agree that those are, as my noble friend said, important issues and we would undoubtedly welcome the end of the inequality—the mistreatment, we might say, of women—as regards the Duchy, they do not concern the Crown succession and therefore, along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, we feel that they are not appropriate for the Bill.

I also repeat the comment that I made in Committee in response to the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, about the experience that that gives to a monarch. I said then that the current monarch has done extraordinarily well without having had that title. Perhaps we can take this moment to hope that she is soon fully recovered.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I immediately associate myself with those wishes of full recovery to Her Majesty. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for raising the issue, which gave rise to a very good debate in Committee. I certainly valued the input from those who contributed, as I have today, on what is a very important issue with a great historic heritage. The noble Lord referred to the founding charter of 1337 and offered to pass me a copy. I was not sure whether he was going to pass me a copy in Latin or the translation. My higher in Latin from 40-odd years ago is probably so rusty that the translation would be better.

As I sought to explain in Committee, the Dukedom of Cornwall can pass only to the eldest son and heir of the monarch. I will come back to the points made about the exceptions to that. Therefore, when Her Majesty was Heir Presumptive as Princess Elizabeth, she did not hold the title of Duke of Cornwall, and we believe that the position would be the same now if there were a female heir, because of the terms of the charter. It is important to bear in mind that, because of limitation to the eldest son and heir of the monarch, the title cannot pass to a younger brother. The two exceptions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—that of Henry VIII, Prince Henry when his brother, Prince Arthur, died and of Charles I, then Prince Charles, when his elder brother, Prince Henry, I think, died—were interesting. The noble Lord made it clear that exceptional steps were taken. That almost proves the point that it was not an automatic transfer of the dukedom. In the case of Charles I—Prince Charles, as he then was—King James asked the courts to make the alteration.

I also indicated that if the monarch has a son who is the heir apparent and that son dies before the monarch leaving a son of his own, the grandson of the monarch, the grandson will become heir apparent, but will not become Duke of Cornwall because he is not the son of the monarch.

It was recognised by those who contributed to the debate that this Bill is not the vehicle for making some pretty fundamental changes to a charter that has not changed, with two exceptions over the years involving parliamentary or court intervention on a one-off basis—if you can call Henry VIII a one-off. To make fundamental change is not the purpose of this Bill.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, asked whether I can give a guarantee that the Government will bring forward legislation. I am afraid I am not in a position to do that. A huge amount of consultation would be required before we were in a position to do that.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, the purpose of this Bill is important, but very limited. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to use this Bill as a vehicle to change the charter. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Lexden on the valuable experience which the present Prince of Wales has undoubtedly had with regard to his involvement in the duchy. I shall reiterate something that I said in Committee: although the title cannot pass to a female heir, there is nothing to stop her being actively involved in the running of the duchy or, should the reigning monarch so wish, chairing the Prince’s Council. If that was what the monarch wished, that would be entirely possible and would give that valuable experience to which my noble friend Lord Lexden referred.

My noble friend Lord Trefgarne asked about the creation of the Princess of Wales. As he acknowledged, the title of Prince of Wales is not automatically conferred on the heir apparent on his mother or father becoming sovereign. In the case of the present Prince of Wales, it was bestowed upon him some six years after the accession of our present Queen. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said—my noble friend disagreed with the disparaging way it was put—the Crown is the source of all honour and dignity, and I agree with him. It would be a matter for the sovereign, but if the Crown is the source of all honour and dignity and the sovereign chose to establish a Princess of Wales, it would be a matter for the sovereign. However, I do not think it is very helpful to speculate on what might happen at a future date.

For those reasons, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. It seems to me that there is a precedent for Parliament or the courts to change what is in the original charter. It is quite clear that the sovereign, Parliament or the Government—because the sovereign and the Government are both Crown, the same Crown, under certain circumstances—can make this change if they so wish, so the whole thing probably does not matter anyway. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1A withdrawn.

Clause 2 : Removal of disqualification arising from marriage to a Roman Catholic

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Lord Cormack]

2: Clause 2, page 1, line 7, at end insert “, provided the statutory requirement that any child of such marriage is brought up as an Anglican is maintained”

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I introduced a similar amendment, but in different words, in Committee. We had an interesting, and at times quite lively, debate, and I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Deben is not here because I was rather looking forward to crossing swords with him on this one.

The amendment has one very simple but extremely important aim. I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lords, Lord Luce and Lord Fellowes, both of whom spoke in the previous debate, for discussing the wording of the amendment, which is entirely my responsibility of course, before I tabled it. I am also very grateful indeed to my noble friend the Minister, who is exemplary on these matters, for taking the trouble to have a conversation on this last night.

As I say, the aim is simple. This afternoon, as on every day on which we begin our proceedings with Prayers, we pray for the peace and tranquillity of the realm. It seems very important that any constitutional measure should be conducive to the peace and tranquillity of the realm, and should anticipate difficulties. As it was with my noble friend Lord True’s amendment, there might well be no need to address these matters for many, many years. Who knows? However, the fact is that our sovereign is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and that is a very special position. I do not think that it could be adequately fulfilled by a regent during the life of a reigning monarch who was a reigning monarch in every other sense.

If we allow, as this Bill allows—and I do not oppose this; I want to make that plain—the heir or anyone in direct line of succession to the Throne to marry a Roman Catholic, which I repeat I accept, there has to be a provision whereby children of that union are brought up as Anglicans. I appreciate that some noble Lords might point out that the statutory requirement that I cite uses the word “Protestant” rather than “Anglican”. However, we have legislated for this in the past. It is important that if we are legislating for decades, maybe even centuries, to come—after all, the Act of Settlement was passed as long ago as 1701—we have to make adequate provision to ensure smooth continuity for the peace and tranquillity of the realm. It is in that sense that I commend this amendment to the House.

Some of us think that the Bill has been rather rushed, but let us leave that argument on one side. Some of us think perhaps that the consequences have not adequately been thought through, but let us leave that on one side. We are going to pass the Bill. I do not oppose the Bill, but I want it to be as foolproof as possible. I want it to anticipate, in so far as legislation possibly can. I want it to be a constitutional measure that will stand the test of time and of whatever circumstances might, in so far as we can possibly foresee, occur.

I repeat that am not opposed to the provision on female succession. I am not opposed at all to allowing the heir to the Throne to marry a Roman Catholic. However, we all know that there is a canon of the Roman Catholic Church that requires that the children of a union of a mixed marriage are brought up as Roman Catholics. There are many cases where that does not happen. I myself married a Roman Catholic. She in fact came over to the Church of England at a later date, but we had decided that we were going to bring our children up as Anglicans. It was obviously easier if she became an Anglican. At our wedding, I was not allowed to receive the sacrament. I make no complaint about that. I was in a very different position from the one I would have been in had I been a Roman Catholic and she, at that time, had been an Anglican.

16:31

If someone in direct succession to the Throne marries a Roman Catholic, there must be some sort of provision. I would hope that it could be enshrined in this Bill, before it becomes an Act of Parliament, to protect what one might call the status quo.

It is in that spirit that I move this amendment. There is no need for me to make a longer speech, because I rehearsed some of the other arguments in Committee. However, I hope that when he comes to respond my noble friend the Minister will be able to give me some comfort. I also hope that before this Bill completes its remaining stages—perhaps my noble friend can tell us when Third Reading is expected—we will have something in the Bill that will bring great comfort and encouragement to many people throughout this country who have high regard for Her Majesty, to whom we all send our greetings, not only as sovereign but as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. I beg to move.

[Baroness Flather]

My Lords, somewhat surprisingly, I will speak to this amendment. This is my adopted country, and I have much enjoyed living in it. I would not want to live in any other country, including my country of origin. One reason why I like living here is the ethos and the atmosphere, which are very much due to the Anglican Church. I totally support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, because if we had a Catholic heir to the Throne, that ethos and the kind of attitude that now prevails would change.

We also have to remember that the Anglican Church came about through reformation. Reformation means reforming something. If your Lordships are prepared to think about it, the Catholic Church is in dire need of reformation at this moment. There are so many things that people object to. Certainly, the treatment of women in the Catholic Church, especially in developing countries, is not acceptable. Catholics have great influence in Africa, although there are not that many Catholics there. Children are born even if there is no food for them, and people cannot use contraception. We are living in a world that is going round and round in circles. The biggest elephant in the room is population, and yet the Catholic Church is not willing to accept that this cannot go on for ever.

To have a Catholic heir to the Throne of this country would mean that this country would not be the same as we know it. It would certainly change totally, and I would not want it to change in that way. I want this country to grow and to evolve, not to change into a Catholic country.

[The Lord Bishop of Guildford]

My Lords, my contribution to the debate on the amendment in the name of my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, will be somewhat technical, because I speak as one who has been much involved in the official Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue since 1974. From time to time the Roman Catholic position on the children of so-called mixed marriages has arisen, and has been discussed in some detail, including the work of a special commission on that subject. I also declare an interest as a patron of the Association of Interchurch Families, and I have some modest understanding of both Anglican and Roman Catholic canon law.

The Government, through the Minister and in other ways, have very fairly, in my considered judgment, set out accurately the Roman Catholic position. We are also helped by the Archbishop of Westminster’s statement in this respect. According to Roman Catholic canon law, giving permission for a so-called mixed marriage is not a Vatican matter but one for what is called the local Ordinary: that is, the local bishop.

At the risk of a little canonical history, I must draw your Lordships’ attention to three documents and practice. In the old rules of the Roman Catholic Church on this subject, in the shape of the Code of Canon Law of 1917, the position was rigid and, I would say, harsh. This is no longer the case. The present code of 1983 speaks of “permission”, not “dispensation”. The old code also required the non-Catholic party in a marriage to promise that the children would be brought up as Roman Catholics. No such promise is required today. The Roman Catholic partner is asked to declare that they will do all in their power to ensure that any children are brought up as Roman Catholics, yet no sanction is applied to the canon, whereas the old code made the bishop’s dispensation for a mixed marriage dependent on the bishop’s moral certainty about the Catholic upbringing of the children. This is not the case now.

I will also touch briefly on practice in a more pragmatic way. Permissions for mixed marriages have been given even where it was foreseen that the promise could not be fulfilled in whole or in part. In making these points, I rely not only on my own past discussions of these questions over many years with officials, bishops, theologians and canonists of the Roman Catholic Church but on the authoritative interpretation of present Roman Catholic canon law offered in a magisterial commentary of no less that 1,952 pages published in 2000 by the Canon Law Society of America. It is the standard textbook in the English-speaking world.

Interestingly, on the question of the upbringing of children in these circumstances, the Roman Catholic canon lawyers quote the official Vatican ecumenical directory of 1993, which clearly indicates that the promise may not be expected to be completely fulfilled, or fulfilled at all, in every case. It states that a Roman Catholic partner can ecumenically fulfil their obligations as a faithful Catholic, short of insisting on the Roman Catholic formation of the children, because the unity of the marriage is more important. The Vatican document, quoted by the canon lawyers, speaks of the Catholic partner as,

“playing an active part in contributing to the Christian atmosphere of the home; doing all that is possible by word and example to enable the other members of the family to appreciate the specific values of the Catholic tradition; taking whatever steps are necessary to be informed about his own faith so as to be able to explain and discuss it with them”,

and–—this is the important bit ecumenically—

“praying with the family for the grace of Christian unity as the Lord wills it”.

In my judgment, this officially bears out the Government’s assurance that the Roman Catholic rules are not a block to the smooth functioning of the proposed succession rules.

I acknowledge that we are all conscious of the importance of avoiding all ambiguity for the future. I think that that ambiguity prompted a number of the amendments that we will debate today. Whether an assurance is given in the Bill, or whether it can be given now by the Minister or at a further stage of the Bill’s proceedings, I am sure that your Lordships’ House would wish all such possible ambiguity to be avoided for the future in the matter of the royal succession.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I oppose my noble friend’s amendment. I fully understand the Government’s decision not to use the Bill to remove the disqualification of a Catholic becoming the sovereign. However, I and others believe that the question should be revisited at some stage in the not too distant future because it is discriminatory and unnecessary. While I understand the arguments put by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, that the Catholic Church needs further reformation in places, they do not justify a discriminatory provision. I say that even in the context of the established church, for the reasons so eloquently advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, at earlier stages of the Bill.

It is my suggestion that the principle that we should adopt is that the discrimination involved in providing that the sovereign must be an Anglican should be restricted to the absolute minimum. That is why, on principle, I oppose the amendment. But quite apart from the principle, my noble friend’s amendment, and, I suggest, anything like it, would be quite unworkable. The present position is that marriage to a Catholic imposes a disqualification on an heir succeeding to the Crown. That is clear and simple. Clause 2 removes that disqualification entirely. Marriage to a Catholic does not disqualify anyone from succeeding to the Crown. An heir or a monarch can marry a Catholic without losing his right to the succession or to the Crown. That is clear and simple, again. But my noble friend’s amendment would import a proviso into that clear and simple proposal. There would be no disqualification, provided that the statutory requirement that any child of such a marriage is brought up as an Anglican was maintained.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford explained that the statutory or canonical requirement is very much weaker in principle and in practice than my noble friend’s amendment suggests. Furthermore, the amendment poses another problem: how would it be determined that such a requirement, if indeed it were established, was being maintained? Who would decide whether that requirement was being maintained? When, at what point in time, would the requirement need to be maintained, and when would it cease to be maintained? Furthermore, what exactly is meant by being brought up as an Anglican? By what process would a disqualification be imposed on someone in line of succession to the Throne if it were felt that the proviso was not being fulfilled and a given child was ceasing to be brought up as an Anglican? To take an extreme example, what if the child of the heir to the Throne and his or her Catholic spouse, having been brought up as an Anglican, chose to espouse Buddhism while at school?

The problems are endless. I appreciate that my noble friend who moved the amendment did not suggest that it was this wording or nothing, but when you look for an alternative wording, the concepts are so fluid that they necessarily import an uncertainty and ambiguity that would be thoroughly undesirable. For that reason, I suggest that the Bill should remain unamended.

[Lord Fellowes]

My Lords, I find myself in something of a dilemma in speaking briefly to support this amendment. I support both the amendment as presently worded and the measures behind it. I still believe that the sooner that we have greater clarity and more explicit commitment from the Roman Catholic Church as to its determination to respect the rule governing the upbringing of the heir to the Throne, the better. That said, were this amendment to be pressed and passed it might well raise the spectre of the reopening of negotiations with the other 15 Governments of Her Majesty’s realms, and that I believe to be undesirable.

I prefer to regard this as a constructive and helpful probing amendment which makes explicit what is at present implicit in the Bill. As such, it sends the right message even if withdrawn. If it is not withdrawn and comes to a vote, I will support it, with some misgivings.

16:45

[Lord Crickhowell]

My Lords, I sat through the debate in Committee and listened to the previous effort of my noble friend Lord Cormack, which was fairly effectively demolished by my noble friend Lord Deben. I am puzzled by the amendment that he has now produced because its argument was effectively dealt with by my noble friend Lord Deben when the previous amendment was tabled. Unless my memory is wrong, the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights say nothing about upbringing; they merely say that the sovereign has to be Protestant.

As my noble friend Lord Deben and others have pointed out, you could be brought up as a Muslim or indeed in any other faith, but there is nothing to say that you will stick by that decision. As you grow older, you may take your own decision as to what your faith is or whether you have any faith at all. However, if you become the sovereign, you have to be a Protestant; that, surely, is the law. I therefore cannot see that the amendment put forward by my noble friend and all the interesting and complicated points raised by the right reverend Prelate are relevant to this Bill, which concerns not upbringing but whether or not the person in question—male or female—is a Protestant.

No doubt the individual concerned would consider very carefully his or her attitude to religion and what his faith was before taking a final decision on faith, because they would know that if they were not Protestant they could not succeed to the Crown. Therefore I do not see that this upbringing question is relevant or that my noble friend’s amendment has the effect and consequence that he seems to think it has. For that reason, I cannot support it.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, my intervention will be exceptionally brief. I speak as a lifelong member of the Methodist Church who attends an Anglican Church at present. A useful and helpful concordat has been developed to achieve increasing collaboration between the Anglican and Methodist Churches. Is it totally out of the question that someone brought up as a Methodist might not ultimately become the Governor of the Anglican Church? I do not believe that it is. This is one of my concerns about this very interesting amendment, so very well proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I would love to have an answer to that question.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, like others, I am interested to see how much clarification emerges from consideration of this amendment. I was very interested to hear of the policy shifts in the Roman Catholic Church. I was not aware how far they had gone. I very much welcome the fact that Anglicans and Roman Catholics can agree on the line described by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, so I will not support the amendment.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment; it goes in the right direction. It may not be perfectly worded, but the principle is right.

[Lord Kilclooney]

My Lords, I am not an Anglican; I am an Irish Presbyterian. Presbyterianism is the main religion in two parts of the United Kingdom—Scotland and Northern Ireland. The head of the Presbyterian Church, the Moderator, is not the head of a sovereign state; nor is the head of the Methodist Church the head of a sovereign state. That is where the crux of the matter rests.

Noble Lords may recall the crisis confronted by the Social Democrat Government in Belgium when the late King Baudouin was forced to abdicate. At that time, the Social Democrat Government in Brussels introduced social legislation; I forget whether it was on family planning, divorce or another family issue. They presented the Act of Parliament to the King for royal assent. The King said that he had two loyalties—to the state of Belgium and to the Vatican state—and he had to make a decision on which got priority. He came down in favour of the Vatican. As a result, he had to abdicate. A regent was appointed who then signed the Social Democrat Act of Parliament, and then the King was restored to power. It was a very neat exercise. However, it is also a warning and a lesson to the United Kingdom.

I found the right reverend Prelate’s account of the talks between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church very instructive and helpful, but I still think that an area of ambiguity remains. That being the case, although I am not an Anglican, I come down in favour of the amendment.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend in his attempt in the amendment to achieve clarity. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has demonstrated, it would not do that because it could not work in its present form. Whether or not anything can be done between now and Third Reading to simplify a very complicated process in the Bill, I do not know. However, for that reason, I cannot support my noble friend.

[Lord Burnett]

My Lords, I have not spoken before in this debate and I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for being an interloper. However, I am a Catholic and should like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford as well as my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames for their contributions. Obviously—by implication, anyway—I oppose the amendment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I join others in thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford for the clarity and fullness of his contribution, which was appreciated around the House.

The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, seemed to imply that allowing Catholic marriage would somehow endanger the Protestant succession. I think he is wrong. As it will remain the case that no Catholic may succeed, or indeed anyone who is not in communion with the Church of England, the noble Lord need not have concerns on that basis. We therefore see no need to support the amendment, which goes further by forbidding any child—not simply the eldest who is likely to inherit—to be brought up as, for example, a Methodist, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, mentioned.

It is also unclear as to what would happen if the sixth or seventh child was brought up as a Methodist. Are we going to depose the monarch or expect the monarch to abdicate because one of their children was brought up as a Methodist or in the Jewish faith? There are many other questions. Could the monarch decide that they would prefer the Crown to pass to a sibling if they wanted the child to be brought up other than as an Anglican? Some of these questions were better enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Marks.

We have moved on, even in this House, since 1700. We are looking forward to the birth in the summer of a babe born to an Anglican couple—a babe whose marriage is unlikely to take place for about 20 years. Their babe may, for the sake of argument, be born a few years after, in the year 2037, which will happen to be 700 years after the charter establishing the Duchy of Cornwall. We have heard warnings that we must think to the future, but I think that we can leave it to our heirs and successors in 2037 to decide at that point what is good for the country, the other realms and the Crown. We will not be supporting the amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Cormack for introducing this amendment and allowing the House a further opportunity to discuss what, from our debates at Second Reading and in Committee, is quite clearly a very sensitive subject and one that quite properly has engaged the interest and concern of a number of Members of your Lordships’ House. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, I particularly thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford for giving us the benefit of his rich experience and giving us an understanding of how these matters are approached by the Roman Catholic Church. It has helped to inform our debate.

As I understand the position, my noble friend Lord Cormack seeks to give guidance to any royal couple who find themselves in a mixed Protestant/Catholic marriage as to the expectation that a child be brought up as a Protestant if they are one day to accede to the Throne. Perhaps the first thing I should make clear—indeed, my noble friend Lord Crickhowell summed it up very well—is that the relevant legislation simply requires the sovereign to be a Protestant and in communion with the Church of England. There is no statutory provision that the heirs should be brought up as Anglicans. The important point is that the sovereign be a Protestant. Therefore they could be brought up as a Methodist or, like my noble friend Lord Kilclooney, as a Presbyterian. That is the position. The Act of Settlement also requires the sovereign to be in communion with the Church of England. There is no statutory provision with regard to being an Anglican.

That point should also reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, if it is reassurance she is seeking, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, that there is nothing in this Bill that changes the position that the sovereign must be a Protestant. Given that requirement, the expectation is also clear that should royal parents in a mixed marriage wish for their child one day to accede to the Throne then they must be Protestants. I am sure that it is a matter that a couple will consider very carefully indeed. As was clear from what the right reverend Prelate said, couples throughout the land in mixed marriages have these considerations. As the representatives of the Bishops’ Conference of the Roman Catholic Church said to me when I met them, the overriding concern is the indissolubility of marriage and unity of the partnership and, as the right reverend Prelate said, the importance of praying with the family for the grace of Christian unity as the Lord wills it. That is the background. It is a choice. It is a position that royal parents know they must address.

My noble friend Lord Marks very eloquently and very concisely highlighted the serious practical difficulties that could arise if my noble friend’s amendment were to be incorporated into the Bill. Who would determine whether the upbringing continued to be Anglican? It is important to note the consequences of my noble friend’s amendment. As drafted, it would not only be the child’s prospects of succession that were affected if they were not being brought up as an Anglican; it would also mean that the parent who was in the line of succession to the Throne would have to drop out if the maintenance of the upbringing was not continued. As the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, indicated, that would affect the succession to the Throne as someone would have to cease to be in the line of succession and that would engage the other 15 realms. Therefore it is not something that is purely a domestic matter.

I note that this amendment would apply to children born of mixed Catholic/Protestant marriages only, not, for example, to a mixed Protestant/Muslim marriage. The intention of this Bill in one of its parts is to remove a specific piece of anti-Catholic legislation with regard to the bar on heirs to the Throne marrying Catholics. It is a bar that applies to Catholics only and to no other faith. I believe it would be unsatisfactory on the one hand to repeal a piece of discriminatory legislation only to replace it with a new stricture that would apply only to those entering into mixed Catholic/Protestant marriages. Indeed, at Second Reading my noble friend Lady Falkner of Margravine highlighted something that exists today—that is, people entering into mixed Protestant/Muslim marriages.

17:00

I indicated that I met representatives of the Catholic Church on this matter and was assured that, in the instance of mixed marriages, the approach of the Catholic Church is a pastoral one. As the right reverend Prelate indicated, a Catholic parent does not fall subject to the censure of canon law if the child of a mixed marriage is not brought up as a Catholic.

I believe we have a very clear signal that the overriding concern in Catholic pastoral guidance to couples in mixed marriages is the unity and indissolubility of the marriage. We have also had a very clear signal from the Church of England that the present prohibition is not necessary to support the requirement that the sovereign join in communion with the Church of England. Given that, I can see no reason not to remove this piece of discriminatory law or indeed remove it with a discriminatory proviso added.

My noble friend Lord Cormack asked about Third Reading. My understanding is that these things go through other channels but that it will not be before the recess. If my noble friend wishes to engage further with me on this, I shall certainly be happy to do so. However, from what was said by the right reverend Prelate and from what has also been said about the workability of my noble friend’s amendment and the uncertainty that could arise from it, I hope that he will be willing to withdraw it, bearing in mind, too, that the sovereign must be a Protestant. That requirement is to remain solidly placed in law, as ever, and it is not affected by the provisions of this Bill.

[Lord Empey]

Can the noble and learned Lord clarify one point concerning the relationship between this legislation and the other Commonwealth countries and what the implications of change would be?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, this is an agreement that has been reached with the other Commonwealth countries. This question may arise in relation to later amendments, but the preamble to the Statute of Westminster Act 1931 gives an expectation that in matters of succession to the Crown there will be the engagement of the other realms of which the Queen is head of state. It is not a matter of binding law but it is certainly an expectation and one that we have considered to be very important in taking forward the proposals in this Bill. As I indicated, the implication or consequence of my noble friend’s amendment is that it would affect the succession, and we would need to consider that with the other realms of which the Queen is head of state.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has taken part in this short but fairly vigorous and interesting debate. I am particularly grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Fellowes and Lord Kilclooney, and others. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, it is of course possible to be both an Anglican and a Methodist. The two churches are in communion, so there is no impediment there at all.

I am obviously grateful for the speech of my noble and learned friend the Minister and I shall bear in mind everything that he said. However, whatever is in this Bill, it remains in effect, in his words, discriminatory because there is an insistence that the heir to the Throne cannot be a Roman Catholic. I personally accept that and support it, as will have been apparent from my earlier remarks, but you cannot have it both ways. With this amendment, I was merely seeking to remove an element of ambiguity. I am particularly grateful for the excellent exposition of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, but he, too, ended his speech by saying that he would welcome the removal of ambiguity. He hoped that either in the Bill or in some other manner—perhaps in an exchange of letters or whatever—there could be some form of wording that would make it less ambiguous than it is at the moment. I am grateful to him for that because that is an extremely important point.

Obviously there are strong feelings in all parts of the House and around the country about this. I am conscious of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, who pledged his support, also said that he would reluctantly go into the Lobby. I will not make him reluctant tonight because I do not propose to press the amendment to a Division. There is still scope for further discussion. I was delighted to hear from my noble and learned friend that Third Reading will not come until after the Easter Recess. That gives all of us with an interest in this and other matters relating to the Bill, such as my noble friend Lord True, plenty of opportunity to consult, discuss and then decide whether or not it would be prudent to table another amendment at Third Reading. I certainly have not made up my mind on that score.

I will not detain the House further by referring to every speech but there is the clear issue before us that we are dealing with the succession to the Crown. It has been decided that gender should be no impediment as far as the first born is concerned. It has been decided that marriage to a Roman Catholic, subject to the sovereign’s permission, can go ahead. It has also been reiterated by my noble and learned friend that anyone succeeding to the Crown cannot be a Roman Catholic. Although he introduced—as did my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames—references to other religions, that is not what we are concerned with in this Bill. We are concerned with what is explicitly in the Bill. I still believe that it would be helpful if we had some form of safeguard either in the Bill itself or in an exchange of published letters with the Roman Catholic hierarchy, but we can all reflect on that over the coming weeks. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Clause 3 : Consent of Sovereign required to certain Royal Marriages

Amendment 3

Moved by

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

3: Clause 3, page 1, line 12, leave out “6” and insert “12”

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

My Lords, in moving the amendment I return to a matter that troubled me both at Second Reading and in Committee, namely the provision in Clause 3 to replace the Royal Marriages Act 1772 with a new requirement that only the first six persons in the line of succession to the Throne will require the monarch’s consent to their marriages. In my view that number is too small, and my amendment would increase it to 12.

The provision to which the clause will apply is much wider than before. Until now only Catholic marriages were specifically barred. Henceforth, consent can be withheld in respect of any religion, or for any other reason that the monarch, in consultation with his or her Ministers, thinks fit. That is the first major, and largely unadvertised, change that the clause makes. The seeking of consent itself is sensible in principle for a host of reasons, but it is the partial relaxation of the bar on Catholics that makes it necessary. To allow those in the line of succession to the Throne to marry Catholics while at the same time leaving in place an absolute ban on Catholics from occupying the Throne sets a collision course that sooner or later could cause trouble for the monarchy.

Clause 3, by implication, acknowledges that and seeks to provide some protection. However, my contention is that it does not provide enough. I am trying to resist the temptation to delve back into history again, having overindulged in Committee, but the more one considers this Bill and the 1772 Act, the more one realises what a minefield the Government are in danger of straying into. If the list of six now proposed had existed for the seven sons of George III, they would all have been members at some stage, but not all at once. Prince Augustus Frederick, sixth son of George III, and periodically sixth in line to the Throne, would have been in and out of the club three times in his life; yet he still managed to marry twice, both times without consent and both times during what would have been a period of membership of the six; and both marriages were declared void in terms of the 1772 Act. However, he did stay in the line of succession. Two other princes contracted marriages that were also voided by the Act. Three more princes stayed unmarried until middle age.

All of that suggests to me that the 1772 Act had a few unintended consequences, and it was not very effective on the marriage front. But it did serve a useful purpose, because although the royal dukes forfeited their unapproved marriages, they did not forfeit their places in the succession. Despite everything, that helped to maintain stability. The Bill before us does the direct opposite. It turns that around so that unapproved marriages will be allowed to remain in place—however unwise—but the right to the succession is lost. That loss is a substantial constitutional change, with potentially more unintended consequences, especially when linked to the relaxation on royal marriages.

At Second Reading, my noble and learned friend said:

“We retain the tradition of monarchical consent”.—[Official Report, 14/2/2013; col. 783.]

I respectfully suggest to him that he is not so much retaining it as turning it on its head. Before it was a measure confined to marriage to Catholics; now it is marriage to anyone of any religion or for any other unspecified reason. Before the penalty was the voiding of the marriage; now it is the loss of the right to ascend the Throne. These are constitutional changes of import. I do not believe that King George III, even in his angriest and most despairing moments at the behaviour of some of his sons, would have contemplated the extreme option of barring them from the succession. Yet it is done in this Bill, and not a word of explanation for such a change, so far as I could trace, has been offered either in this House or in another place.

Against that background my amendment seems impossibly modest. With these major changes, the future becomes harder to predict. However, what does seem clear is that just as a short list of six would not have been enough in the past, neither will it be enough in the future to protect the Crown from trouble. It is at the future that my amendment is directed.

I invite your Lordships to consider the potential case—a rather frivolous one, many years from now—of an imaginary granddaughter of the monarch, second in line to the Throne, who has a baby. Her first cousin, sixth in line, telephones her and says, “Thrilled about the baby. Do have another one soon so that I can marry that gorgeous Argentinean playboy I met last month in Ibiza”. It is frivolous but feasible. That would not happen if she were number six in a list of 12; and if something similar did happen with the 12th in line, it would be much further from the Throne and would have much less impact.

We tend to think of the succession in terms of Kings and Queens who have already reached the Throne, so for the most part it all looks relatively orderly and stable, looking back over the past couple of centuries. However, the line of succession is quite different. It can change rapidly and repeatedly. It can sometimes be unpredictable and even almost chaotic, as King George III’s experience demonstrated. He and Queen Victoria both exemplified the view that large families secured the succession, but there were certainly downsides to that. Now, and perhaps in the future, we tend to see smaller families but with longer life expectancy—several generations of them in the line of succession, a point made perceptively by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, in Committee.

In that situation it is not difficult to demonstrate that all six places requiring marital consent can be filled by the heir apparent and his or her own children and grandchildren. That leaves all of the heir apparent’s siblings and their children outwith the ambit of marital consent. Can it be right that by the time they reach marrying age some of the reigning sovereign’s own children might not be covered by the terms of this Bill?

My noble and learned friend also said at Second Reading that he wanted to limit the monarchical consent,

“to the people who could feasibly assume the Throne”.—[Official Report, 14/2/2013; col. 783.]

So do I, but I ask him: is it not feasible that the siblings of the heir apparent might also, in some circumstances, assume the Throne? Should we not provide for that?

If some tragedy should befall the heir apparent’s family—and here I am giving a far from frivolous example —attention would turn to the monarch’s other children. Who could say how many of them or their children, beyond the reach of this Bill, may by then be married to Catholics and raising Catholic children or married to people of any other religion that is deemed unacceptable? That is when the line of succession would start jumping further out, and the further out it goes, the bumpier it gets and the more difficult it may become, after possible en bloc disqualifications, to find potential heirs who could meet the terms and obligations of a potential heir to the Throne.

My noble and learned friend accused me in Committee of positing a “catastrophic but remote hypothetical” event. However, I simply do not accept that. Nor do I accept that it is necessary or appropriate for me to spell out all the myriad risks and dangers that can and might arise in this day and age. We must be realistic, and not just hope for the best.

For all its faults, the 1772 Act brought certainty, if not to marriage at least to the succession. Now, with the repeal of that Act and its replacement by the Bill before us, it is the other way round: the marriages are okay but the line of succession is not.

17:15

I believe that when this Bill comes into force we will have much less certainty about the future of the line of succession to the Crown and more of the ingredients for instability. We have a moral duty to provide for that with as much protection as we can contrive. Why take the risk of not doing so?

I set great store by my noble and learned friend’s letter of 7 March to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne concerning the position of the other realms, of which I have procured a copy. On page 4 of the letter he says:

“We have, of course, always been clear that the agreed legislation as introduced into Parliament could be amended as the Bill progresses through its Parliamentary stages, just like any other Bill”.

That, to me, sounds like a step in the right direction. Later on, he says:

“An amendment to the procedure in clause 3 surrounding consent to marriages … would not alter the law of succession and would not concern the Realms”.

I hope that that indicates a chink of light and a willingness to consider amendments with more sympathy than has been apparent thus far during the course of the debates at Second Reading and in Committee. I assume that the relevant procedure in respect of my amendment, to which the letter refers, would be the seeking and obtaining of the consent of the sovereign to a marriage, which would be unaffected by this amendment. Changing six to 12 is a small but practical change. It is a change of degree, not a change of principle. It would leave the Bill not “significantly different”—to quote the Canadian yardstick—from its present form. In that spirit, I beg to move.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, I have not contributed to this debate until now but was so moved by the oratory of my noble friend Lord Lang when he first put this prospect forward that I really thought it was important to back his amendment. There is no doubt but that it is an extremely modest amendment. I come from a position of serious disquiet, knowing that the person who is really pushing this Bill through Parliament is the Deputy Prime Minister. That adds a whole dimension of worry that the thing has been cobbled together in a rather hasty way. The whole idea of six members of the Royal Family being in this bracket is a number that came to him in the middle of the night and he thought, “Let’s just stuff it in”. I do not think that any serious thought has been given to this at all. I share many of my noble friend’s concerns that we live in a very dangerous age and that awful things could happen to six members of the Royal Family. Then, of course, we would all look incredibly stupid and six would be a number that was obviously much too small.

This is a very modest amendment and I hope that my noble friend Lord Fellowes is not right that this law will have to be processed through all the Commonwealth Governments if we change it. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, as my noble friend, although he sits on the Cross Benches. If you have shared a flat with somebody, you cannot really think of him as anything other than your noble friend. I hope that that is not a concern but I do think that this is a very modest and very sensible amendment and I sincerely hope that this can be taken on board.

[Lord Thomas of Swynnerton]

My Lords, I, too, support the noble Lord, Lord Lang, with his intelligent and thoughtful amendment. Can the Minister give some background to the situation? I, and I daresay your Lordships, would like to know how many times since Her Majesty the Queen came to the Throne have there been applications for marriages by descendants of King George III and how many times these marriages have been turned down. That would be interesting. As we are all interested in historical matters, this would be at least one contribution. It may seem an indiscreet suggestion but nevertheless it would be very useful to know.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I have been somewhat controversial during this debate so I cannot claim the virginity of my noble friend Lord Hamilton. The purpose of this Bill is to rid us of discrimination. I am sad to say that we have not proceeded as far as I would have hoped, but that is obviously going to be very difficult. But in so proceeding, it ought not to leave us with difficulties in the future. The purpose is to write something that is going to work, however odd the circumstances.

What we are trying to do here is to make decisions that are unconnected with the personalities involved. That is why we want to do this at a point where it does not affect any individual. We have been arguing that we do not want a situation in which we have to make some immediate decision because this Bill is defective, and thereby have a public argument about whether a particular person in particular circumstances is suitable to be an heir, or one of the possible heirs, to the Throne. That is what we are trying to avoid.

I put it to my noble and learned friend the Minister that we have had enough examples suggesting that six is too small a number so as to make it happier if we have a larger number. Given that we accept that six people have to ask permission, it does not seem absolutely dreadful that 12 people have to ask permission. I do not quite understand why it is six. I agree with my noble friend that six does not seem to be a particularly valuable number. I thought it was unnecessary to suggest that the figure was brought into doubt because of the progenitor. We can forget about the progenitor of this; it is simply that six does not seem to have any particular connection with it.

[Lord Elton]

My noble friend has had even more ministerial experience than I have. Has he not observed that once a number is on green paper, it becomes sacrosanct?

[Lord Deben]

There comes a point at which people think that there is some nobility about a figure that has been chosen, even though its history may be much less noble than the guise it assumes. This does not seem to be something that the Government should argue about.

I have to say something rather serious to my noble and learned friend. I have sat in this House for two and a half years now and the number of times I have come across things on which it would be very easy for the Government to give way—things that do not really matter but which might just be helpful, but where they solidly go on defending the indefensible—is really very peculiar.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Lord Deben]

We had a debate on caste recently. It was quite clear that the Government could have given way. I have now discovered that almost everybody who voted against me on that occasion did so because they did not know what the debate was about, so if we bring it back the only people who will vote for it will be in the Whips’ Office. The Government could have given way on that without any difficulty at all. The same is true about so many things.

Perhaps my noble and learned friend could take one message back: there are some things where quite a good case has been made; there is no real downside to it, so why do we not do it? Why is it so necessary to assume that there is something so important about this figure? Would it have been all right if my noble friend Lord Lang had suggested seven or nine? At what point are we allowed to say, “In our judgment, this is a better figure”? I just want to say to my noble and learned friend: in my judgment this is a better figure. Looking at the various faces all around, most of us here would not revolt if 12 was put in rather than six, so can we please have it?

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I just wanted to ask a rather more general question of the Minister. At the moment civil partnership is not part of this Bill. If the same-sex marriage Bill is passed, will that mean that same-sex couples would also require the consent of the Queen or her successor?

[Lord Mancroft]

My Lords, I am delighted to support my noble friend’s amendment. I start by saying to my noble friend Lord Hamilton that I have not always shared flats with people who are noble and certainly not always with my friends, but that is slightly beside the point. When legislating, we should always adopt the precautionary principle. The amendment before us is not a matter of principle; the principle is in the Bill: that the sovereign should retain consent. The amendment is merely about the practicality of numbers.

My noble friend in moving the amendment talked a bit about the past, about Queen Victoria’s family and George III’s family. I have a faint connection with a 20th-century royal family which, like many of them, no longer has a kingdom. I happen to know that there was some unhappiness in that family and did some research to look at it.

Between 1933 and 1994, which is 61 years and the length of the current sovereign’s reign, there were three generations and three successions in the German royal family, but, during that time, 17 individuals were removed from the line of succession for marital reasons and, in that, seven marriages were removed from the list. They are the only ones whom you can see by doing a little bit of research. Those 17 individuals all had children and grandchildren who would have been affected. So that is an incredibly short period of time and an enormous change, mostly for religious reasons, because that family, too, had difficulties over Catholicism and Protestantism.

It is worth remembering that when this Bill was mooted and was in the newspapers, everybody drew attention to the fact that if it had been passed during Queen Victoria’s reign, her eldest child, Princess Vicky, would have become Queen of England and the Kaiser, whom she married, her consort. The Kaiser would have been King of England and emperor of Germany. The family that I have been talking about would have been our Royal Family in this generation, with their 17 individuals and seven marriages moving on and off the list of six.

There are indeed differences, as my noble friend said, between the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. There has of course been a decrease in mortality, particularly infant mortality—thank God that we have far less of that than they did in those days. However, we have an increase in marriages. A friend of my father once asked him what my sisters did. He said, “They marry, long and hard and often”. Quite a lot of people do that in the 21st century. More and more people have more and more marriages. One of the princes in the German royal family, Crown Prince Wilhelm, an eldest son, was married four times and had goodness knows how many children. That is not very long ago. I hope, and we all pray, that there will not be tragedies in the Royal Family—but there have been. We all know what happened to Lord Mountbatten and his family, not far from the sovereign. We hope that that will not happen, nor that it will be illness or death, but, undoubtedly, there are changes in families. Those 17 individuals were not all direct father-son-grandson in 60 years; many of them were siblings, and those siblings had children and grandchildren.

No one suggests that we go back to the idea of all the descendants of King George II, hundreds of people, having to get their marriages approved, but, under the precautionary principle on which we legislate so often, six seems rather a small number.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I have my name on this amendment, which I support strongly. When I intervened in Committee, I pointed out rather flippantly that if this provision goes through and the child that we expect is born, the Deputy Prime Minister will have to explain to one daughter of the Duke of York why she has to ask permission but not the other. That explains one of the many illogicalities which might arise from the number six.

When one legislates, one should go with the grain of what the public perceive to be reasonable. Why did we ever have this sort of legislation in the first place? It was because the then monarch was concerned about the impact on the image on the Royal Family of marriages which were being undertaken within the Royal Family. He cast the legislation wide because he had a wide family; indeed, it was not his children’s marriages that originally concerned him, hence it was thrown back to King George of the earlier generation. I am pleased to say that our Royal Family is not viewed in the same way as was the Royal Family in the 18th century.

17:30

Which members do the public consider to be the close Royal Family today? They consider them to be our Queen, her children and her grandchildren. It so happens that by chance those are 12 people, soon to be 13. The number my noble friend puts forward approximates more sensibly to what the public would regard as the Royal Family. They do not distinguish between members of the close royal family. I agree with my noble friend Lord Deben that it seems absolutely absurd that this should be resisted. We heard at an earlier stage that it would not in any way cut across the Perth agreement, which was subsequent and separate from it.

I really hope that the Minister and the noble Baroness on the Opposition Front Bench, who seems disappointingly unkeen to hear arguments for flexibility in this, will consider it carefully. This is not a core item to the agreement. It seems entirely sensible and would avoid potential problems. I will support my noble friend if he presses the amendment, but I hope he will be heard by my Front Bench.

[Lord Lexden]

My Lords, I support this amendment very strongly. Briefly, my points follow closely those of my noble friend Lord True. By extending from six to 12, the measure would reinforce the sense of family and the obligations that go with it. These are especially important where the Royal Family is concerned. In giving approval for the marriages of his or her blood relatives, the monarch can surely expect to bind them more closely to the Crown and the public duties that it imposes. For that purpose, it is surely appropriate to have 12 blood relatives in this category, rather than six.

Bagehot, the great Victorian constitutionalist, laid great stress on the benefit that Britain derived from a Royal Family of significant size which, under Queen Victoria, inspired great respect, following the disreputable family of George III. I suggest that to maintain and strengthen that tradition, it would be right to increase to 12 the number in the line of succession who would need to seek the approval of the monarch.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. Twelve seems to me an eminently sensible and, indeed, a hallowed number. There were 12 tribes of Israel, 12 apostles, 12 members of the jury and there used to be 12 pence in the shilling. Perhaps more importantly, one asks: what is the downside of 12? If those who are ranked seven to 12 do not rate their chances of succession, or if perhaps they do not want to succeed, their remedy is perfectly simple: they do not ask Her Majesty for consent and the statute automatically then disqualifies them. It is only Her Majesty who might suffer the problem of having to consent—if consent is sought—to so many more marriages and I am sure she would not mind.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend. He made a splendid speech in Committee and again this afternoon. Any amendment that can unite my noble friend Lord Deben and me deserves the support of the House. I hope that the Minister will not attempt to resist it and will heed the sensible words of my noble friend Lord Deben. What is the point of resisting? This is not a point of principle, but of practicality. To have 12 builds in an extra safeguard and rules out the possibility of a different sort of ambiguity, to which the right reverend Prelate referred in his earlier admirable speech. No one has spoken against this amendment. I am sure the Minister will incur not only the admiration and good will of the House, but the admiration of those outside who are following these proceedings. If by chance my noble friend does not feel able to accept the amendment, I hope that my noble friend Lord Lang will press it.

[Lord Elton]

I speak only to add weight to the perception that I hope that my noble and learned friend is getting that the whole House supports the amendment, and that he will have a major task in showing us significant downsides to prevent all of us flocking around my noble friend.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I will live up to what the noble Lord, Lord True, expects and disappoint him. Not everyone was here in Committee, when this was discussed at greater length and there was an amendment to reduce the number—I think to four, or even to zero—so it was not as clear-cut then that the number should be increased. Indeed, the number six is not the full number of people who will necessarily always have to seek permission, because they have to seek permission at the point at which they marry. It could well include far more people. Someone who may not be heir to the Throne within the first six at any one point could be in that position by the time that they want to marry. It applies at the time of their marriage, so more people may well have to seek permission.

As we said when this was discussed at greater length in Committee, with more evidence given than perhaps all noble Lords have had a chance to read, we feel that this is not an exact science. We know that five were probably as many as were ever needed, so we thought that six gave a useful additional margin.

We certainly do not think that it is sensible to involve an unnecessarily large number of people in having to seek permission of the Crown in order to marry when they have no realistic possibility of inheriting the Throne. We do not know on what grounds a monarch would debar someone from a particular marriage if it was not about religion, although one noble Lord suggested that. We do not know what sort of reasons a couple would have to consider when deciding whether to go ahead with the marriage and give up their place in line. It seems to us strange to put a young couple through that when there is no good reason for doing so.

I should add that although this was not in the original Perth agreement, it is part of the agreement that has been discussed with all the other countries, with all the hard work done on everyone’s behalf by New Zealand. It would need an enormous amount of unscrambling to change the number now when it has been discussed at great length. I am sure that it is in no way the intention behind the amendment that it should be wrecking or delaying. However, I fear that changing the number from six would have that effect. I am sure that we would not want to risk the other really important parts of the Bill, the two bits that the whole House strongly supports—the succession to the Crown of the first born, should it be a woman, and the ability of someone in line to the Throne to marry a Catholic—by delay. We support the continuation of the Bill as it stands.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, again, I thank my noble friends Lord Lang, Lord Hamilton and Lord True, who have signed the amendment. My noble friend Lord Lang raised this issue at Second Reading and again in Committee and on each occasion stimulated a very good debate. It is clear that a balance needs to be struck somewhere between mitigating a remote but potentially catastrophic event, on the one hand, and the risk of impinging unnecessarily, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, on the lives of those who are more distant from the Throne.

My noble friend Lord Lang said that there were two differences in what was being proposed from what was there before. I think he said that, before, consent under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 related to religion and marriage to a Catholic. In fact, it went much wider than that. As my noble friend Lord True said, it was George III’s concerns about his siblings that prompted it. It was not actually to do with religion because the provision on religion was such that if you married a Catholic, you lost your place in the line of succession. I suspect that you also still had to get consent, being one of the descendants of George II, otherwise your marriage, albeit one that took you out of the line of succession, would have been void. Nothing is changing there. It is not related solely to religion.

My noble friend also said that the other change is that rather than the marriage being void, as is the case under the 1772 legislation, the person and their descendants from that unconsented-to marriage lose their place in the line of succession. Hitherto, failure to get consent did not cause the individual concerned to lose their place in the line of succession, as the examples given by my noble friend indicated, but their children did not have any place in the line of succession because by definition the marriage was void. Therefore, the children could not take up any place in the line of succession. Being the children of a void marriage, they would not be legitimate.

This change has taken place first to reduce the very large number of people who are today the descendants of George II. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, I just do not know how many consents Her Majesty has given during the 61 years of her reign. If my memory serves me correctly, I think I said in Committee that no one seems to have any record of consent having been refused. I would not like to suggest that information about how many consents have been given might be available. The fact is that as each generation comes to bear another generation, the number of descendants of King George II increases. Indeed, it may well be that some of them do not know that they are descendants of George II and may be contracting marriages which are void. That is one of the principal reasons why we wish to change this, so that the consequence of failure to get consent or of consent being refused is not that one’s marriage is void, which has considerable consequences for the couple concerned and their family, but rather that the person loses their place in the line of succession.

As the House will be aware, I indicated that we believe that the six steps provide sufficient proximity to the Throne. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made an important point about consent at marriage: people who at the time of the consent for their marriage were in the first six may subsequently no longer be within the first six in line to the Throne, so the number at any one time who have had to receive consent will almost certainly be greater than six. If one looks at the 240 years of history since the Royal Marriages Act 1772 was passed, the person furthest away from the Throne at the time of marriage who subsequently ascended the Throne was William IV, who was third in line to the Throne, so the position as it stands provides twice as many steps away from the Throne than have ever been necessary in more than 200 years.

[Lord Crickhowell]

The Minister referred earlier to a possible catastrophic but remote event. The fact of the matter is that in this day and age, very sadly, catastrophic events are too common. Members of the Royal Family are by their nature public figures and they are often together. The possibility of a catastrophic event should be taken into account. I, for one, am still not at all convinced by the argument from the Front Bench and am inclined to support the amendment as it stands.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the point I made is that we need to provide a balance between militating against a potentially catastrophic event and the risk of unnecessarily impinging upon the lives of those who are more distant from the Throne. While it is reasonable for different rules to apply to the Royal Family, a requirement to obtain consent to marry is a real restriction on people and as such a very strong argument should be made to extend it. I have heard various people say why six is not acceptable. However, I have heard no reason for 12, with the possible exception that it is the number of apostles or the number of former pennies in a shilling. It is also said that it is the number of jurors on a jury, but of course in Scotland that is 15. It is not a question to which there is a mathematical answer.

17:50

[Lord Elton]

My noble friend has moved on from the point that I wanted to pick up on. He is treating the necessity of getting permission from the Crown to marry as if it were a great disincentive to marry and a great burden for these people to suffer, but they are not going to be forbidden to marry; they are only going to be told that they are not in line for succession to the Crown, and I should think a great relief to many of them that would be.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I hear what my noble friend says, and he makes that point well. It is, indeed, as I and the noble Baroness indicated, an additional requirement and impinges on the lives of individuals. The Bill is trying to seek that balance. It is not a question to which there is one, and only one, right answer. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, it is a matter of judgment. While my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister would no doubt love to take credit for everything that has been put into the Bill—he has ministerial responsibility for constitutional matters and this legislation—I pay tribute to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister who, like his predecessor, sought to get agreement with the other realms and was party to the announcement of the agreement that was made at Perth. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, rightly says that this was not part of the Perth agreement, but it was flagged up at the Heads of Government conference in Perth that we would be seeking changes to the Royal Marriages Act 1772. That was followed by Prime Ministerial correspondence, on which agreement was reached on the number six.

My noble friend Lord Lang referred to a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in which I said that procedural matters would not require the consent of all the other realms. Indeed, there are procedural issues in Clause 3 as to how, for example, the consent has been obtained and signified. However, substantive matters on the succession to the Crown—to which I referred in the debate on the previous amendment and which get into the spirit of the preamble to the Statute of Westminster Act 1931—would require the agreement of the other realms. This impinges on the succession to the Crown. Indeed, the New Zealand legislation, of which I have a copy somewhere here, specifically makes provision for six with regard to those who would require the consent of the sovereign to marry.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, asked about civil partnerships. Civil partnerships do not require monarchical consent, as a civil partner does not necessarily assume the public role expected of a spouse as sovereign. She also raised same-sex couples, which came up in an earlier amendment moved by my noble friend Lord True. The Government believe that marriage as stated in Clause 3 of the Succession to the Crown Bill means marriage as defined by the jurisdiction in which it takes place. If we take this away from the issue of same sex—to take away from, as my noble friend Lord True said in moving his amendment, the controversy that might surround that—different jurisdictions very often have different rules on marriage. As a simple example, the age for marriage without parental consent was different from that in England. If it was a legitimate marriage in the law of Scotland, it would be recognised as a marriage, albeit that it would not necessarily have been a legal marriage under the law of England.

[Lord True]

Before my noble friend leaves that important point—and I accept what he says about civil partnerships —is he saying that the Government are knowingly legislating for a position where the monarch’s Ministers in one country may advise that a same-sex marriage should be disqualified from the succession to the Throne, but in another of the Queen’s dominions, the Crown’s Minister will give opposite advice? Is that what the Government are recommending to Parliament?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, that is not what I am saying. It depends on the jurisdiction of the place where the marriage is contracted. I believe I am right in saying that under the law of Canada, same-sex marriage is legitimate. If, therefore, hypothetically there was a same-sex marriage by someone perhaps well down the line of succession to the throne in Canada as of today, and that was lawful under the law of Canada, that would be a marriage. It hat is not a question of Canadian Ministers giving consent, which might be different because the law in the United Kingdom is different. There might even be different laws in the near future between Scotland and England, depending on the timing of legislation. It is not a question of Ministers giving consent; it is the actual law that is in place in a particular jurisdiction at a particular time.

It is a matter of judgment. I say that quite frankly to the noble Lord, Lord Deben. The Government believe that six is the appropriate number. That is what history suggests is necessary. No more than three have been required in the last 240 years, and there is some added leeway. As I said, with any legal restriction, if we impose a legal restriction we should limit it as far as possible. While I fully recognise the strength of the arguments that have been put forward, I have not heard sufficiently strong arguments that we should extend this legal restriction more than we believe is necessary to take account of the historical number of places to get to the throne, and double it up for that matter. I know how strongly my noble friend feels about this, because we have discussed it in the past. If he feels that it would be helpful to have further discussion on it, I am more than open to that suggestion. In the mean time, however, I invite him to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

May I ask a practical question? If this House took the view that 12 is preferable to six, how would that deal with the problem as to whether this Bill was then in difficulties with the other countries, which have agreed the Bill as it is?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, when we come to a later amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, I will be able to explain what the position is in the different realms. It would require agreement among the other 15 realms. I will explain this in detail when we come to a later amendment. I am not introducing a parliamentary procedure. As I have indicated, New Zealand is, and it already has a Bill before its Parliament with the number six in it. It would therefore require agreement; it would not necessarily require a parliamentary process. It is up to each individual realm to decide what to do, and some of them do not believe that they need a parliamentary process.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Are we simply saying that an exchange of e-mails would be quite adequate?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am sure that if it was just that, it would be simpler. Certainly, the experience of reaching agreement was far more painstaking and more work was put into it than a simple exchange of e-mails. I know that when the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, who participated in some of our earlier debates, worked in the previous Administration in No. 10 Downing Street, this was one of his responsibilities when the previous Prime Minister was seeking to get agreement. I know how much effort was put into getting the agreement at Perth, and subsequently into getting the agreement on this provision. It is not, therefore, as simple as an exchange of e-mails.

[Lord Cormack]

If we pass this amendment this evening, it will simply go to another place, which will give extended time for sounding out opinion in the rest of the Commonwealth realms. If a negative response to those soundings was received, we could of course think again, and the Commons might decide to reject the amendment. We are simply expressing this view of this House on a common-sense matter. I very much hope that we shall be able to do that.

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, in particular to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Elton, who gave me time to digest what I thought my noble and learned friend said at the end of his remarks. I will come back to that shortly.

First, I thank everybody who took part in the substantive debate, in particular my noble friends Lord True and Lord Lexden, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, who are three serious historians. I invite my noble and learned friend to contemplate not only the number of noble Lords who have spoken, because there has been unanimous support from the Back Benches in the Chamber, but the quality of the contributions. I also thank my noble friend Lord Deben, whose persuasive luminosity was up to its usual very high standard. My noble friend Lord Mancroft brought substance and fact to a debate that has had to be held on a conjectural basis before, with his very important friends or relations—I am not quite sure which—in Germany. Not that all relations are necessarily friends. That was extremely helpful, as were the contributions from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and my noble friends Lord Hamilton and Lord Cormack. I apologise to anybody I have omitted to mention.

I do not want to go over all the points that were raised before, because we have batted balls around in the past and we do not always reach agreement. If I misspoke, to use a convenient Americanism, in the context of the 1772 Act, I apologise. The two central points I was keen to get across were that that Act was concerned with breaking marriages but saving the line of succession. The present Bill is the other way around. It would let the marriages go ahead but would throw in the bar to succession. That is an important injection of uncertainty that could lead to certain unintended consequences, which is why I am so keen to see a stronger and more stable base of 12 who have to seek the monarch’s consent in future.

As to the age at marriage, which is an improvement on my noble and learned friend’s previous commitment to the age at birth, Queen Victoria’s age at marriage was not relevant because by then she had left the line of succession and was already Queen. She would only have had to ask for consent to marry. I could, however, refer to the example of the Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, Prince Ernest Augustus, who was sixth in line to the throne when he married in 1815, rather than my noble and learned friend’s example of someone who was third in line. He ended up as King of Hanover in 1837 because, of course, Queen Victoria could not accede to that throne because of male primogeniture.

This comes down to judgment. I thought I heard a coded message coming from my noble and learned friend—I do not think I saw white smoke coming out, but at any rate it put me at a slight quandary. I am conscious that regardless of the extent of support within this Chamber, if it came to a Division the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has substantial support at her disposal in the Lobbies, and there is no detection of a change of tone coming from there. Nevertheless, I believe that my noble and learned friend is offering me half a loaf, which is better than none. I will withdraw this amendment in the hope that these discussions will be productive, not just empty posturing and going over the ground that we have already gone over. In that tone, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Amendment 4 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Clause 5 : Commencement and short title

Amendment 5

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

5: Clause 5, page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) The other provisions of this Act shall be brought into force by statutory instrument subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament.”

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, we touched on this matter in Committee. Under the present provisions, the Bill can be brought into force, bit by bit, by order of the Lord President of the Council, who is, of course, Mr Clegg at present.

This is not a personal matter. My complaint is not that it happens to be Mr Clegg in his present role but that there is a single Minister at all. A Bill of this nature and this importance should not be brought into force, bit by bit, at the request of a single Minister, however senior and distinguished. That is the essence of my complaint, so I propose that it should be brought into force by statutory instrument, subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament. I hope your Lordships will agree, and I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, my noble friend very succinctly makes his point about the commencement of the Bill. I fully accept that this has nothing to do with the personality of the Lord President. As I explained earlier, it happens that he has ministerial responsibility for constitutional and elections law.

There is absolutely nothing unusual in a Bill including a power for a Minister to commence provisions in an Act on a date and at a time to be specified by order and without that order being subject to any particular parliamentary procedure, negative or affirmative. Parliament will already have given its approval and the Act that is brought into force will be unamended; it will remain unchanged. Therefore, there is no reason for it to return to Parliament so that Parliament can confirm what it has already agreed.

18:00

We have always been clear that we will commence legislation only when we are satisfied that each realm has taken the necessary steps to give effect to the changes. It is paramount that each realm should have the same rules of succession to the Crown, otherwise we risk bifurcation. We have agreed with the realms that the United Kingdom will be the first to legislate in order to provide a framework for the rest. We have always been clear that the agreed legislation, as introduced in Parliament, could be amended as the Bill progresses through its parliamentary stages.

The Government have taken pains to ensure that each realm is content with the Bill. It is for this reason that the Bill contains flexibility as to the time of commencement in order to allow for simultaneous commencement across time zones and for all realms to take any necessary steps to give effect to the changes. However, I note the interest of the House in how the changes will be given effect to in different Commonwealth realms. I will say more about this in connection with Amendment 8. In the context of this amendment, I give an undertaking that the Government will lay a Statement before Parliament ahead of the commencement order to indicate how the realms have given effect to the Perth agreement. The aim is to maintain flexibility on the commencement order of the Bill that will have passed through both Houses and received Royal Assent. What is brought into force will be unamended. Therefore, what is proposed by the Bill is the proper way forward, and I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, my noble and learned friend has gone further than he went in Committee, which is reasonable and acceptable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

Amendment 6

Moved by

[Lord James of Blackheath]

6: Clause 5, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
“( ) An order made under subsection (2) shall not have authority in Scotland unless a draft has previously been approved by the Scottish Parliament.”

[Lord James of Blackheath]

My Lords, I came to Second Reading with one major concern in my mind. By Committee I had two and now I have three. Perhaps I should stop coming to these debates because my list will only grow. It leads me to wonder whether we are here with unreasonable haste on something that should not have great haste: namely, an important and challenging constitutional issue.

We all know that there will be a happy event around midsummer this year. I hope that we are not being overinfluenced by that, because it is not the gender of the unborn baby that should guide us at this moment but the continuity of the lady on the Throne, whom we should not seek to embarrass or put in any predicament that could be adverse to the continuity into the future of her glorious 60 years. It is possible that in time, having made a full recovery now, she will exceed her mother’s years—and may she reign for all of those years, too. In that case, what is the haste that we are looking at? We have had many instances in our history when the succession has fallen on an individual who has been born long before they came to the throne. Whatever happens in June or July this year, we do not need to make any commitment.

By the way, I can assure the House emphatically that the Duchess of Cambridge did not intend to use the “d” word and say that she was going to have a daughter. It is a very important point. In my earlier career I was the recipient of a great deal of training in lip-reading. It is one of the few things at which I can claim to be an expert, so I ask noble Lords not to mock me. I have watched the five-second clip of the incident many times. The Duchess never had her tongue out of the roof of her mouth. That enabled her to say the “d” very emphatically. From there she could have gone either to an “au” sound for “daughter”, a “u” for “duke”—but she would not use twee language and say, “I will give it to my duke”—or to an “o” sound to say that she would give it to her dog. She brought herself up on the spot because she realised how hurtful that would be to the kindly donor of the little dog. She had to change direction, and in order to avoid one brick she stubbed her toe on another. Unless the Deputy Prime Minister has plans to so overhaul our constitution that we have a dog on the throne, I cannot see that there is anything here about which we should be concerned. The more we look at constitutional issues, the more it appears that Mr Clegg may have misidentified them and that he is in fact Mr Baldrick Clegg, creator of some very cunning plans.

As I said, I have three major concerns. The first is the one that I began with: namely, that we are putting the Crown in an impossible position. We expect to receive a delegation of the prerogative of consent, which I do not believe the Crown is entitled to delegate to us. Secondly, because of those factors, we should look very closely at the issues of entrenchment and the laws that are being changed. We have heard that one Parliament cannot bind another, but this occurs frequently and in this case it is emphatically there. The third factor is that without any doubt the Bill, in particular Clause 4, virtually wipes out the Act of Settlement with Scotland and renders unnecessary a referendum. If this Bill were passed, Scotland would float off towards the Arctic and a very cold economic future. We should be very concerned not to create these appalling outcomes.

The matter of entrenchment is something that we need to think about very hard. When my noble friend Lord Marks and I had our dialogue in the debate at Second Reading, we were misleading each other and were both under a very big misapprehension. We were talking about alterations to the declaration of rights. In the half hour the Minister was kind enough to give me last week to discuss this, he and his team made the same mistake. The declaration of rights is not the issue here; it is the Bill of Rights. We are confusing them because of the interregnum. There was no monarch at the time. Therefore, there was no way that there could be a Bill leading to an Act, as happens at the moment. There was a declaration of the complaints of the citizens of this country, which was answered by a Bill that eventually became an Act. The Bill of Rights that was presented to William and Mary repeated word for word the declaration of rights. However, it ended at the word “accordingly”, whereupon Joe Browne, the Clerk of the Parliaments, signed his name. A space was left for William to sign, but in fact he signed a separate piece of vellum that was stitched into the Bill. This was perhaps the first instance in England of a political stitch-up.

The document sets out the suggested oaths that could be sworn by future monarchs. However, they are only suggestions and not part of the Bill. As such, my noble friend Lord Marks was wrong, and the Minister remains wrong, because the alterations to the oaths that occurred in the past do not constitute a precedent by which one can alter the Bill; one cannot. I will read two phrases that sum up how far the entrenchment goes. First, the two Houses of Parliament should,

“with royal concurrence make effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this Kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted, to which the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons did agree, and proceed to act accordingly … to the same in all times to come”.

There is not much wiggle room there.

Towards the end, the document states that the provisions are,

“enacted and established by authority of this present Parliament, and shall stand, remain and be the law of this realm for ever”.

That is what we are asking to pass back to Her Majesty, with the request that she should forgo her coronation oath by altering something that was put into the laws of this land for ever and is, I submit, incapable of being changed. I return to my objection on Second Reading. We do not have the authority to accept delegation of the prerogative to this House, and any noble Lord who voted for it would be in breach of their oath on joining your Lordships’ House. I have raised this with many Members on these Benches. No one will give me an answer. They all say: “I’m sure it’s all right but I don’t know why”. I want to know why. I cannot vote for this and I suggest that no noble Lord should vote for it unless we are assured that we are not forcing Her Majesty into an impossible predicament by so doing.

The situation is very straightforward. We have a constitutional monarchy that is committed, first, by its commitment to the oaths of proclamation. There is a very different wording for England and for Scotland, whereby it is much tougher for Scotland. Then we have the coronation oaths, which bind the Crown to abide by what is in effect the entrenched law of the land, which we are now proposing significantly to change. The legal bounds of the Crown’s authority of governance are breached if the Crown’s constitutional limitation is exceeded. This defines the point at which a constitutionally limited monarchy has a duty arising from the commands of the law and constitution to refuse assent to a measure. If a measure is demonstrated to require removal of the constitutional law defining the duty to enforce, it is a breach of that duty, and constitutionally must be disallowed. We in this House can have no authority to pass a measure that collides headlong with the existing rules of our constitution. The limitations of the Crown would need to be breached to remove those duties, and this is an impossible and intolerable situation to place the Crown within.

In allowing the Bill, we would violate principles emanating from these enactments, which limit the Crown and the constraints imposed by the oath of office. At that moment, we would place the Crown in breach of its solemn and sworn duty, a duty undertaken as a reign-long obligation by Her Majesty. We cannot do that. Furthermore, we can hold no authority whatever to seek to do it.

I want to hear the answers to these points. I am very happy at what this Bill tries to achieve and would oppose none of it, but I am wholly opposed to the process by which we seek to do it. The advice that we have had on our legal position is undercooked, and I want to know a great deal more.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for setting out his concerns. I was grateful to him for taking the time to elaborate on the rationale for his concerns at a meeting to which he referred, which we had last week. As I understand it, he has two particular concerns. The first relates to the coronation oath, which the sovereign is required to make to maintain the established Protestant religion. He is concerned that there might in this Bill be something inconsistent with the coronation oath that Her Majesty swore. I disagree and I make it clear that we are not amending the provisions of the Bill of Rights or the Act of Settlement, which say that the sovereign has to be a Protestant. That was debated under an earlier amendment. One could conceivably argue that as a result of the Bill more people might come out of the line of succession, because one of their parents was a Catholic and the parents intended to bring up the child as a Catholic, but that is simply not the same thing. Given that the prohibition on the sovereign being a Catholic remains, there is no conflict between the Bill and the coronation and accession declaration oaths. Therefore, I believe that my noble friend’s opening premise is wrong.

I also disagree with his assertion that the Bill is inconsistent with the oath that the sovereign has to swear with regard to maintaining Presbyterian church government in Scotland. I declare an interest as an elder of the Church of Scotland. As a young student during Her Majesty’s Silver Jubilee Year in 1977, I sat in the gallery of the General Assembly when Her Majesty opened it and reaffirmed her coronation oath with regard to the Church of Scotland. Again, nothing in this Bill in any way conflicts with the oath that Her Majesty took on her accession, which she has subsequently reaffirmed.

My noble friend also made reference to Scotland, and his amendments very much relate to the position of Scotland. He seemed to imply that the Bill would somehow lead to the break-up of the union. In our view there is nothing in this Bill that conflicts with requirements set out in the Act of Union. Given that my noble friend’s amendments focus on the territorial extent of the Bill, it would be helpful to consider that matter as well. The Crowns of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are united by the various Acts of Union. Any changes that the United Kingdom Parliament makes to the laws of succession will apply automatically across our United Kingdom. The succession to the Crown is a reserved matter, as is clearly stated in the Scotland Act 1998, and the Scottish Parliament would have no competence to pass a resolution in relation to succession. At least, it would have no legal effect, as proposed in my noble friend’s amendment. However, the devolved Administrations were provided with drafts of the Bill ahead of introduction. Similarly, the Bill applies not only to the UK but to the Crown dependencies and overseas territories by necessary implication, following the precedent set by other Acts concerning the sovereign. Again, Crown dependencies and overseas territories were also consulted.

I seek to reassure my noble friend, who I know is deeply concerned about these matters, that there is nothing inconsistent with the provisions in the Bill before your Lordships’ House and the coronation oaths sworn by Her Majesty. I hope I can allay his concerns and persuade him that this is a perfectly proper matter that we deal with in this Bill.

18:15

[Lord James of Blackheath]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for that response. The first of my two amendments is, I agree, improper because it anticipates a resolution that the Scottish Government cannot pass. The second amendment was intended to provide an alternative and a way around the problem if it was still seen to be a problem. In that context, I wonder whether another meeting between myself and the noble and learned Lord might be helpful.

The other issue missing from all this at the moment is any reference to the regency, which was created first of all in 1936 but was not actually used. One wonders whether, if there is a problem, one could wait for an interregnum and then have a regency for long enough to pass a Bill. There would not then be a problem. I would like to discuss that with the noble and learned Lord at another time. Otherwise, I am happy at this moment to withdraw my amendment. The second amendment was intended only to provide an easier route than the first.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

Amendment 7 not moved.

Amendment 8

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

8: Clause 5, leave out Clause 5 and insert the following new Clause—
“Commencement
This Act shall come into force when all the relevant Commonwealth Parliaments have given their assent to all of its provisions.”

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I am concerned—I think that there was reference to this in the letter that my noble and learned friend very kindly wrote to me the other day—about the possibility of different parts of the Bill coming into force at different times in different parts of the Commonwealth. For example, it seems possible for one nation to agree that the eldest child of the sovereign became its head of state and for another nation not to agree, or at least to delay agreeing—and therefore it might be the second child of the sovereign who became its head of state. That seems to be a confusion and complication that we would not wish to see. My amendment proposes that we should wait until all the nations that want to agree have agreed, so we avoid that difficulty. My amendment proposes that the Act will come into force when all the relevant Commonwealth Parliaments have given their consent to all its provisions. The word “relevant” relates, of course, to the fact that some Commonwealth nations do not have our Queen as their head of state. Therefore, their consent is irrelevant.

I hope that my noble and learned friend will be persuaded as to the point that I have made. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point about the simultaneous implementation of these provisions in all the realms of which Her Majesty is Queen—and clearly for the right reason, as he gives it. It would not be helpful, nor would it be the policy intent of any of the realms that have agreed to this, that there should be divergence between different realms as to the head of state. Indeed, it is the intention that the effect will be given once all the realms have done what is necessary before the Bill is brought into force, as indicated in response to Amendment 5. I noted the interest that the House has taken as to how changes will be given effect in the different Commonwealth realms, and I have given an undertaking that the Government will lay a Statement before Parliament ahead of the commencement order to indicate how the realms have given effect to the Perth agreement.

It may help the House if I give an update on how the other realms are taking forward these changes. I have referred before to the preamble to the Statute of Westminster 1931. It states:

“And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom”.

This being part of a preamble and not being in the body of the Act, these words impose no legal obligations. However, the Government recognise that they carry considerable political weight and as such have undertaken to agree these changes with other realms’ Governments and to seek their consent to the legislation before introducing it into Parliament.

The New Zealand Government have co-ordinated this discussion, which culminated in all realms giving their written consent to the introduction of this Bill and their assurance that, based on the Bill as drafted, they were in a position to give the policy the same effect in their country. In doing so, some realms decided that legislation or parliamentary consent was required. Others have been clear that no further steps are necessary and that the changes will be brought about by the changes effected by the United Kingdom Government. In our view, it is in accord with the principle of the Statute of Westminster that it should be for each realm to decide what, if anything, is necessary or desirable to give effect to the agreement. Thus, although the preamble refers to the assent of the Parliaments of the dominions, we do not believe that it is for the United Kingdom to insist that parliamentary approval is obtained. I can confirm that in the case of some realms a referendum is necessary before changes to their constitution are made. However, we are not aware that any realm intends to amend its constitution, so the question of its undertaking a referendum on this issue does not at present arise.

As regards the detail of each realm, the Pacific realms of Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu and the Solomon Islands are all content that because of the wording of their constitutions no changes to their laws will be required to implement the changes to the law of succession in their respective countries. We do not believe that they intend to consult their Parliaments further on this matter.

As regards Australia, on 7 December 2012, in a meeting of the Council of Australian Governments, the Prime Minister, state premiers and territory chief ministers reiterated the support of all Australian Governments for the changes to the rules of royal succession proposed by the United Kingdom. Australia has not yet reached agreement with all states and territories on the specific method of implementation in Australia but legislation will be required, probably at both Commonwealth and state levels. Indeed, Queensland has already introduced its own Succession to the Crown Bill.

The New Zealand Bill was introduced on 18 February and its provisions mirror those of the United Kingdom Bill, although it additionally amends, where necessary, New Zealand specific legislation: for example, the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988.

The Canadian Bill has now been introduced into the Canadian senate. The Canadian Government’s view is that the laws of succession are UK law and not Canadian law. The Canadian Bill therefore does not seek amendments to the rules of succession. Instead, the Bill states that Parliament has assented to the changes set out in the United Kingdom Bill. The Canadian Bill will come into force on a date set by an Order in Council.

Jamaica and Belize have stated that, based on the nature of their constitutions, no legislative change will be required to give the changes effect domestically. We do not believe that they intend to consult their Parliaments further on this matter. The relevant oaths under the constitutions of Jamaica and Belize make reference to:

“Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, according to law”.

The constitutions do not contain any express provisions defining “Her Majesty” or setting out the rules of succession, but we understand that Jamaica and Belize take the view that the reference in the oath to the heirs and successors of Her Majesty is to the heirs and successors under UK law—or, in other words, that it is implicit in their constitutions that the question of succession to the Crown in right of Belize and Jamaica is resolved by the law of the United Kingdom.

We believe that it would be open to the other Caribbean realms to take a similar view, but it is, of course, for them to decide how best to give the changes effect. The United Kingdom and New Zealand are in ongoing discussions with each realm to support the work they are doing.

I thought it would be useful to put that on the record because I know that in earlier debates interest was shown in that matter. I reiterate that it is intended that these measures will come into effect at the same time when all the realms of which Her Majesty is head of state have concluded their appropriate arrangements. In responding to an earlier debate, I indicated that the Government would make a Statement to Parliament prior to introducing the commencement order, indicating what has happened in each realm. Indeed, the reason why there is flexibility in the commencement order is to achieve that very purpose. In light of those comments, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lexden]

Before my noble and learned friend sits down, has he any view as to the earliest possible point when the realms will have completed their work and the measure can be implemented?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

No, my Lords, I do not, and I do not think that I would help the House if I tried to speculate.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. He has gone further than he did at the previous stage of the Bill and I am grateful to him for that. I am also grateful to him for his letter—five pages, no less—which he wrote to me since the previous stage, which has likewise been very helpful. He has said that he will lay a Statement before Parliament as each step is reached. If I may assume that that Statement will be a situation report and will perhaps describe the other nations where progress has not yet been achieved, I am content. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Just so there is no ambiguity or misunderstanding, I think I said that before introducing the commencement order, we will make a Statement—it will not be a sort of running commentary—indicating what has been done in each realm to give effect to these changes.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, that is all right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

Schedule : Consequential amendments

Amendment 9 not moved.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Commons Amendments

18:27

Relevant document: 16th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee.

Motion on Amendments 1 to 9

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 to 9.

1: Clause 9, page 3, line 17, leave out subsection (1)

2: Page 3, line 20, leave out from “to” to end of line 21 and insert “enforce through imposing financial penalties, that means imposing a penalty on the large retailer of an amount not exceeding the amount of the permitted maximum (see subsection (7)).”

3: Page 3, line 25, leave out “and”

4: Page 3, line 26, at end insert “; and
(d) how it must be paid.”

5: Page 3, line 34, at end insert—
“(7) The Secretary of State must make an order—
(a) specifying the amount of the permitted maximum, or
(b) specifying how that amount is to be determined.
(8) The Adjudicator must, within 6 months beginning with the day on which section 1 comes into force, make a recommendation as to the amount that should be specified in the first order under subsection (7) or the method for determining the amount.
(9) Before making a recommendation the Adjudicator must consult any person he or she thinks appropriate.
(10) The Secretary of State—
(a) must have regard to the Adjudicator’s recommendation when making the first order under subsection (7);
(b) may amend or replace an order under subsection (7) only if the Secretary of State has considered whether to do so as part of a review under section 15.
(11) The Adjudicator may not impose a financial penalty in respect of a breach of the Groceries Code that occurs before the first order under subsection (7) comes into force.”

6: Clause 12, page 4, line 20, leave out “and”

7: Page 4, line 22, at end insert “; and
(d) the criteria that the Adjudicator intends to adopt in deciding the amount of any financial penalty under section 9.”

8: Page 4, line 31, leave out subsection (4)

9: Page 4, line 39, leave out “and (c)” and insert “, (c) and (d)”

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley)]

My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships do agree with another place in their Amendments 1 to 9. I shall speak also to Commons Amendments 11, 14, 16 and government Amendment 14A to Commons Amendment 14.

Commons Amendments 1 to 9, 11, 14 and 16 all together resolve what has been the most hotly debated topic of this Bill: whether the adjudicator should have the power to fine written on to the face of the Bill. As the Government have said throughout, and as the BIS Select Committee has also acknowledged, this is an issue that is finely balanced. However, at Second Reading in another place there was an overwhelming consensus that fines were necessary. This echoed sentiments expressed in your Lordships’ House. Accordingly, the Government have listened to the clearly expressed voice of Parliament and have tabled amendments to give the adjudicator the power to fine from the outset.

I would like to make clear that I expect fines to be used as a last resort, only for the most egregious or repeated offences. However, the very fact that the adjudicator has the power to impose them will send a strong message to retailers that compliance with the code is not optional. I am confident that these changes will mean that the adjudicator is able to ensure fair play in the food supply chain and keep the industry growing.

This will also benefit the farming industry. While many farmers are unlikely to be direct suppliers to retailers, and thus formally out of scope of the groceries supply code of practice, they will still benefit from increased trust and transparency in the supply chain. It is important to note that the adjudicator’s functions will not be a panacea for all the difficulties of the farming industry. She cannot set prices or address pay and conditions, but improved relationships between direct suppliers and retailers will have beneficial effects along the entire supply chain.

There have been suggestions that the power to impose fines from the outset would make Britain a less attractive place to do business. I would respond by saying that, other than retailers, almost all business groups, including the Federation of Small Businesses, the Food and Drink Federation and the National Farmers’ Union, support this amendment. I would further say that for retailers who comply with the code, an existing legal obligation, there will be absolutely no additional burden, as fines could only ever be imposed for a breach of the code. Retailers will also have a full right of appeal on the merits against the imposition of a fine or its amount.

18:30

One further aspect of these amendments is that they set out the process for specifying the maximum penalty. This is clearly a critical part of the power and I consider that it is important that the basis of determination of the maximum penalty be set out in legislation. Equally however, simply to insert a maximum into the Bill without consultation with stakeholders would not be appropriate, and most people would agree that we would not wish to delay the Bill to allow that consultation to be carried out. It is our intention that the adjudicator will set out in her guidance the criteria that she intends to adopt in deciding the amount of any financial penalty.

The guidance will be published in draft form shortly after commencement for a 12-week consultation period. This will allow stakeholders to express their views regarding the maximum level of the fine and will allow the adjudicator to reflect those views in her final recommendation to the Secretary of State. It would be more appropriate for the adjudicator to take the lead in recommending the maximum penalty based on the evidence from the consultation, subject of course to the Secretary of State making the final decision and to parliamentary oversight.

It is therefore essential that consultation be carried out on this matter. Stakeholders, both retailers and suppliers, deserve to have an input into this process. Accordingly, the government Commons Amendments 6 to 9 to Clause 12 require the adjudicator, alongside the initial consultation on guidance, also to consult on what the maximum penalty should be or how the maximum penalty should be calculated and then, via Commons Amendment 5 to Clause 9, to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will then be required to establish this maximum by order. This will ensure that fines can be imposed as soon as possible.

I should like to inform your Lordships that in Committee in another place the Minister, my honourable friend Jo Swinson, gave a personal commitment that, barring extreme matters outside the control of the Government, the order establishing the amount of the maximum fine or how that amount will be determined would be laid within three months of the adjudicator’s recommendation to the Secretary of State.

I also draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that Commons Amendment 11 to Clause 15 allows the Secretary of State to alter by order the maximum penalty or how the maximum penalty is to be calculated as a result of the findings of a triennial review. To clarify, the wording relating to the maximum penalty or how the maximum penalty is to be determined is used because we envisage that the Secretary of State could set a maximum either as a specific amount—X pounds, which would apply as the same fixed maximum for each retailer—or by reference to a formula, such as X% of a retailer’s groceries turnover, or the value of relevant supply agreements. This approach is set out in paragraph 92 of the Explanatory Notes.

Finally on this topic, I turn to Amendment 14A on the marshalled list, the new government amendment to Commons Amendment 14. Amendment 14A has been tabled in response to a recommendation from your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in their 16th report of this Session. It recommends that the order with which the Secretary of State will set the maximum level of the fine, or the basis upon which it should be determined, should be subject to an affirmative parliamentary resolution rather than through the negative procedure as currently stated in the Bill.

There are already safeguards on the use of the power; it can be exercised only after a recommendation from the adjudicator who must first consult about it. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recognised that this would usefully serve to inform the Secretary of State’s exercise of the power. However, the committee has advised that because the upper limit of the penalty is not in the Bill the power to fix the limits should be subject to a significant level of parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 14A will therefore ensure that the order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, thereby ensuring that Parliament will be able to scrutinise and positively approve the order. I beg to move.

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, Members of the House who are present will not be surprised to hear that I regret these amendments made at the other end of the Corridor. I will be brief.

I am speaking as the only member of Her Majesty’s opposition. There is always cause for pausing to think about legislation per se, but when all three Front Benches agree, we can be pretty certain that they have not really thought the matter through—there is no need to and it goes on to automatic pilot. You can also be pretty certain that there will be one or two unintended consequences. My starting position would be, despite my noble friend’s clear and completely comprehensible explanation—the only sign of grace in it being the affirmative procedure—that there are already far too many circumstances in which state functionaries can raise administrative fines. In this case, the groceries code is working. There are 10 supermarkets in hot competition with each other, and they report on complaints and how they have been dealt with. So far, there has been no problem with the speed and accuracy with which these arguments have been settled.

However, that is not why we have these fines. It is because it is said that what is going on now is only the tip of the iceberg due to a climate of fear, which means that many other things go on that do not get attended to, and we therefore need a third party to create a triangular relationship—the adjudicator, who now needs the power to fine. My problem with that is that I very much doubt whether the climate of fear, if it exists, will disappear. If it does, and fines are imposed, one has to question whether it is sensible to put in a state-funded and mediated procedure involving 10 highly competitive supermarkets and their suppliers. When we get into that argument, everyone says, “We understand. We are talking not about Nestlé or Kellogg but the small and medium-sized suppliers. We are also”—this is where we come to the heart of the matter—“talking about the dairy industry”. I fully accept that that industry has significant problems. This is not the time to analyse them but I hope that we would have the opportunity to discuss this issue in much greater depth in this House at an early date. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will promote the suggestion that we discuss the dairy industry in some depth and detail. The supermarkets want to sell as much milk, cheese and other products containing milk as they can. That is their interest. It is not in their gift to solve the dairy industry’s problems. It is wrong for us, as a Parliament, to put it about to a certain extent that if you have a grocery code adjudicator it will be a cure-all for some of the undoubted problems that exist, not least in the dairy industry.

My view is that because the code works pretty well, the investigations that come outside the present practices under the code and arrive with the adjudicator will prove to be intractable or unnecessary. I am pleased that I am not looking for the adjudicator to be busy. It is a misapprehension to think that a lot of the things going on out there will give the adjudicator the opportunity for fruitful investigation and fining. I am pleased that the order that is to come is to be affirmative. I guess from what my noble friend said that it should be with us for debate in about nine months. I hope that we debate it seriously.

Finally, if investigations and fines were to become the practice, grocery prices would rise. That would surely be an unintended consequence.

[Lord Myners]

My Lords, I support the Bill and the amendments the Minister has presented today. However, I am left pondering that if we have a situation here where we are concerned about a customer abusing a supplier, should we also not be alert to the issue in banking where we have suppliers potentially abusing customers? Should there not be a similar mechanism in place in which customers of banks, and I think here particularly of small businesses, have the right to appeal to an independent adjudicator about the treatment they are receiving from the banks? It is right that we should be concerned about a situation of customer abuse but the potential for supplier abuse in the banking industry, which is even more concentrated than the supermarket industry, is clearly higher.

I know this goes beyond the Minister’s brief and I do not for one minute expect him to give a detailed reply, but I suggest to your Lordships’ House that if we are seized by the importance of this Bill and believe that it is the right and proper thing to do, most of the arguments on which we have drawn apply with even greater force to the banking industry.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Myners made a similar very interesting point at Second Reading. It was interesting then and it is interesting now, but it is not a point I am going to dwell on and he will understand that. I am very sorry to disappoint the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that as the lead for Her Majesty’s Opposition I am not opposing more on this Bill but the Government have found the right way of doing things. They have taken a policy that was developed by the previous Labour Government and have bought it forward in legislation. As the Bill has gone through Parliament, they have listened to voices, including from Her Majesty’s Opposition, pressing for the adjudicator to have teeth from day one with the right to fine. I am delighted that they have given concessions. Even before the introduction in the House of Lords, following the BIS Select Committee and pressure from my own party, they removed the restriction on third parties, such as the National Farmers Union, from submitting evidence. Then we had a concession from the Government on powers to fine. We had argued that right from the outset.

I am absolutely delighted and I pay tribute to the Minister, Jo Swinson, and her colleagues, including the Minister, for listening to the arguments made in both Houses. I also pay tribute to my colleagues Ian Murray and Huw Irranca-Davies in the other place for the work they did on this Bill and take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for listening to our arguments on accountability when we were debating this Bill in the Lords. She most graciously conceded the points so that there will now be an annual report before Parliament. A final concession with an amendment in the Marshalled List today will see a move from a negative to an affirmative procedure around the level of fines. That, too, is extremely welcome.

I am delighted with the Government’s approach. I would like to see that repeated in many other ways across legislation. We are looking forward to the Queen’s Speech. Perhaps in that we can look forward to the Government having listened to Labour policy and brought it forward in legislation, and then listening to the Labour Party and changing things as they go through. We have not got everything we wanted—we believe that the code needs to remain a live document. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, made a good point about the possible abuse of power in the supply chain by Nestlé, Kellogg and other intermediaries. We have concerns about that. Commercial pressure and bullying in the supply chain that can drive down food standards and health and safety remain a concern, even with the code and this adjudicator. Recent scandals around horse meat, pressures from the horticulture industry to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board and ease immigration rules to drive down the cost of wages to meet the demands of supermarkets are all evidence that this is an extremely competitive industry where competition can at times lead to abusive behaviour.

On balance, we are very happy with this Bill. We support the amendments made in the other place and those before us this evening and we look forward to its speedy implementation.

18:45

[The Earl of Sandwich]

Having played a very small part in the early stages of the Bill, I want to congratulate the Government on listening. I am not in agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. He knows that. I have listened to many NGOs in the farming community and I think he underestimates the feeling out there. It is important that the adjudicator is able to hear from anyone now. It is important that they can initiate investigations based on their own assessment as to whether there has been a breach, and it is also important they have a full set of tools to be able to change retailers’ behaviour. Retailers can be fined and required to take out a newspaper advertisement saying they breached the code. The GCA can provide clarification on how to interpret the code and can recommend changes in its scope. That is roughly the gist of it. I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Knight, that the Commons amendments have been just what was wanted.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, although I warn the noble Lord, Lord Knight, that he should manage his expectations for the future.

The issue of whether to give the adjudicator the power to impose fines from the outset has always been, as I have said, a finely balanced policy decision. The BIS Select Committee acknowledged this in its 2011 report. We continue to believe that the sanction of requiring a retailer to publish information—the so-called name and shame—will be a powerful one and will suffice in the great majority of breaches. However, the Government have listened carefully to the arguments made in your Lordships’ House, at Second Reading in another place and by third parties that the ability to fine from the outset would help to give the adjudicator more teeth.

Turning to the questions raised by noble Lords, my noble friend Lord Eccles effectively asked why we need an adjudicator at all. He may not have said it in those words but that was the gist of it. I accept that he feels very strongly about this and he has argued his point eloquently here, as he has at previous stages in the passage of the Bill. I hope he will accept that the weight of opinion in both Houses, as well as that of the Competition Commission and the BIS Select Committee, is strongly in favour of the establishment of an adjudicator.

We recognise that supermarkets are a vital part of our economy and that they do much good through increased employment, consumer choice and their own commitment to corporate social responsibility. We also recognise that the groceries sector is generally very competitive.

My noble friend talked a bit about the suggestion that there is a climate of fear. Currently, complaints must be made to the supermarket involved and, given the purported climate of fear to which he refers and which has been indentified among suppliers, this could indeed limit complaints. Very few suppliers would be willing to challenge a retailer on which they are likely to be highly financially dependent. An independent adjudicator to whom suppliers can complain confidentially is therefore essential to enforcing the code.

He asked about how it could help farmers. The adjudicator has a very tightly defined remit. She will enforce the Groceries Supply Code of Practice based strictly on the Competition Commission’s findings that retailers were transferring excessive risk to their direct suppliers. She will therefore not be able to set prices for produce. Similarly, issues arising between farmers and processors will be out of scope. She can only consider interactions between retailers and their direct suppliers. It is important to note that most farmers are not direct suppliers to retailers. Most farm produce tends to be sold to wholesalers, processors or other intermediaries. However, we are confident that by reducing the pressure on direct suppliers the adjudicator will allow them to make longer-term decisions and to increase innovation and investment, which will benefit the entire supply chain including farmers.

My noble friend was also naturally concerned about the prices paid by shoppers when they go to supermarkets, and he said that he would not wish to see the adjudicator’s work leading to increased costs for hard-pressed consumers. I reassure him that the retailers themselves, when giving evidence to the BIS Select Committee, said that the cost of compliance with the code had not led them to raise the prices paid by consumers. Ultimately, this is a pro-consumer measure. The Competition Commission’s 2008 report clearly identified that the supermarket practices that the adjudicator will confront could have a detrimental effect on consumers if left unchecked.

The noble Lord, Lord Myners, raised a question about the financial sector. It was an interesting point, if I may say so. I have a feeling that the financial ombudsman has an important role to play, and I am sure that the noble Lord will make his point again on a perhaps more relevant occasion.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, essentially raised the issue of a living code. If the adjudicator considers that the code should be changed, then he or she is required by the Bill to make a recommendation to that effect to the Office of Fair Trading. It should be emphasised that this is a narrow duty on the part of the adjudicator. Under the existing provisions of the Enterprise Act, it would then be for the OFT to decide whether to advise the Competition Commission that a variation of the code was appropriate by reason of a change of circumstances. However, these provisions allow for the code to be adapted to changing circumstances in the groceries market to ensure that suppliers are treated fairly.

I hope that that addresses most of the issues raised and I recommend these amendments.

Motion agreed.

Motion on Amendment 10

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 10.

10: Clause 15, page 5, line 37, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) The review must also consider whether it would be desirable—
(a) for an order to be made under subsection (10A) (if no order under that subsection is in force), or
(b) for any order under that subsection to be revoked.”

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 10, 12 and 13. New subsection (10A) enables the Secretary to State to restrict the sources of information that the adjudicator can consider when deciding whether to carry out an investigation. This is a reserved power, and it can be exercised only after a triennial review has been completed.

This is a contingency measure and it was introduced in case the adjudicator becomes overwhelmed by a high volume of complaints of variable quality. She will have only a small office. This provision will enable her office to focus on enforcing the code effectively in the event that there is a flood of complaints. It also acts as a reminder to trade associations to use the adjudicator responsibly and to ensure that they ask the adjudicator to consider only issues that are likely to fall within the scope of the Groceries Supply Code of Practice. We do not think it is likely that trade associations will behave irresponsibly, but it provides an incentive for them to behave well and not to swamp her office.

As set out by my honourable friend the Minister for Employment Relations and Consumer Affairs, we think it is very unlikely that this power will ever be used, and we hope that it will never be necessary. The power could also be invoked only after a triennial review, as I said, and only if that review revealed that poor-quality or irrelevant complaints were affecting the adjudicator’s ability effectively to carry out her functions.

Concerns were none the less raised in the other place about the scope of this power. Government Amendments 10, 12 and 13 were therefore introduced to respond to those concerns by putting additional safeguards in place regarding when the power can be exercised.

Amendment 10 provides that the ability to restrict sources of information should be reversible. The amendment means that if circumstances change so that, for example, it is beneficial to the adjudicator to again allow wider input from trade associations and others, the Secretary of State can revisit his decision at each subsequent triennial review.

Amendment 12 provides that the power can be exercised only if it will make the adjudicator more effective. It cannot be used on a whim.

Amendment 13 makes the power subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. This gives Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise and positively approve the exercise of the power.

I hope your Lordships will agree that these additional safeguards make it clear that sources of information will be restricted by the Secretary of State only if it is felt absolutely necessary to do so.

Motion agreed.

Motion on Amendments 11 to 13

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 11 to 13.

11: Clause 15, page 5, line 38, at end insert—
“( ) A review may consider whether it would be desirable to amend or replace the order for the time being in force under section 9(7).”

12: Clause 15, page 6, line 18, leave out lines 18 to 20 and insert—
“(10A) The Secretary of State may by order provide that this Act has effect as if the section set out in subsection (11) below were inserted after section 4.
(10B) An order under subsection (10A)—
(a) may be made only if, as a result of the findings of a review, the Secretary of State thinks that making the order would enable the Adjudicator to be more effective;
(b) may be revoked only if, as a result of the findings of a review, the Secretary of State thinks that revoking the order would not impair the Adjudicator’s effectiveness.
(11) This is the section referred to in subsection (10A)—”

13: Clause 23, page 10, line 21, after “section” insert “15(10A) or”

Motion agreed.

Motion on Amendment 14

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 14.

14: Clause 23, page 10, line 21, leave out “9(1) or”

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

14A: At end insert “and insert “section 9(7) or section””

Amendment to the Motion agreed.

Motion, as amended, agreed.

Motion on Amendment 15

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 15.

15: Clause 26, page 11, line 3, leave out subsection (2)

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, Amendment 15 removes the privilege amendment passed in your Lordships’ House at Third Reading. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 15.

Motion agreed.

Motion on Amendment 16

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 16.

16: Schedule 3, page 15, line 36, leave out Schedule 3

Motion agreed.

HIV/AIDS: Commonwealth Countries

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

18:56

Tabled By

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of discrimination against gay men and women in Commonwealth countries on global efforts to halt the spread of HIV/AIDS, and what steps they are taking to tackle such discrimination.

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

My Lords, it is a privilege to lead this debate. I am indebted for the support of the organisations that work tirelessly in this area, including the Human Dignity Trust, the HIV/AIDS Alliance, the Kaleidoscope Trust and the Terrence Higgins Trust.

It is a while since this House debated the issue of HIV/AIDS, so let us first remind ourselves of the scale of the problem. While in the developed world, where HIV is now a chronic condition, not a death sentence, we sometimes become blasé about the subject, in much of the world HIV and AIDS remains a catastrophe. In three decades, AIDS has claimed 30 million souls. Last year, 1.8 million died. More than 34 million people are living with HIV and many of them will perish. Although new infections have declined by 21% in the past decade, still 7,400 people are infected each day.

HIV and AIDS remains a global health catastrophe—the worst pandemic in modern history. The good news is the enormous advance in treatment. Today, there is no reason why anyone receiving it should live any shorter a life than someone without HIV. Crucially, we also have the tools radically to slow new infections through education and prevention measures. However, that ability to prevent the spread of HIV is being seriously compromised. The Global Commission on HIV and the Law concluded that,

“punitive laws, discriminatory and brutal policing and denial of access to justice for people with and at risk of acquiring HIV are fuelling the epidemic”.

At the heart of international efforts to deal with this pandemic is a crisis of human rights law, not medicine. There is now overwhelming evidence of the link between criminalisation of homosexuality and the rate of HIV infection.

Why does criminalisation matter? What is the link between bad law and this public health disaster? The UN Development Programme’s Global Commission on HIV concluded that criminalisation of homosexuality “both causes and boosts” the rate of HIV among men who have sex with men, or MSM. Evidence is incontrovertible. In Caribbean countries where homosexuality is criminalised, almost one in four MSM are infected with HIV. In the absence of such laws, the prevalence is one in 15—a shocking disparity. A report in The Lancet in 2012 reaffirmed:

“The odds of HIV infection in black MSM relative to general populations were nearly two times higher in African … countries that criminalise homosexual activity than for those living in countries where [it] is legal”.

Why is that?

Criminalisation breeds stigma and marginalisation. Where this exists, homosexual behaviour is driven underground. Those at risk do not want to talk about their sexuality, receive information about prevention or, crucially, get tested, for to do so may mean prosecution and severe punishment. That has a terrible impact on homosexual behaviour. As The Lancet report I just mentioned concluded, where it is impossible for gay men to found lasting, loving relationships because the law prohibits it, they adopt non-monogamous, anonymous, unsafe sexual practices that fuel infection. There is nothing to warn them not to do so. It is after all almost impossible to mount HIV prevention campaigns where homosexuality is outlawed. A study in 2010 commissioned by the UNDP focusing on Asia and the Pacific found that such laws are regularly used by police to prohibit HIV prevention activities, confiscate condoms and censor educational material on HIV. Yet as studies in Cameroon, Senegal and Kenya have found, there is a strong correlation between the lack of these programmes and the likelihood of MSM having unprotected sex, simply out of ignorance of the basic facts.

Then there is the impact on the care of those infected. The threat of criminal sanction is an overwhelming disincentive to seeking access to HIV services—if, of course, they are available. In a recent case in Kenya where the penalty for,

“carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature”,

is 21 years in prison, the Medical Research Institute had its HIV work disrupted after church leaders claimed that it was providing “counselling services to criminals”. There are similar horror stories from Uganda, Cameroon and Singapore, where health providers, who are key to preventing the spread of HIV, refuse to do so because of the threat of dreadful criminal sanctions.

The issue is not one that impacts just on gay men. HIV does not respect sexual orientation and statute in a neat and tidy manner. Because of these laws, many homosexuals inevitably maintain heterosexual relationships alongside a relationship with a man. The result is that innocent wives and children, often blissfully unaware of the fate that awaits them, also die as a result of criminalisation. So let us be very clear: criminalisation of homosexuality kills. It kills gay men. It kills women and children, and it kills them needlessly in their tens of thousands, with no end to this in sight. It begets a grotesque waste of human life on an unimaginable scale. Of course, criminalisation is an issue of fundamental human rights—one that I, as a gay man, feel profoundly. But it is also, overwhelmingly, an issue of public health. In the name of saving lives, it has to end.

To our shame, many Commonwealth countries stand in the dock. As we heard last October in a debate led by my noble friend Lord Lexden, their record on criminalising homosexual behaviour is shameful: 42 out of 54 Commonwealth countries criminalise same-sex relations. Punishments range from life in Sierra Leone to 20 years in prison, with flogging, in Malaysia. The record of the Commonwealth on HIV and AIDS is a pitch perfect underlining of my argument. While the Commonwealth represents 30% of the world’s population, it contains more than 60% of people living with HIV globally. That is a damning statistic. We will never be able to tackle the global AIDS epidemic until Commonwealth countries take action to dismantle cruel, degrading, outdated laws criminalising homosexuality.

That point was rightly recognised by the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group, which in 2011 concluded that decriminalisation had been successful in reducing cases of HIV infection and recommended that steps be taken to procure repeal of these laws. But, in the interest of saving human lives, words need to be met with action. Let me suggest some. There are some things that this House can do. Our committees can play a vital role by providing oversight of Commonwealth institutions and scrutinising progress made by the UK in delivering its LGBT rights strategy. There are things that the Church of England, which has great sway in the Commonwealth, can do by condemning criminalisation specifically because of the way it squanders human life. I am delighted to see the right reverend Prelate here this evening.

There are challenges for the Government. I recognise that they have already done a great deal and I applaud the work of DfID and the leadership of the Prime Minister. I also recognise the enormous personal commitment of my noble friend Lady Northover, but there is more. The UK needs actively to support legal reform across the Commonwealth—an issue that should also be a high priority for CHOGM later this year. I ask my noble friend for an assurance that we will press to make this happen. I hope that the Government might also make decriminalisation and HIV prevention, which is crucial to it, a policy commitment for the FCO and DfID.

The Government should also press the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Commonwealth Foundation for action in this area. It is very worrying, given the sheer number of people at risk across the Commonwealth, that the secretariat has not included LGBT rights, legal reform or HIV in its new strategy. I would ask my noble friend to take this up with these institutions, which could play a vital role here. I also hope that the Government will look at introducing a specific funding mechanism for LGBT organisations working for legal or social reform within their own countries, or delivering services to LGBT people.

All these are important steps in beginning to tackle the tragedy—it is a tragedy—of criminalisation. It is an affront to human rights, an affront to human dignity and a legacy of 19th century colonialism that is killing tens of thousands of people in the 21st century. It is an extraordinary monument to man’s inhumanity to man. I shall listen with huge interest to our debate. We discuss many important issues in this House but it is not often that we get the chance to talk about a subject which, over time, could make the difference between life and death for many who are alive now but sick or at risk, and many yet to be born. This is one of those occasions and I am sure that we will rise to it.

19:07

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, for introducing such an important debate. As he says, it is the sort of issue that we do not discuss very often. I should declare an interest as co-chair of the Sexual Health Forum and a patron of the parliamentary group on transgender issues.

Part of the British Empire legacy to Commonwealth states 150 years ago was our then legal system, which we passed on and which regrettably included the old colonial draconian laws on homosexuality. These laws were not repealed when the former colonies won their independence, and they continued to ban gay sex between consenting adults. A consequence has been that the Commonwealth countries make up 30% of the world’s population but 60% of the level of HIV. It is interesting that the countries that were colonised by France under the Napoleonic code, which does not concern itself with homosexuality, do not have anti-gay laws or high levels of HIV. In the Commonwealth countries, however, laws are myriad, and with them come violence, murder, fear, stigma, rejection, impunity, the criminalisation of identity and persecutions. As the noble Lord, Lord Black, says, of the Commonwealth countries, 42 still criminalise same-sex relationships for men, women or both, with dire penalties. I find it unbelievable that the situation is getting no better. In fact, in some countries, it is getting worse.

If I may, I shall repeat some of the horror stories because the more often they are told the more people might listen. In Uganda, the anti-homosexuality Bill is repeatedly brought forward to impose the death penalty for men living with HIV. In Zambia, the maximum penalty has been increased from 10 years to 15 years in prison. Penalties in Trinidad and Tobago include 25 years in jail, and there is legislation to ban the entry into the country of known homosexuals. In Malaysia, the penalty is 20 years and flogging. In Malawi, there are prison terms of up to 14 years’ hard labour. And there is life imprisonment in Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, which also imposes imprisonment for private same-sex intimacy.

These so-called civilised countries defend these criminal sanctions as an authentic expression of indigenous national culture and tradition: that they are breaches of public morality, public health issues and sexual normality. But those conditions do not apply to the 12 Commonwealth countries that currently do not criminalise same-sex acts. It is encouraging that some of those countries also have laws that protect LGBT people from hate crimes and prohibit discrimination against them. Botswana, for instance, amended its Employment Act in 2010 to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. There is no question that legal penalties for homosexuality encourage public persecution. In Jamaica, gay men are so hideously and violently socially persecuted that many countries now accept gay asylum seekers from Jamaica into their own countries.

Again, in Uganda, tabloid newspapers have conducted witch hunts naming gay men and encouraging violence against them. In both those countries, the result was gay men being killed. All this shows that obstructive legislation contributes to the inability of HIV sufferers to claim their rights and increases the level of HIV stigma and discrimination. HIV sufferers face persecution and violence from employers, hospitals and community organisations. These draconian laws drive gay people underground, away from effective HIV prevention, treatment, care and support. As the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, it must follow that if you have to hide being gay, HIV-prevention agencies cannot give appropriate advice and may find it hard to reach you at all.

Additionally, where men or women have acquired HIV through gay sex, they are less willing to go for testing, so they pass the virus on. This situation is not helped by the continual harassment of HIV outreach workers by police who prohibit HIV-prevention activities on the grounds that they aid and abet criminal activities. Government agencies may be forbidden from working with illegal minorities. The situation, therefore, is that gay people face a double whammy: first, the risk of acquiring HIV, but at the same time being unable to ask for advice or support because they would have to admit to committing an illegal act.

Last year, the Ugandan authorities shut down a workshop bringing together advocates for the rights of LGBT people and providing information on how to avoid HIV transmission. In Cameroon, armed police broke up a planned three-day meeting on HIV/Aids and sexual minorities, organised by the Association for Adolescents Health against HIV/Aids. All that support and help therefore is not going to the people who need it.

Tackling homophobia can encourage gay men to be tested for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. There is no question that homophobia continues to be a major barrier to ending the global HIV and AIDS epidemic. The Commonwealth Heads of Government say that the fight against HIV is a high priority, adding:

“we are committed to accelerating action to implement the objectives outlined in the 2011 UN Political Declaration on HIV/AIDS“.

Nevertheless, only this week, when discussing the future Commonwealth Heads meeting, there was talk about the theme being democracy and human rights. If their goals on HIV/AIDS are really genuine, they have to tackle this situation. At the same time, the Commonwealth Secretariat—again, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, said—has not included LGBT rights, legal reform or HIV in its new strategy. The Commonwealth Foundation’s new strategy does not include any plans to support LGBT organisations or others working towards law reform.

Gay men and women are not the only people who suffer because of their sexuality. Illegality is also likely to be extended to transgender people and sex workers, who are similarly marginalised, hard to reach and often subject to legal sanctions. For instance, the high prevalence of HIV in Africa is driven by cultural, religious and political unwillingness to accept LGBT people, so the prejudice, harassment and isolation means lack of access to HIV prevention, including the availability of condoms.

This is a particular problem for transgender women because their identity as women is not recognised in many Commonwealth countries. Denial of their gender identity in law exacerbates the discrimination and marginalisation that transgender people experience. They often are the targets of violent hate crimes, are denied healthcare and education and struggle to find employment, so they are forced into sex work, all of which increases their HIV risk.

Finally, I follow the same theme as the noble Lord, Lord Black. How should the UK exert its influence? What should we be doing? The UK should actively support legal reform that decriminalised consensual sex between adults of the same sex and prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. We should be calling for targets on law reform and equality in the post-2015 development framework as a means to ensuring access to health and other services for LGBT people and other excluded groups. The Government can play a vital role by providing a more critical oversight of the Commonwealth institutions and by scrutinising progress made in delivering on their LGBT rights strategy, thereby reducing the level and the spread of HIV and AIDS.

Assumptions that criminalising sexual minorities will prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS are ill-founded, based purely on ignorance and long-standing prejudice. The global evidence is clear that public health is best served by removing discrimination and prejudice against all LGBT persons, giving them—the people who need it most—access to HIV prevention and treatment. Removing stigma through the decriminalisation of private, adult, consensual, same-sex sexual relations is the first step in promoting health and tolerant societies.

19:16

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I start with an apology. I am afraid that the speed of the previous business meant that I arrived just after the beginning of the speech by my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood. I realise that was a discourtesy to the House and I hope noble Lords will allow me to continue. I also thank my noble friend Lord Black for instigating this debate, which is very important. We have already heard from both him and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, the important strategic reasons.

The continued spread of HIV and AIDS in the Commonwealth of Nations has had devastating effects on the lives of the ill and their families, and on the nation as a whole, which suffers the loss of a young population. Although many nations have been able to minimise transmission of the disease through education and public health initiatives, cultural barriers persist that make containment of the disease particularly challenging. We have all followed the progress of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda, which, in criminalising homosexuality and all educational content regarding homosexual behaviour, makes it nearly impossible to educate the Ugandan LGBT community about safe sex practices.

As we have heard already, this problem is not isolated to a single nation, but is part of a widespread culture of homophobia that bars education and marginalises gay men and women around the world. Although it might be awkward to acknowledge, we recognise that the homophobic attitudes that exist in statute today in parts of the Commonwealth originated in whole or in part from a legacy of colonial British prejudices. Over the past half-century, we have taken steps to change our own culture to one of tolerance and support for all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Today, we must take those lessons that we ourselves have learnt to encourage and support some of our Commonwealth family to make similar strides towards the equal protection of all people, regardless of sexual orientation or HIV status, and towards a culture that encourages education and public health awareness.

While the spread of HIV and AIDS in the LGBT community has devastated lives around the world, this evening I would like to focus on Zambia, which is an interesting case study in the ways in which HIV and AIDS prevention can be effective, but also the ways in which it can fail. Zambia is one of the nations hit hardest by the HIV and AIDS epidemics and currently suffers the sixth highest rate of HIV in the world. Today, more than one in seven adults live with HIV. As a result, average life expectancy has dropped to a mere 49 years. Although hit hard by this disease, the Zambians rallied to become one of the most willing African nations to confront the epidemics by the start of the millennium. In 2004, President Mwanawasa declared HIV and AIDS a national emergency, promising to provide antiretroviral drugs to 10,000 people by the end of the year. Not only did the President meet this goal, but he exceeded it, and promised to provide the drugs for an additional 10,000 people by the end of 2005. Former President Kaunda, who in the 1980s attempted to cover up the magnitude of the AIDS epidemic, is now one of Zambia’s foremost AIDS activists. In 2008, UNAIDS reported that the epidemic in the region was stabilising.

Political attitudes towards the virus are changing now that politicians in Zambia are willing to talk about it. In light of International Women’s Day, it is important to congratulate Zambia on the steps taken to protect women and children against the disease by educating women about healthy relationships and safe sex practices, and leading a national campaign to dispel the “virgin cure” myth. Condom use is increasing, and with it the negative stigma associated with condoms is slowly waning. Heterosexual couples are learning through many education initiatives about abstinence and marital fidelity as means of stopping the spread of AIDS and HIV.

However, despite these positive steps forward, the LGBT community in Zambia remains marginalised, unable to access education and abused. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, has already told your Lordships’ House, homosexuality is a crime in Zambia, punishable now by up to 15 years in prison. Cultural attitudes express widespread disapproval of homosexuality. In a 2008 survey by the Pew Research Center, the number of respondents who indicated that they felt homosexuality was morally wrong was the highest in any country in Africa, at 98%. American journalist Linda Villarosa described her experiences in Zambia on the Huffington Post blog last summer after travelling with the Global Fund to report on HIV and AIDS. While in Zambia, she wrote, she met Lundu, an openly gay man and an HIV and AIDS activist. When he told his family he was gay, they turned to medicine men to try to cure him. Lundu told Linda that:

“The first day, they cut my skin in 200 places and rubbed herbs and ash in the cuts. The second day they tied me to a tree in the bush and left me there overnight. On the third day, they put me in a shallow grave wrapped in a white shroud”.

Despite the hellish experience that Lundu suffered at the hand of his own family, he recognises the cultural barriers and widely held beliefs that feed into homophobia and consequently contribute to the spread of HIV and AIDS. The criminalisation of homosexuality in Zambia makes it difficult for public health organisations to disseminate information about safe sex and almost impossible for homosexual Zambians to seek access to these materials and to support networks. Many people in Zambia, both heterosexual and homosexual, do not know their HIV status for fear of stigmatisation because of the virus.

The UK Government have come forward in the past and asked the Zambians to protect the LGBT community and legalise homosexuality, but we know that this was met with resistance. In 2011, we expressed our disapproval for these policies by channelling aid directly to the people rather than through the Government. However, the policies remain unchanged and, sadly, so does the state of the virus. Although Zambia continues to receive millions of pounds in international aid, the prevalence of the virus has not dropped significantly since it stabilised in 2008. If through this debate your Lordships’ House continues to take the view, which I hope our Government will continue to take, that one of our foremost priorities in the world is to stop the spread of HIV and AIDS, in Zambia in this instance, we must consider other means of helping to change the culture of homophobia in Zambia through channels other than purely by increasing or changing international funding. There is still a lot that we can do.

We can continue to support online resources, such as Rainka in Zambia and Behind the Mask in South Africa, which use blogs to disseminate information about sexuality and safe sex for homosexual couples in nations where the Governments are not willing to support this type of education. We can continue to engage in a dialogue with the nations most affected by the AIDS epidemic about the public health reasons to decriminalise homosexuality. We can set an example by continuing to stand for equal rights regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Perhaps most importantly, we can be the voice that connects health with respect for all people, promoting a new cultural attitude that will help nations like Zambia continue efforts to conquer HIV and AIDS.

19:25

[The Lord Bishop of Newcastle]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Black, for his powerful, moving and, indeed, sometimes bleak speech, which spelt out so strongly and persuasively the link between the criminalisation of homosexuality and the rate of HIV infection and death from AIDS. This timely debate is taking place in the week when the charter has been agreed and signed up to by all the Commonwealth nations. It expresses that it is,

“implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds”.

I take “other grounds” to mean also on grounds of sexuality, although the charter does not spell that out, which suggests there is still a very great deal of work to be done.

Noble Lords may remember that it was almost 50 years ago now, in 1967, that the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, spoke in this House to support the decriminalisation of homosexuality in this country. We sometimes underestimate how brave a stance that was from him at that time. By doing so, he made the distinction in British law between a moral and a criminal matter. One of the problems today is that no such distinction has been made in many parts of the Commonwealth and, as a result of criminalisation, people continue to suffer terrible abuse—sometimes death—and the scourge of HIV/AIDS continues unchecked. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said, in recent years in some countries there has been an increase in stigmatisation, discrimination and criminalisation, which of course threatens to undermine all the good work that has been done with HIV/AIDS.

It is very well known that on matters to do with homosexuality the churches in general, and the Anglican communion in particular, are deeply divided. However, there are not, and cannot be, any grounds for denying the equality before the law of every single human being, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. Many of us in this country value and indeed treasure our links with particular dioceses around the Anglican communion. In my case, over the past dozen years or more, that has been with the diocese of Botswana. HIV/AIDS was a disaster for that country, although things are now improving significantly. The Botswana Government have been actively providing public health education and public healthcare and the HIV/AIDS rate is in decline. There has been a much more positive response in Botswana than in some other neighbouring African countries.

Few have spoken out of southern Africa as clearly as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who said to a United Nations panel in 2010:

“All over the world, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are persecuted. They face violence, torture and criminal sanctions of how they live and who they love. We make them doubt that they too are children of God—and this must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy … Our lesbian and gay brothers and sisters across Africa … are living in fear. And they are living in hiding—away from care, away from the protection the State should offer to every citizen and away from health care, when all of us … need access to essential HIV services”.

The noble Lord, Lord Black, issued a challenge to me in his opening speech. He believes, he says, that the Church of England has got great sway within the Commonwealth. If only that were so. Much more importantly than that, he challenged me to condemn criminalisation specifically because of the way in which it endangers and squanders human life. I will say as clearly as I can that criminalisation is wrong. I know when I say that that I speak not just for myself but for other members of this Bench, and I want to say it as clearly as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester did in a previous debate a few months ago. If criminalisation leads, as it evidently does, to gay people concealing their identity, that is wrong. If criminalisation leads to many living in fear, that is wrong. If criminalisation leads to the prospect of persecution, arrest, detention and death, that is wrong. If criminalisation means that LGBT people dare not turn to the state when facing violence and hate crimes, that is wrong. If criminalisation hinders the treatment of people with HIV/AIDS, that is wrong.

It is within the lifetime of most of us in this House that the law in this country was changed to decriminalise homosexual acts. We need to seek to bring change and a completely new climate in those many countries of the Commonwealth where same-sex relations are still criminal offences. I very much hope that this debate will assist and serve that cause. Let the last words again come from Africa and Desmond Tutu:

“Exclusion is never the way forward on our shared paths to freedom and justice”.

19:31

[Lord Lexden]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Brinton, I must apologise for not being in the Chamber at the very start of this debate, having lingered outside for too long after the debate on the Succession to the Crown Bill, in which I was involved. After a friendship of some 27 years, I think my noble friend Lord Black will probably forgive me.

As my noble friend reminded us in his powerful speech, this House has debated HIV/AIDS from time to time, most recently on the initiative of our noble friend Lord Fowler, whose continuing interest and commitment took him recently to Uganda. It is a matter of great regret that he cannot be with us this evening. Last October I opened a debate, to which kind reference has already been made, on the criminalisation of homosexuality, which, shockingly, remains widespread in the developing world in general and the Commonwealth in particular, breaching fundamental human rights.

This debate brings those two grave issues together. They are by common consent among the most important challenges confronting the world today. My noble friend Lord Black has shown conclusively that the spread of HIV/AIDS and the retention of harsh criminal punishments for homosexual conduct are inextricably linked. As my noble friend reminded us, after a detailed inquiry the UN Development Programme’s Global Commission on HIV and the Law found that criminalisation of homosexuality “both causes and boosts” HIV among men who engage in sexual activity with other men.

As we have heard, the records of most Commonwealth countries—which in so many respects are our closest associates and most valuable friends—testify with particular bleakness to the malign link between criminalisation and HIV/AIDS. Sadly, the majority of Commonwealth countries defy international human rights obligations by treating homosexuals as criminals; as a result, those countries suffer disproportionately from the incidence of HIV. The Commonwealth contains some 30% of the world’s population; it also contains twice that figure—60%—of all people living with HIV across the globe.

John Wesley once said:

“No circumstances can make it necessary for a man to burst in sunder all the ties of humanity”.

The same goes, perhaps even more strongly, for societies, communities and countries. The heart bleeds at this spectacle of suffering and injustice in countries of the Commonwealth, of which my noble friend Lady Brinton has given such a harrowing example. How thankful we should be, therefore, for the sensitive yet determined work of the organisations that have come into existence to combat it: the Terrence Higgins Trust, Kaleidoscope, Stonewall, the Human Dignity Trust and the International HIV/AIDS Alliance prominent among them, all of them working in the name of our common humanity without regard to politics, religion or ideology. They are becoming increasingly well known for their work and that, too, is a cause for thankfulness. They deserve the fullest possible support from all those within the Commonwealth who want to overcome the sundering of the ties of humanity. This great cause must be among the highest priorities of the Commonwealth as a whole—I repeat, as a whole—so that ill intentioned people blind to the ties of humanity cannot decry and belittle it as some neo-colonial plan by Britain and a few others.

In this connection, it was extremely heartening to finds words of the highest wisdom in the report of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group two years ago, which recommended:

“Heads of Government should take steps to encourage the repeal of discriminatory laws that impede the effective response of Commonwealth countries to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and commit to programmes of education that would help a process of repeal of such laws”.

How good it would have been if these fine sentiments had been fully reflected in the new Commonwealth charter, which was described last week by my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire as,

“one of the most important outcomes from the Commonwealth modernisation process. The charter conveys clearly the values that the Commonwealth stands for”.—[Official Report, 7/3/13; col. 1674.]

As we have already heard in the extremely moving speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, the charter—of which so much is being made —does not include any specific rejection of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, nor does it make reference to the decriminalisation of homosexuality. I understand that some officials of the Commonwealth Secretariat interpret the phrase “on other grounds” in the passage of the charter that covers the rejection of discrimination as a condemnation of anti-gay laws. If so, they should be encouraged by our own and other Governments to make this more explicit.

To that end, as my noble friend Lord Black requested, our Government should make decriminalisation a specific policy priority, with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development working together with equal resolution and tenacity to promote it. Operating in close association with other countries, our Government should also monitor closely the progress of central Commonwealth institutions in carrying forward agreed plans throughout this unique association of nations.

It is not enough simply to back the general interests of LGBT people throughout the world, as the Government now do; decriminalisation should be made an explicit goal of government policy for the sake of humanity as a whole, and in particular for the thousands of young people—teenagers even—who at the moment face great suffering and then death as a result of HIV/AIDS. I ask, too, that the Government review their policy on asylum to provide full and equal protection to those throughout the Commonwealth on whom inhumane laws bear so heavily, destroying their hopes and ambitions in their own countries. In addition, many have asked the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to update its dossier of information and advice, the “toolkit” about promoting the human rights of LGBT people, which I understand has remained unchanged since the previous general election.

Sixty-five years ago, the newly formed United Nations issued its Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its first article states:

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”.

For the good of all its peoples, the Commonwealth today should pledge itself to bring those of LGBT identity fully within the scope of that great promise to mankind made to straight and gay alike.

19:40

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity of speaking in the gap, and I apologise to the House, to the Lord Speaker and to the noble Lord, Lord Black, for missing the beginning of the debate due to its unexpectedly early start.

Section II of the Charter of the Commonwealth, signed three months ago, states:

“We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds”.

I cannot add anything to what the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has just said in describing how empty those words, “other words”, are.

It is important to note that the Commonwealth Heads of Government adopted the recommendations of the Eminent Persons Group on repealing of laws in 2012, indicating that member Governments should identify which, if any, laws are considered discriminatory and what steps should be taken to address them.

None the less, the Commonwealth Secretariat has not included, as other noble Lords have said, LGBT rights, legal reform or HIV in its new strategy, and the Commonwealth Foundation’s new strategy includes no plans to support LGBT organisations or others working towards law reform. The secretariat should offer technical support to members to revise and amend their legislation, and the foundation should support civil society organisations working to promote LGBT rights. To address these gaps, I hope that the UK Government will continue actively to promote LGBT rights within the Commonwealth, particularly at the upcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting—if they attend; it is suggested that they may not—and in the work of the Commonwealth Secretariat and Foundation.

It is important that deeds match the words. LGBT people throughout the Commonwealth—indeed, wider, but the Commonwealth contains such a large proportion of those suffering from HIV and AIDS—deserve to see stigma removed through the decriminalisation of private, adult, consensual and same-sex sexual relations. It seems to me self-evident that, if that were done, it would be so much easier to treat the many people who are afraid to come forward and seek medical assistance with HIV and AIDS. I hope that that would be seen as a first step towards the tolerant and respectful societies that the Commonwealth should promote.

19:43

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, for initiating this debate. The level of cross-party support that has been shown in the debate makes me incredibly proud of this House and of our country. During the past 20 years the situation for lesbian, gay and bisexual people in Britain has changed significantly. I am also proud that much of that progress was made under the previous Government. That is not to say that we should be complacent about the problems that remain, in particular the level of homophobia in our schools.

In the same period, remarkable efforts have been made in combating the HIV and AIDS epidemic. No longer a death sentence, HIV is now a long-term chronic condition. Britain can rightly claim to be a beacon to the world of equality for gay people and in the forefront of the fight against HIV and AIDS. However, domestic progress is not enough. If we are serious in our belief in equality we should speak up for those beyond our borders. This country has led and should continue to lead the EU and the wider international community in ensuring that the rights of LGBTI people are recognised and protected. Challenging homophobia, promoting equality and pressing other Governments to introduce measures to ensure equality for LGBTI people should be—as the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, said—a priority for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Sadly, as we have heard in all the examples cited in the debate, progress in our country is not reflected in many parts of the world. Same-sex sexual conduct between consenting adults continues to be criminalised in more than 80 jurisdictions in the world, and 42 of the 54 countries of the Commonwealth of Nations criminalise same-sex relations for men, women or both. A lot of these laws, as we have heard, are a hangover from British colonial rule. While they remain on the statute book, they have a continuing impact of fear, stigma, rejection, violence and, far too often, murder.

However, this systematic persecution and criminalisation of identity can also decimate efforts to halt the spread of HIV. It often results in gay people not being able to access the healthcare, education and employment that they need, preventing access to HIV testing and treatment. A global online survey of 5,000 men who have sex with men found that only 36% were able easily to access treatment and that less than a third had easy access to HIV education materials.

As we have heard, men who have sex with men have a significantly heightened risk of HIV infection. They are 19 times more likely to be infected with HIV than other adult men. Criminalisation of homosexual activities both causes and boosts those numbers. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Black, UNAIDS reports that in the Caribbean countries where homosexuality is criminalised, almost one in four men who have sex with men are infected with HIV. In the absence of such criminal laws, the prevalence is only 1 in 15 among men who have sex with men. As my noble friend Lady Gould said, Commonwealth countries comprise more than 60% of people living with HIV globally, despite representing about 30% of the world’s population. As we have heard, a recent meeting of the Commonwealth Foreign Affairs Ministers adopted a recommendation proposed by the Eminent Persons Group within the Commonwealth to tackle laws that undermine effective responses to HIV. As the right reverend Prelate said, the signing of the new Commonwealth charter is great news, too, as it underpins the commitment of the Commonwealth to human rights, gender equality and democracy.

However, whether the vague terms of the charter against discrimination based on “other grounds” really include sexual orientation and gender identity, drug use, sex work or HIV status presents a real test for the Commonwealth. It is therefore imperative that the commitment to repeal all discriminatory legislation which hampers the HIV response is honoured in the Commonwealth.

Today’s debate presents a real opportunity for the UK Government to underpin the steady support that they have given to reform and modernisation of the Commonwealth and to ensure that the Commonwealth Secretariat takes a proactive and supportive role in promoting the reform of bad laws across the Commonwealth, starting with those that still criminalise gay men.

As both the noble Lord, Lord Black, and my noble friend Lady Gould stated, the global evidence is clear that public health is best served by removing discrimination and prejudice against LGBTI persons, ensuring that the widest possible information regarding safe sex practices, health services and HIV prevention and treatment measures is accessible to the people who need it most.

There are some Commonwealth countries—for example, India and Pakistan—where, if it were not for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the response to tackle HIV among men who have sex with men would be inadequate. Will DfID stick to the commitment made by the former Secretary of State for International Development substantially to increase the amount of resources given to the fund to ensure that those essential programmes are able to continue? Will the Minister outline how the UK Government will work with other leading countries ahead of the G8 this summer, to harness as much financial support for the fund as possible?

I welcome the way—which the noble Lord, Lord Black, referred to—that the Government are now working closely with organisations such as the Human Dignity Trust, Stonewall and the Kaleidoscope Trust on how we oppose human rights abuses of gay people worldwide. Real progress on gay equality will ultimately come from grass-roots movements, but we need to help create the conditions where those local gay rights movements can emerge. May I ask the Minister what direct assistance the Government will provide, either financially or politically, to support the development of lesbian, gay and bisexual movements worldwide, in particular in the Commonwealth countries that we have been talking about?

Finally, we cannot pretend that this does not affect us here. Gay people around the world look to Britain to offer them refuge from this discrimination. I ask the Minister if the Government will ensure that, through the UK Borders Agency, lesbian and gay people are provided with a real safe haven when they flee from persecution? Is it also not time that the existence of these laws should be sufficient to establish persecution?

19:52

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Black for introducing so effectively this important debate on the stigma and discrimination facing gay men and women in Commonwealth countries, and the additional stigma of HIV/AIDS. My noble friend Lord Black makes clear that the criminalisation of homosexuality in 42 Commonwealth countries can indeed lead to death, possibly not only of the person in question but of partners and children. We are reminded, both by him and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and others that the laws that criminalise are a colonial legacy. We heard a powerful account from my noble friend Lady Brinton about the situation in Zambia, where homosexuality is criminalised and where families and communities take severe measures to “cure” homosexuals of their apparent illness.

Homosexuality is criminalised and homosexuals suffer terrible discrimination. Those with HIV also suffer discrimination. As my noble friend Lord Lexden said, we have here two grave issues—and they can be literally grave. It is appalling that HIV-related stigma and discrimination in the family, community and workplace is still so widespread around the world and in the Commonwealth. Unless stigma and discrimination are addressed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and others said, we will not meet our global commitment to halt and reverse the spread of HIV. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, outlined the particular risk in the Caribbean and elsewhere. Our response cannot neglect these populations who are most marginalised and today I hope to highlight areas where the UK Government will do more.

Legal barriers create a climate of fear that prevents people accessing the prevention, treatment and care they need. In many countries, including many Commonwealth countries, rather than providing protection, as we have heard, the law—and the law of the street—dehumanises sex workers, men who have sex with men, people who use drugs, transgender people, prisoners and migrants. This drives these key populations underground and hinders their access to information and services, which in turn promotes risky behaviour that makes them even more vulnerable to HIV infection and fuels the epidemic further.

In defiance of international human rights standards, 78 countries, half of them in the Commonwealth, make same-sex sexual activity a criminal offence, as we have heard. When we have specific concerns about a Government's failure to protect their citizens’ rights—for example, through the persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people—we raise these directly at the highest levels of the Government concerned. My noble friend Lord Black asked whether the UK Government will make decriminalisation a stated policy commitment for the FCO and DfID. The UK’s LGBT action plan includes an international commitment to advocate changing discriminatory practices and laws that criminalise homosexuality and same-sex behaviour, and to work with international institutions to oppose the introduction of new anti-homosexual legislation. We work with our embassies and high commissions and through international organisations, including the UN, the Council of Europe and the Commonwealth, to promote tolerance and non-discrimination and to address discriminatory laws, in particular those that criminalise homosexuality.

We see the Commonwealth and its networks as a potentially valuable partner in protecting and promoting human rights globally. However, the rights of homosexual men and women remain a very difficult and controversial issue in the Commonwealth. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle and others, I am delighted with the positive outcomes from the Commonwealth Foreign Affairs Ministers’ meeting in New York last September, including agreement on the outstanding recommendations of the Eminent Persons Group, now reflected in the Commonwealth charter signed by Her Majesty the Queen on Monday on Commonwealth Day. This sets out the Commonwealth’s core values and aspirations, including that discriminatory laws that impede access to HIV treatment should be addressed. Protecting human rights is a core value of this unique organisation and endorsement of the charter reiterates its commitment to opposing all forms of discrimination on any grounds.

I will read certain elements of the Commonwealth charter. Various noble Lords have referred to this and quoted from it, but it is worth reading again, for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Lexden gave. In the section on human rights, it states:

“We are committed to equality and respect for the protection and promotion of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, for all without discrimination on any grounds as the foundations of peaceful, just and stable societies. We note that these rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated and cannot be implemented selectively … We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds”.

If noble Lords read on, they will see under “Tolerance, respect and understanding” the emphasis on,

“the need to promote tolerance, respect, understanding, moderation”;

under “Separation of powers”,

“the promotion and protection of fundamental human rights”;

and under “Access to health”,

“emphasise the importance of promoting health and well-being in combating communicable and non-communicable diseases”.

It is worth emphasising those, because I urge noble Lords to take heart from these words. They are the words that citizens can use to hold their Governments to account; and for countries to hold other countries to account. As my noble friend Lord Lexden will know, international human rights may seem to make slow progress historically, but it is often through these statements that gradually things move forward.

My noble friend Lord Black asked why the Commonwealth Secretariat has not included LGBT rights, legal reform or HIV in its new strategy. The draft Commonwealth Secretariat’s draft strategic plan is quite high-level and does not go into much detail about proposed activities. It foresees a role in health, human rights and justice, which are all relevant here. We will continue to work with the secretariat and the foundation to see what more they could do in this important area. To address a question from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, we in the UK do not ourselves set the agenda for CHOGM, but we will continue to raise these issues in Commonwealth fora. It is extremely important that countries have signed up to the language that I have just cited.

I hardly need to draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that policies, programmes and resources for HIV for key populations are grossly inadequate, despite the growing infection rates in the groups that we have talked about. For example, in 2009, only 18% of countries had established HIV prevention goals for reaching men who have sex with men.

That is why, in the Government’s position paper on HIV in the developing world, Towards Zero Infections, published in May 2011, we committed to build on our track record as a voice for a public health approach—as emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould—to the key populations affected by HIV that respects human rights and addresses stigma and discrimination. The world must work much harder to empower those groups whose life circumstances place them at increased risk of HIV.

I could draw on many examples to demonstrate DfID’s support, which echoes the approach that we have taken in the Department of Health within the United Kingdom. I shall mention three. The Global Network of People Living with HIV has been conducting policy research in South Africa on the criminalisation of LGBT. The Global Forum for Men who Have Sex with Men is engaging in international policy dialogue to promote laws, regulations and policies that improve HIV prevention programmes for men who have sex with men. I hope that my noble friend Lord Black and others will be pleased that, last July, my right honourable friend the Minister of State for International Development, Alan Duncan, announced new resources for the Robert Carr fund to support global and regional networks to improve HIV responses reaching key populations, and this new funding is being disbursed.

My noble friend Lord Black asked whether the UK Government will consider introducing a specific funding mechanism for LGBT organisations working for legal or social reform in those countries. The UK funds a number of programmes in that area. For example, 21% of the networks that the Robert Carr fund, to which I just referred, is supporting involve work for legal or social reform in those countries, so that is being addressed. My noble friend Lady Brinton made the point that there are new ways of promoting equality, such as through social media. She is surely right about that; there are a number of ways to do that.

My noble friend Lord Lexden asked about the FCO rights toolkit. We are very pleased that NGOs feel that it is a world reference and that the United States has used it as a basis for developing its own toolkit, but we take his point that it is now somewhat dated. We plan to update it this year and will be happy to receive suggestions from anyone on how to strengthen it further.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about support for the global fund. The United Kingdom remains a strong and reliable supporter of the global fund. I am writing to my noble friend Lord Fowler with an update on the situation because, as the noble Lord will know, the global fund went through something of a difficult time, but the United Kingdom is on track to meet our £1 billion commitment to the fund by 2015. I am happy to copy the noble Lord into my letter to my noble friend Lord Fowler. We are working with others to ensure that there is successful replenishment.

It is clearly critical in all our support for local civil society organisations to empower those most at risk from HIV, so that they understand and can advocate for their rights, and to challenge HIV-related discrimination and criminalisation. Without grass-roots support to tackle legal barriers that hamper the HIV response, and without the ability to hold Governments to account, change will not be sustained. People living with or directly affected by HIV understand their needs better than anyone. Involving those communities is not just their right; it is essential to an effective response to the epidemic that their voices are heard in policy, decision-making and budgeting processes.

This has been a very important debate linking the terrible discrimination against homosexuals in many Commonwealth countries with the terrible discrimination against those who suffer HIV/AIDS. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and others said, public health is assisted by promoting the rights of homosexuals, but it is right in itself, as others have said.

I assure noble Lords that we recognise those challenges and how important it is to support the rights of all, especially those who are the most vulnerable around the world.

House adjourned at 8.06 pm.