House of Commons

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

Tuesday 8 October 2013

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Business Before questions

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Third Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 15 October (Standing Order No. 20).

Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [Lords]

Second Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 15 October (Standing Order No. 20).

Oral Answers to Questions

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

1. What recent progress he has made on his plans for modernisation of the prison estate.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

If I might trespass on the House’s time for a moment, I would like to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) to his new position and express gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) for her work as a Justice Minister.

We have made significant progress on our plans to modernise the prison estate and reduce operating costs. In September we announced a new 2,000-plus place prison, to be built on the former Firestone site in Wrexham. We have launched a feasibility study on possible changes at the site of the Feltham young offender institution, with a potential enlarged new adult prison and a new youth facility on adjoining sites. We will consult on that as progress develops. We have also announced the closure of 1,400 uneconomic places, which will contribute to our overall plans to reduce prison costs by more than £500 million in this spending review period. However, we remain on track to go into the next election with more adult male prison places than we inherited in 2010.

[Steve Brine]

I thank the Lord Chancellor for that answer, but may I make a plea to him to remember local prisons? He knows that genuine local prisons, such as Her Majesty’s prison—and now the young offender institution—in Winchester, play a central role in the secure estate, but they need investment too, especially in Winchester. The recent closure of prisons in Kingston, Reading and Dorchester is already having an impact on the secure estate in Winchester.

[Chris Grayling]

I pay tribute to the team that works in Winchester. They do a first-rate job for all of us, and Winchester will, of course, continue to play an important part in our work in the Prison Service. We are in the process of finalising plans to change the nature of our prison estate, with the local focus described by my hon. Friend, so that we will have a network of resettlement prisons from where most prisoners will be released into the areas in which they will then live.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

This morning Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons issued a report expressing concern about Oakwood prison in Staffordshire, which is the most recent prison to be built. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that the Wrexham prison to which he has referred will not have similar difficulties when the Government undertake its building?

[Chris Grayling]

Prison professionals all say that the early days of a new prison are difficult. Clearly there is still work to be done at Oakwood and that is a priority for us. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, however, that some of the criticisms of Oakwood refer to the fact that it is a privately run prison. I have taken no decision about the status of the prison in Wrexham, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the Labour party that took the decision to privatise Oakwood.

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

15. The prison facility in Northallerton, in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, which also serves Thirsk, Malton and Filey, is closing. Will those who work there be offered places elsewhere in the Prison Service, and has the Secretary of State given any thought to a new, replacement institution coming to Northallerton or York?

[Chris Grayling]

Closure decisions are never easy for the staff and communities involved. I regret the need to take such decisions, but we have to continue the process of new for old in the prison estate. I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that we will ensure that voluntary redundancy or transfers will be available for the staff affected. We aim to transfer as many staff as possible to other prisons and we will, of course, make sure there is appropriate and adequate coverage in my hon. Friend’s part of the country. That is the least we can do to protect her constituents.

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

Does the Secretary of State not agree that, in the light of the recent inspection report of Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons, the prison estate is actually getting worse, not better?

[Chris Grayling]

I am afraid that I do not agree. We are moving as fast as we can to modernise the prison estate, to bring in new, quality accommodation. Next year we will open four new house blocks, which will provide modern, updated accommodation. If the hon. Gentleman visits some of the older, Victorian prisons, he will see for himself that they are poor places to deliver proper rehabilitation services: there is not enough space for workshops or training facilities. I think that a modern prison estate is much better for all of us.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

21. Recently, a number of individuals who are being detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure at Lincoln have caused excessive damage to the fixtures in their solitary cells. Those incidents highlight the need for custodial sentences to be lengthened as a deterrent and not imposed concurrently. However, I trust that the Secretary of State, like me, is pleased that organisations such as the Gelder Group in Lincoln are willing to help rehabilitate offenders back into our communities by offering construction-related training courses. Does he agree that any modernisation of our prisons must encourage the development of such schemes?

[Chris Grayling]

We are keen to see as many work and training opportunities in our prisons as possible and we continue to look for more such opportunities. I pay tribute to the team in Lincoln for achieving that. Causing damage to a prison is wholly unacceptable. We have taken steps that will lead to inmates being charged for the damage that they cause from their prison pay. That has not happened in the past, but it must happen in the future.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

If I may correct the Secretary of State, it was the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) who decided that Oakwood should be run by G4S. He may be socially liberal, but he is not Labour. I echo the comments that have been made about the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) and welcome him to the Front Bench. It really is nice to see him there.

“We have a very good model for prison development in Oakwood… That site has multiple blocks and first-class training facilities. To my mind, it is an excellent model for the future of the Prison Service.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 114.]

That is what the Secretary of State for Justice told us earlier this year. Oakwood was his blueprint for the future. In the light of today’s damning report, which states that the prison has failed at every level, does he stand by those words?

[Chris Grayling]

I invite the right hon. Gentleman to go to Oakwood to see the facilities, which were praised in today’s report. I am afraid that he is just not right. I have checked this information today. The contracting process, including the invitations to tender to the private sector to run Oakwood, started under the last Labour Government.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to address literacy and numeracy problems in prisons.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

Improving prisoners’ literacy and numeracy levels is a key focus of the Offenders’ Learning and Skills Service. When a need is identified, prisoners are offered teaching and support as a matter of priority. As my hon. Friend knows, a number of charities provide invaluable support in that area.

[Caroline Dinenage]

In prisons across the country, education can take a long time to access and is often viewed as a reward for good behaviour, rather than as a vital cornerstone of rehabilitation. What plans does my hon. Friend have to help prisoners overcome those barriers and access the skills that will be vital to them on release?

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend is entirely right that rehabilitation is crucial and that education is a crucial part of rehabilitation. We will ensure that prisoners have every incentive to engage in rehabilitation. That means reforming the incentives and earned privileges scheme so that they have clear incentives, and it means ensuring that prisoners who want to get to the top of that scheme help other prisoners in a range of ways, one of which may be operating as a mentor or learning tutor—roles that, as she knows, are often supported by charities.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) back to the Front Bench. It is, dare I say it, a practical example of rehabilitation. On education in prisons, is the Minister aware of the innovative scheme in Cardiff prison, where the prisoners have opened a restaurant that is open to the public? That is a great help in providing prisoners with the kind of skills, including literacy and numeracy, that they will need when they re-enter the community.

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice might provide an example of rehabilitation, if not of earned release. The Clink at Cardiff prison is a fine example of rehabilitation. It allows prisoners to gain the skills that we all know they need to go on and live law-abiding lifestyles. I have eaten there, as has the Secretary of State. It is a very good example of rehabilitation and we want to see more of it.

[Miss Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of the importance of literacy and numeracy. Following the visit of the Secretary of State to Norwich prison in my constituency in the summer, will he provide an update on how he expects more work to be made available to prisoners to ensure that they stand the best chance of rehabilitation on release?

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend is right that work in prison is crucial. We are having considerable success in that area. Last year, 800,000 more hours were worked in prisons than the year before. That is progress, but there is more to do. Work is important because it gives prisoners not only the hard skills that they need to earn qualifications and to get and keep a job, but softer skills such as working in a team, getting up in the morning and understanding the necessity of working a proper working day. All of that is important and we want to see more of it in our prisons.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

3. How his new model of legal aid tendering will help to ensure a more stable environment for law firms in the future.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

Under our proposals to reform legal aid, contracts will be let for at least four years and defendants will be free to choose their lawyer. Current firms can continue, provided they meet minimum quality standards. An updated tendering model for duty work seeks to make the market more sustainable by awarding contracts based on quality and capacity, not on price. All those proposals have been worked through and agreed with the Law Society.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. A number of firms in my constituency have initial concerns about the proposals, particularly firms such as Harringtons that have been encouraged to specialise in legal aid. Will my right hon. Friend commit to providing interim payments to such firms in long-running and complex cases, as that would be of great benefit to them?

[Chris Grayling]

I can give that assurance to my hon. Friend. We are looking across the legal aid and legal services world at ways to improve cash flows, where appropriate by providing interim payments to barristers and solicitors, and we have invited ideas from all parts of the profession on how best to do that. Even if we have to take tough overall financial decisions, I am keen to ensure that we ease cash flow challenges, which are a regular complaint from lawyers.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given the large number of local black, Asian and minority ethnic legal firms, including in Liverpool, why has no equality impact assessment been undertaken on the Government’s plans for legal aid?

[Chris Grayling]

We have done equality work, and the changes announced in September will mean that there should be no reason for any BAME specialist firm to have to change what it does.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

18. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the revised proposals have been agreed with the Law Society, and that small, local law firms will have continuing access to get that work?

[Chris Grayling]

I can give that confirmation. We have tried to ensure that through a contracting structure for duty work, we can guarantee that anybody who is arrested and taken to a police station will always have access to a lawyer. At the same time, we recognise the point about small firms in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and those in Liverpool mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger). Such firms can continue to do their own client work, albeit in a tough financial environment, so that the choice that has been enjoyed in the past will continue.

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

Will the Secretary of State tell the House what recent discussions he has had with the Minister of Justice in the Northern Ireland Assembly on the sensitive issue of legal aid, and say what was the outcome of those discussions?

[Chris Grayling]

I have had a number of discussions with the Justice Minister over the months. We have not specifically discussed our legal aid reforms, but I know he has similar financial challenges to ours. He has mentioned those challenges to me, and I know he is looking at how best to deal with them.

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

The Secretary of State knows how welcome his announcement was a few weeks ago, and how he listened to responses. Concerns remain, however, about the shortage of members of the Bar doing legal aid work in welfare law and the like, and about the fees currently proposed for remunerating them. Is he willing to look open-endedly at that fee regime to ensure that we have good lawyers who are able to represent people on legal aid in the future?

[Chris Grayling]

We will continue to try to ensure that we provide the right financial balance. Most senior members of the Bar mention the number of people training as barristers compared with the number of pupillages available, as that represents a huge challenge for the legal profession. The Government will continue to work to achieve the right balance, but under our proposals for criminal legal aid, in normal routine Crown court work the lowest daily amount we will be paying is £225 plus VAT.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree with the former chairman of the Criminal Bar Association who commented this weekend that for the Secretary of State to hold a “global law summit” to celebrate Magna Carta, while destroying access to justice through his legal aid policy, and access to human rights by his threats to repeal the Human Rights Act 1997 and withdraw from the European convention on human rights, is “hypocrisy” that “beggars belief”?

[Chris Grayling]

Everyone has a right to their opinion, and I think that that is complete hogwash. It is absolutely right and proper that this country should celebrate a profession that makes a huge contribution to this country and its economy. We should celebrate our long legal traditions and we will do so proudly in 2015. That does not mean that we do not have to take tough financial decisions to clear up the mess that Labour left behind.

[Mr Slaughter]

The right hon. Gentleman has never been a big fan of the Criminal Bar Association—that might be reciprocated—but does he agree with the president of the Supreme Court, who last week said that legal aid:

“ensures that the most underprivileged people in society, the people who need the protection of the law most…get a proper hearing”

and that

“legal aid cuts therefore do cause any person concerned with the rule of law worry”?

[Chris Grayling]

That is precisely why, despite taking the tough financial decisions, we are ensuring that anybody who cannot afford it, if they are arrested and charged with a crime, will always have access to a qualified lawyer, and qualified barrister if they need one, to provide them with a proper defence, according to the traditions of Magna Carta.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

4. What recent progress he has made on improving women’s prisons.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

13. What recent progress he has made on improving women’s prisons.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

We are committed to improving standards across women’s prisons to meet the needs of women offenders. We have recently conducted a review of the women’s custodial estate, the results of which will be announced in the near future. The review will inform future policy development and improvements in how the female custodial estate is configured.

[Annette Brooke]

I was recently visited by local soroptimists, who told me about their national campaign to end the unnecessary imprisonment of women in the UK. Will the Minister give his support to this campaign and put more emphasis on community sentencing, rehabilitation and support?

[Jeremy Wright]

I will certainly have a look at the campaign to which my hon. Friend refers, but we believe that there are women who need to be imprisoned, having committed offences that justify imprisonment, and for whom, for reasons of punishment and public protection, imprisonment is appropriate. It is of course important to recognise that they have different requirements from male prisoners and to ensure that the female custodial estate reflects that. She is also right that rehabilitation is crucial. I hope she can be a little more patient and wait to hear what we have to say about the women’s custodial estate. I think she will be pleased to hear what we have to say about the need to put rehabilitation at the heart of everything we do.

[Lorely Burt]

I recently visited Downview prison, and I am surprised now to learn that it is being reroled—as the term goes—into a male prison. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the resulting savings to the women’s estate will be reinvested in prevention and community alternatives for women, as the Justice Secretary promised the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on 2 July?

[Jeremy Wright]

Again, I hope my hon. Friend can be a little more patient and wait for the results of the review. When she sees those results, she will see that when it comes to resources, we think it is extremely important that we invest in rehabilitation, both for those women in the custodial estate because they need to be and for those women who could be better accommodated in the community. It is important that we recognise, however, that it is for the judiciary and magistrates to decide who needs to go to prison and who does not. It is our job to provide the capacity necessary. On Downview, we calculated that that capacity could be better used for the male estate than the female estate, but as I say, when she sees the results of the review, she will see that we have in mind many of things she has mentioned.

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

The hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), previously a Justice Minister, concentrated much of her time on women in prison and women generally in the justice system. Will the Minister tell me whether, as the previous Minister aimed to ensure, the bulk of Baroness Corston’s report will be implemented within this Parliament?

[Jeremy Wright]

As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, 40 of the 43 recommendations in the Corston report have already been implemented. On the rest, he will know that the last Government decided that it was not the appropriate course of action, as Baroness Corston recommended, to pursue custodial units for women. Again, I am afraid, I must ask him to wait a little longer and see what we have to say on that subject, but he is absolutely right to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), now the sports Minister, and I hope that he will see the fruits of her labour in the work we are about to reveal.

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

Will the Secretary of State confirm how many women’s centres he expects to close as a result of funding cuts?

[Jeremy Wright]

Again, the hon. Lady will have to be patient and will have to see what we have to say about provision for women across the board. It is right that we do this in a holistic way, as I am sure she would agree, and that we present proposals that have been properly thought through and properly costed, so that we can explain how we think it is best to provide custody and rehabilitation for all female offenders.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

6. What progress he has made on investigating the reported misuse of public money by private contractors who hold contracts with his Department.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

We are in the process of auditing every contract that my Department holds with G4S and Serco. We will not be awarding the companies any new contracts unless or until those audits are completed to our satisfaction. We expect the audits to be completed later in the autumn.

[Nick Smith]

Why will the Minister not publish the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on the activities of G4S before any future Ministry of Justice contracts are awarded?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that these matters are currently being considered by the Serious Fraud Office. He will therefore understand that it would not be legally appropriate to publish items being considered by the SFO until it has completed its consideration.

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be more than aware of the importance of private sector suppliers to the Ministry of Justice in delivering his strategic objectives of greater efficiency and better use of public money. He will also know that those suppliers are responsible for the more efficient and innovative delivery of the whole justice agenda, so will he be sure not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and remember the terrific role that the private sector has played in achieving enormous savings for the taxpayer, which will dwarf any of the issues that he is dealing with? Will he also ensure that no mistakes are made either by the contracting departments in the Ministry of Justice or by the suppliers?

[Chris Grayling]

I can give my hon. Friend an assurance on both those points. It is important to remember that, notwithstanding the issues that have arisen, a large number of the people working for private contractors on behalf of the Government are doing a very good job for us. It is ironic that, before the Labour party returned to its socialist roots in the past few weeks, it too used to believe in outsourcing to the private sector. It has clearly changed its mind now; that is all part of the trip back to the days of Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

The Lord Chancellor will recall that prison privatisations had to be halted because of the investigations that were taking place into two private sector contractors. Does he recognise that the very small number of private contractors available to take on these major contracts and the limited skills of the civil service to manage those contracts pose a threat to the achievement of his objective of transforming rehabilitation?

[Chris Grayling]

It is certainly unwelcome when we have issues with private contractors. I believe that it is important for the Government to broaden their ambit in terms of the organisations that they do business with. There is a large number of organisations out there in the voluntary and private sectors with skills to bring to the Government, and I hope that we can latch on to those skills and make good use of them. It is important for the future of Government contracting that we do not become too dependent on a very small number of suppliers.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

7. What progress he has made on the roll-out of changes to the incentives and privileges scheme in prisons.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

Changes to the incentives and earned privileges scheme to ensure that prisoners earn their privileges will take effect on 1 November this year. As my hon. Friend will know, we have already removed 18-rated DVDs and subscription television services. In addition, we are separately considering a revised system of incentives and privileges for young people in under-18 young offenders institutions.

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he believe that prisons are now, or will soon be, the spartan establishments that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier this year that he would like to see?

[Jeremy Wright]

I can tell my hon. Friend that for as long as my right hon. Friend and I are in charge of prisons, they will not be places of luxury. We have made it clear that when prisoners want to wear their own clothes, and to have access to television or to more of their own money, they will have to earn those privileges. As my right hon. Friend said earlier, we are going further than that in saying that prisoners who cause damage to their cells will not only be punished for that within the prison system but will be expected to pay for the damage.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Has the review that was promised after the Reece Ludlow revelations about prisoners having access to graphic images of their victims been concluded, and has that practice now ceased?

[Jeremy Wright]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to prisoners having access to legal papers relating to their cases. This is a difficult problem because, as he will recognise, prisoners have certain rights of access to their legal papers, but it is a cause for concern to us, and to him, that they might have access to materials that they can keep in their cells and show to other people. That is clearly inappropriate, and we are looking into how we can best restrict that access. He can rest assured that we are seeking to do that.

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

8. What progress he has made on the digitisation and modernisation of the criminal justice system.

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

The criminal justice system strategy and action plan that I launched in June sets out a clear path for the modernisation and digitisation of the criminal justice system. To drive this work forward, we have secured investment of £160 million, which supports three tranches of transformation: the second phase of the CJS efficiency programme, which will deliver the “digital courtroom”, a new CJS common platform programme and a programme to digitise policing.

[Rehman Chishti]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but will he clarify what key improvements can be expected for victims and witnesses from this modernisation?

[Damian Green]

There are a number of individual actions within the programme that guarantee that. My hon. Friend is right to identify these groups as key people who need to see improvements. I shall pick three examples. First, it will be easier for witnesses to give evidence by video link, which is particularly important for vulnerable witnesses. Secondly, we will extend the successful TrackMyCrime system, which has been developed in Avon and Somerset to give victims the opportunity to follow the progress of their case online. Thirdly, we will pilot section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which provides for pre-recorded cross-examination for vulnerable witnesses—again, particularly welcome in child sexual exploitation cases.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Of course the best way to modernise the criminal justice system would be to not close Dudley’s magistrates court, currently threatened with closure by the Minister’s Department, which will force victims and witnesses to travel to Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton at great expense in terms of money and time. Would Ministers be prepared to meet magistrates and local people from Dudley so that they can hear directly from them why Dudley’s criminal court should stay open?

[Damian Green]

I am always happy to meet magistrates, which I do on a number of occasions because we are consulting on the future of the magistracy. However, the introduction of video links means that people will not need to travel the distances that the hon. Gentleman talks about. Police officers from police stations and vulnerable witnesses in particular will be able to give evidence from places of safety. That is the way to have an efficient estate in future, while also giving proper protection to vulnerable witnesses.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

9. What assessment he has made of the potential effect on children of recent changes to legal aid.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

Impact assessments and equalities analyses were published to accompany the Royal Assent of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012; and there has been the “Transforming Legal Aid” consultation document of April 2013, and the Government response and further consultation published on 5 September 2013. These included the Government’s assessment of the impact on children.

[Bill Esterson]

The Government say that people who no longer receive legal aid will find other means of resolving legal issues. Will the Secretary of State tell me just how he expects most children to navigate their way around the very complex legal system in this country?

[Chris Grayling]

We have taken a number of steps to ensure that children do continue to receive legal aid. As an example, we have allowed children under 12 months to still be entitled to legal aid and to be exempt from our residence test. We have taken a number of similar measures, too, but the hon. Gentleman has to understand that we cannot continue to have a legal aid system that is as expensive as the one we have and that is far more expensive than its counterparts in other parts of the world. We cannot provide access to finance for everyone.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend say what reforms, in addition to the reforms to the legal aid system, are proposed for greater transparency in the family court system for the sake of the children involved?

[Chris Grayling]

I can indeed. I pay tribute to Justice Munby who is working on plans for transparency and how the Court of Protection works. The reforms he will be putting in place will, I think, make a big difference to the way in which the courts work, making them more transparent and more open about the work they do. I look forward to seeing the fruits of his labours.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

19. The Children’s Society said of the Government’s legal aid proposals that“these changes will prevent some of the most vulnerable children, young people and families from seeking and obtaining justice.”What has the right hon. Gentleman changed to allay those fears?

[Chris Grayling]

We have found the right balance between protecting the interests of the justice and sustaining a legal aid system that provides justice—for example, by protecting civil legal aid in some of the most sensitive child custody cases. I say again, however, that in a world of tight finance, we cannot do everything for everyone.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that when children are charged with a crime, it is essential that they appear before magistrates as soon as possible? Will he ensure that the youth magistracy computer system puts a strong emphasis on speed, particularly in Worcester?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and if particular issues emerge in Worcester, I shall ask the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice to take a look at them with her. We obviously do not want inappropriate and unnecessary delays in bringing young people in particular to justice.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

10. When he expects to put out to tender contracts for privatising probation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

On 19 September, the Ministry of Justice launched the transforming rehabilitation competition. It will be open to organisations from the private and voluntary and community sectors, as well as those who are currently working in probation trusts, to bid for contracts for the 21 community rehabilitation companies that will be responsible for supervising and rehabilitating low and medium-risk offenders each year. The competition will continue during 2014, and contracts will be awarded and mobilised by 2015.

[Karl Turner]

Does the Minister accept that the Offender Management Act 2007 was about probation trusts commissioning services locally, rather than about the abolition of local probation trusts and the commissioning of services from Whitehall, which is what he is now proposing?

[Jeremy Wright]

No. I have the Act in front of me, and section 3(2) states:

“The Secretary of State may make contractual or other arrangements with any other person for the making of the probation provision.”

The Act means what it says. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the last Government passed legislation that they did not intend to pass, no doubt he will want to take that up with the former Ministers in his own party who were responsible.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said in the House, referring to this very issue,

“Sometimes we just have to believe something is right and do it”.—[Official Report, 9 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 318.]

However, leaping in and hoping for the best is a sure-fire way of getting it wrong.

Let us look at the Secretary of State’s record. Only 2% of offenders on the Work programme have found jobs; dangerous offenders are not being properly risk-assessed before release; in a brand-new prison, obtaining drugs is easier than obtaining soap; and mismanaged contracts with G4S and Serco are under investigation for fraud. I could go on. Does all that not represent the triumph of the Secretary of State’s wishful thinking over public safety?

[Jeremy Wright]

I barely know where to start, but let us start here: it is a good idea to read the facts and not the newspaper headlines. What the hon. Lady has described is a travesty of what we are proposing to do. If she is talking about the involvement of the private sector in the monitoring of contracts, she needs to be extremely careful, because she ought to know that those contracts were negotiated by the last Labour Government. She is sitting in a very large glass house and throwing stones in every direction.

I think it important for us all to understand exactly what we are proposing to do, which is to bring new people with new ideas into the provision of rehabilitation for offenders of all kinds. It is important for us to recognise that the status quo should not be what we seek to defend. Reoffending rates are too high, and we need to bring them down. If the hon. Lady wants to defend the status quo, that is up to her, but we intend to improve the situation.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must make some progress. I want to allow Back Benchers to speak, and conceivably even a Front Bencher.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

11. What assessment he has made of the scope for further savings in the justice system in England and Wales.

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

The Ministry of Justice has committed itself to saving a further 10% of its budget, or £695 million, in the year from April 2015. We are reforming rehabilitation and legal aid, making prison more cost-effective, and improving the effectiveness of the courts and criminal justice system. That adds to the savings of well over £2.5 billion that have been made since the 2010 spending review.

[David Mowat]

Many Departments use skilled professionals to deal with routine and complex matters. They include surgeons, scientists and, of course, barristers. However, the Ministry of Justice is unique in paying a sub-set of criminally aided barristers salaries that are two, three or four times higher than those received by, for example, surgeons. Can the Minister confirm that the current reforms will address that issue?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend has identified a real problem, which we are indeed addressing. A small number of cases cost a disproportionate amount of the legal aid budget: for instance, a recent criminal case cost about £8 million in legal aid. That clearly cannot continue in the current economic climate, and we are therefore reducing the cost of long-running criminal cases—known as very high cost cases—by 30%. We are also consulting on revised models of payment for advocacy fees.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

On 2 July, the Secretary of State promised me that if he closed a women’s prison, the savings would be invested in reducing offending by women. Will the new all-male team at the Department ensure that ring-fenced action is taken to prevent women’s offending?

[Damian Green]

I am happy to reassure the hon. Lady that the good work that was conducted by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), who has moved on to pastures new, will be continued. As the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), said in answer to a previous question, if hon. Members can be patient for a few weeks, they will learn more about the prison estate.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

12. What progress he has made on rehabilitating young offenders.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

Better rehabilitation of young offenders is a priority for the Government, and I will make a further announcement about our plans in the very near future.

[Stephen McPartland]

I am a patron of Trailblazers, a national charity that mentors young offenders. Will the Secretary of State confirm that offenders on the youth estate aged between 18 and 21 will be transferred to resettlement prisons three months before the end of their sentence, as is the current plan for adult offenders, and will he visit Trailblazers with me?

[Chris Grayling]

I am happy to visit my hon. Friend, his constituency and the charity concerned. I can confirm that it is our intention that almost all prisoners will be released from resettlement prisons, so that we can provide a proper through the gate service.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in praising the work of the excellent team at Parc prison on the edge of my constituency where many of my constituents work? They do tremendous work with young offenders serving a custodial sentence, re-entering normal life and entering work. Can he explain why his Department at one time sought to abolish the Youth Justice Board?

[Chris Grayling]

Let me pay tribute to the team at Parc, who do a first-rate job. I have been there myself. There is no and has never been any intention to abolish the functions of the Youth Justice Board. It has been a question purely of what the best corporate structure is for it.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

14. What steps he is taking to strengthen the prisons and probation ombudsman.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

We are reviewing the prisons and probation ombudsman’s terms of reference to make even clearer his independent status and role in investigating deaths in custody and in responding to complaints from detainees. I fully support the ombudsman’s steps to improve the quality and timeliness of investigations and to ensure that others can learn lessons from his findings.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister for his comments but the changes proposed to prison legal aid put a great deal of weight on the quality of the prisons and probation ombudsman. What certainty can the Minister give that that will increase the quality and speed of decisions and save money? Can he be sure that that will happen?

[Jeremy Wright]

We believe that this is a better way of resolving matters in the prison system than spending money on legal aid, but I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State has met the ombudsman to discuss precisely the issues that he has raised, and we will work with the ombudsman to ensure that his office is capable of dealing with any additional demand that may be generated.

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

May I urge the Minister to extend the ombudsman’s powers to include investigation of the deaths of transferred prisoners who are moved into secure mental health units for mental health treatment? At present, such deaths are subject only to internal NHS review rather than the full scrutiny that would be required if the death occurred in a prison.

[Jeremy Wright]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. If he will forgive me, I would like to reflect on it. I will come back to him.

[Mr Speaker]

Tom Harris—not here.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

17. What steps he is taking to protect families and vulnerable people from aggressive bailiffs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

May I begin by thanking the Justice Secretary, the shadow Justice Secretary and the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) for their kind words of welcome? I thank them for the warmth that I have received from both sides of the House.

From next April, new protections in law will include restrictions on the circumstances in which bailiffs can enter someone’s home, when they can do so and the items they can take. Moreover, training for bailiffs will include what to do if a debtor is vulnerable.

[John Glen]

I thank the Minister for that answer and welcome him to his new post. My constituent Ian Davies came to see me because his son was hassled by debt collectors for over six months—they were not updated when the amount of legal aid he needed to pay changed. What steps are being taken to ensure better communication between the Legal Services Commission and the enforcement agencies?

[Mr Vara]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. A considerable amount is being done at the moment. and he will forgive me if I say that I have not reached the relevant page in my briefing pack yet, but I will write to him with the answer, which I hope will satisfy him.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but how much harder will all these changes make it for rogue bailiffs to operate?

[Mr Vara]

A huge number of reforms are being put in place. With regard to rogue bailiffs, we have put in place a number of remedies. For example, if there is a debt to a local authority, there is recourse to the local authority’s ombudsman. Bailiffs’ certificates can be taken away and it is a criminal offence for a bailiff to operate without a certificate. Moreover, the goods that have been confiscated can be returned. So a number of measures are in place to ensure rogue bailiffs do not operate.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

20. Whether he has any further plans to reduce the number of courts in England and Wales.

[Mr Speaker]

Questions are something like buses; none for a while, then two at once.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

Very much so, Mr Speaker. I am happy to say that performance is the best it has ever been, against a background of increasing work load. The Office of the Public Guardian is also currently undertaking a review of its supervision function in order to ensure it can continue to safeguard vulnerable adults and deal with work load.

[Simon Danczuk]

I am obviously concerned about the number of magistrates courts that have been closed since this Government came to power. Rochdale magistrates court has remained empty since the Government decided to close it over two years ago. How much is it costing to keep courts empty, and why do the Government not simply donate Rochdale court to the people of Rochdale for community use?

[Mr Vara]

We are moving to the disposal of assets gradually, but it does take time.

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

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

I would like briefly to update the House on proposals for tougher sentencing. I am sure the House will agree that it is simply not acceptable that offenders who commit some truly horrific crimes in this country are automatically released from prison without serving the full sentence regardless of their behaviour, attitude and engagement in their own rehabilitation. The last Government enshrined this automatic early release in legislation. I intend to change that. Given the financial mess left behind by the Labour party it is not possible to end automatic early release for all offenders straight away, but it is my intention to take the first step in that direction. I will shortly be introducing legislation to ensure that criminals convicted of rape or attempted rape of a child or of terrorism offences will no longer be automatically released at the halfway point of their prison sentence. Instead they will have to earn their release by the Parole Board. This means that many serious criminals will end up spending significantly longer in prison.

[Kate Green]

According the Prison Advice and Care Trust, 66% of women in prison have dependent children, but although a minority are looked after by their fathers while their mothers are prison, it is very uncertain who is caring for many of those children during their mother’s sentence. What are the Government doing to ensure sentencers properly take account of the best interests of dependent children in making sentencing decisions?

[Chris Grayling]

We are looking very carefully at the whole issue of the women’s estate, and I very much recognise the issue to which the hon. Lady refers. It is obviously difficult not to imprison somebody guilty of a serious crime, but at the same time I believe we need to do everything we can to move women in detention closer to home and closer to family. When we announce our plans for the women’s estate in due course, I hope she will see we have taken that factor heavily into account.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

T3. I am chair of the all-party group on child and youth crime, and although crime is falling, too many of our young people are being sucked into a life of crime, and too many are becoming involved in, or victims of, violence. What does the Secretary of State plan to do to stop this cycle of abuse?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

My hon. Friend is right. He will recognise there are two encouraging statistics and one depressing one in this context. The two encouraging statistics are the number of young people coming into the criminal justice system in the first place and the number of those who are incarcerated, but he is right: the one that is depressing is the rate of reoffending, which is over 70%. We need to take a look not just at rehabilitation more broadly, as he knows we are doing, but specifically at the youth custodial estate. He will hear, in very short order I hope, what we plan to do to reform that.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

This Justice Secretary and his Government have failed to stand up to G4S or Serco, which, as my hon. Friends have reminded the House, failed with the electronic tagging of prisoners and with the transfer of prisoners, and are failing in Oakwood prison, and he is refusing to rule out both companies from the process in relation to probation. Why should we believe that his plans for privatising probation will fare any better?

[Chris Grayling]

It is important to make two points. First, the investigation into the contracts for electronic monitoring refers to events that took place in 2009 and to contracts that were let in 2005 by the previous Government. It is also important to bear in mind that these very serious issues are currently subject to investigation by the appropriate authorities. The right hon. Gentleman will therefore understand that there are strong legal reasons—this is easy to avoid when in opposition but not when in government—why we have to be measured about what we say, and I intend to continue to do that.

[Sadiq Khan]

He may be six foot four, but he is weak. Experts, the Ministry of Justice’s own risk register and Opposition Members have all warned about the dangers to public safety from putting private companies such as G4S and Serco in charge of people who have committed serious and violent offences in the way the Government plan—and all this is to be done with no piloting. Why is the Justice Secretary playing fast and loose with public safety?

[Chris Grayling]

Let us be clear what our proposed probation reforms do. At the moment, and during all the years the previous Government were in power, anyone who goes to jail in this country for less than 12 months walks on to the street with £46 in their pocket, but no help and no supervision whatsoever, and the majority of them reoffend. It is time that changed, and that is what our reforms will do.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

T4. Does my right hon. Friend agree that some offences merit a greater punishment than just a slap on the wrist? What action is he taking to reform the use of cautions?

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

I completely agree with what my hon. Friend says, and it is why my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has announced that simple cautions will no longer be available for those cases that must be heard in a Crown Court and for a range of other offences, such as possession of a knife, supplying class A drugs and a range of sexual offences against children. That is exactly the kind of toughening of the system that the public want to see.

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

T6. In light of the announcement of a new prison for male prisoners in north Wales, will the Justice Secretary assure me that he will re-examine the provision for female prisoners, given the inordinate distance to travel to HMP Styal?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am going to sound like a stuck record at this rate, but I am afraid that I must tell the hon. Lady what I have told others earlier. She knows that we are looking at the female custodial estate, and one of the reasons why are doing so is, as she mentioned, the distances travelled by visitors, family and friends to visit people in custody. We will announce—in a relatively short time, I hope—what we intend to do, and she will see how we attempt to address the point she raises.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

T8. The wrong decision to close HMP Blundeston in my constituency was taken after a detailed evaluation of every establishment across the prison estate. Please can the Minister publish the evaluation report for Blundeston and confirm that it took full account of both the building improvements that have taken place in the past two years and the work done by staff in that period to make Blundeston a high-performing, well-run and cost-effective prison?

[Jeremy Wright]

As my hon. Friend would expect, I cannot agree that the wrong decision was taken, but I can reassure him that we carried out a full and proper assessment of what was going on not only at Blundeston, but across the estate. The reason I cannot publish that is, as he will immediately understand, that it is a comparative analysis and so would cause considerable consternation among prisons that did not quite make the cut. However, we will do everything we can to ensure that those currently employed at Blundeston are properly looked after, and we will work with him in any way we can to address the future use of the site. He and I have spoken about this matter many times, and I am sure that those who work at the site and have him as their representative will be very grateful for his interest.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

T7. Will the Minister publish the risk register for his probation privatisation plans, so that the public can see at first hand the dangers they are being exposed to as a result of this reckless rush to dismantle and fragment our probation service?

[Chris Grayling]

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what I think would be a danger to the public—to continue to release people on to our streets after short sentences and with a high risk of reoffending with no supervision whatsoever. It should never have happened, it is unacceptable and the sooner it stops the better.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

The most difficult questions for a judge to consider must include those cases whose chances of success may be deemed borderline. Where does that leave important questions such as those posed by my late constituent Tony Nicklinson, who had locked-in syndrome and sought the right to die? Would the Minister deny legal aid to him and others who survive him?

[Chris Grayling]

Every case must be judged on its own merits. We cannot provide legal aid for every possible case that can be pursued, but we will retain a system that provides legal aid in cases in which the courts and the Legal Aid Agency, which judge the entitlement to legal aid, think it is appropriate to do so.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

T9. The Secretary of State has the legal and constitutional responsibility to determine where the mortal remains of King Richard III are reburied. He would be unwise, in my view, to support the claims for reburial in Leicester, in my constituency of York or anywhere else without consulting widely and setting up an advisory panel of experts, as I proposed in an Adjournment debate before the summer break, and as Mr Justice Haddon-Cave proposed in his recent judgment on the matter. Is that something that the Secretary of State will now do?

[Chris Grayling]

I am well aware of the strong feelings about that case, but we reached an agreement with Leicester university, which funded and carried out the dig, and I think we should stick to the agreements we reached.

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

Will my right hon. Friend update the House about when he intends to publish the victims code?

[Damian Green]

I am aware of my hon. Friend’s long-standing interest in that important document. I urge patience, but reassure him that his patience will be rewarded very shortly.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

As a former Legal Aid Minister, I recognise the hard decisions that have to be made on legal aid. Civil legal aid and judicial review are fundamental to our system. It has been fundamental since Magna Carta; if the state decides to take away someone’s home or children, or refuses to give them appropriate education, they ought to be able to challenge that. Will the Secretary of State look again at the issue, given the small amounts of savings he has suggested that there will be?

[Chris Grayling]

I hate to correct the right hon. Gentleman, but he talks about people’s entitlement to judicial review since Magna Carta. That took place in 1215—we will be celebrating its 800th anniversary shortly—whereas judicial review was introduced in 1974.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

What is the latest total for the number of foreign national prisoners in our jails and what steps have been taken in recent months to send them back to secure detention in their own countries?

[Jeremy Wright]

The last time my hon. Friend asked me that question, I did not have the number to hand. I still do not, but I can tell him that it is in the order of 10,800. He and I are in full agreement that that number is too high. As for the second part of his question, as he knows we are attempting to negotiate compulsory prisoner transfer agreements with a number of countries. We already have one with the European Union. I know how enthusiastic he is about EU measures, so he will be pleased to know that we are making real progress in sending people back under the EU PTA. We will continue to work hard to do so.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Local multi-agency public protection arrangements, introduced under the previous Labour Government, have been highly successful in protecting the public from high-level violent and sexual offenders. Concerns have been expressed to me that those arrangements might be centralised, making management of such offenders difficult and putting the public at risk. Will the Minister assure me that the Government do not intend to make that worrying scenario a reality?

[Chris Grayling]

Under our proposed reforms, multi-agency supervision arrangements will remain in the public sector and will continue to be subject to local decision making, which will take between local branches of the national probation service and local agencies such as the policy and local authorities.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I hope that the Secretary of State has read the front page of the Daily Mail today, highlighting the 202 cases that the UK has lost at the European Court of Human Rights. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the European convention on human rights and the European Court of Human Rights, with its pretend judges, have become a charter for murderers, rapists, terrorists and illegal immigrants and that the sooner we scrap the Human Rights Act and get out of the European convention on human rights the better?

[Chris Grayling]

I share my hon. Friend’s belief in the need for change. It is my intention that the Conservative party should go into the next election with a clear plan for change, and it will. This is now a clear dividing line between us, because the shadow Secretary of State has only today reasserted his belief that the current human rights framework is right for this country. We disagree, and I look forward to fighting that battle over the next 18 months.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

When the Minister quotes the Offender Management Act 2007, will he do me the courtesy of looking at the Hansard for that period, when the Minister in question—that is, me—said that the vast majority of probation boards would stay in public ownership?

[Jeremy Wright]

I quoted directly from the Act, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that I quoted correctly. I was asked a question about what the Act says. I quoted what it says. How he might have meant it to be interpreted is something else. I am afraid he and his hon. Friends must recognise that if they passed a law they did not mean to pass, that is not our problem but theirs.

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

The British people are sick and tired of those given long custodial sentences being released early as a matter of right. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice recently made an announcement on those given the longest custodial sentences, but can he confirm to the House that it is his intention in due course to remove the automatic right of those who serve custodial sentences to an automatic discount?

[Chris Grayling]

I do not like the concept of automatic early release at all. My hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the financial limitations that we face at the moment, which is why I made a start with the most serious and unpleasant offenders, but it is certainly my desire, when resources permit, to go further on this.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

A few months ago, in response to a question from me, the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers suggested that he would be setting up a new system for ensuring that tribunal judges dealing with work capability assessment appeals would give good reasons. Has that new programme been instituted, and when can we expect a statement on how it is working?

[Chris Grayling]

This is specifically the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions, but I can tell the hon. Lady that extensive work has been done. Much more detail is now being provided to the Department for Work and Pensions by the Courts and Tribunals Service, and we will continue to explore ways in which we can ensure that decision makers in Jobcentre Plus understand fully the reason for a decision in a tribunal.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

Capita submitted the lowest tender and was awarded the contract for court interpreters, but since then has faced more than 2,000 complaints, comprising 30% of its assignments. What is the Department going to do about that, and has it any plans for re-tendering that service?

[Chris Grayling]

If I can correct my hon. Friend, the original contract was given to a small company, which was subsequently taken over by Capita, and it was actually Capita that did the work to improve performance, which was clearly unacceptable at the start. The contract is now performing at a pretty high level. We will continue to look for ways to improve it, but it is a whole lot better than in the early days, when quite clearly performance was not at all acceptable.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, because I fear otherwise his bubble will burst, I call Mr Andrew Bridgen.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that transparency must be at the heart of any procurement reform in his Department— transparency for the taxpayer, and transparency for companies competing for Government contracts?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely do, and given the problems that we clearly have with procurement, and our inheritance from the previous Government of mismanaged contracts, we are now putting in place comprehensive work to ensure that we have a contract management system that is absolutely fit for the 21st century, which is fair and transparent, and deals with suppliers properly and appropriately, but also looks after the interests of the taxpayer.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, to whom, as they know, I could happily listen indefinitely, but we must now move on to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who has a statement for us.

Middle East Peace Process/Syria and Iran

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

15:34

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

Mr Speaker, with permission I will make a statement on the middle east peace process, Syria and Iran. On all these matters there have been important diplomatic developments over the past few weeks, and I wanted to inform the House of them at the earliest opportunity.

It is impossible to overstate the challenges and the gravity of the threats in the region if current openings and opportunities are not brought to fruition. But on each of these subjects there has been some progress, and it is important that we build on that as rapidly and decisively as possible. As he is in his place, I want to pay tribute to the work on these issues of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) over the past three and a half years, and to welcome as Minister with responsibility for the middle east my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), who is also in his place.

Whatever the pressure of other issues, we must never lose sight of the importance and centrality of the middle east peace process to the lives of millions of Israelis and Palestinians and to international peace and security. I pay tribute to the leadership of Secretary John Kerry, Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas for the progress that has been made, including the resumption of negotiations in July. The United States has confirmed that there have been seven rounds of direct bilateral negotiations since then. Both sides have now agreed to intensify the pace of the discussions and increase American participation in them, with the goal of reaching a permanent status agreement within nine months.

During the UN General Assembly ministerial week in New York, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister met President Abbas, while I held talks with Israeli Minister of International Relations, Yuval Steinitz. We reiterated the United Kingdom’s unequivocal support for a two-state solution based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital, and a just and agreed settlement for refugees. With our European Union partners we are ready to provide major practical support to both sides in taking the bold steps that are needed. This includes our bilateral assistance to the Palestinian economy and the institutions of the future state. The UK is one of the largest donors to the Palestinians, providing £349 million for Palestinian development over four years.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development attended the ad hoc liaison committee in New York established to oversee Palestinian state-building and development. She recommitted the UK to providing predictable, long-term assistance aligned with the priorities of the Palestinian National Authority: building strong institutions, promoting private sector growth and humanitarian aid. We are also supporting the Palestinian economic initiative that the United States and the Quartet are developing. DFID will shortly be launching a new £15 million Palestinian market development programme to help Palestinian small and medium-sized enterprises enter new markets and to help mobilise investment. Economic progress can never be a substitute for a political settlement, but it is vital that the Palestinian people see tangible improvements in their daily lives.

The situation in Syria remains catastrophic. More than 100,000 people have been killed, and the number of Syrian refugees has grown by more than 1.8 million in just 12 months, to over 2 million. We must always be clear that we will not have succeeded in our work until this violence has been brought to a stop, but nevertheless we were able to make some diplomatic progress in New York on our objectives—to prevent the further use of chemical weapons, to alleviate humanitarian suffering, and to promote a political settlement to the conflict.

On the first of those, I attended the meeting of the United Nations Security Council on 27 September, which adopted the first resolution on Syria in 17 months. Security Council resolution 2118 requires the full implementation of the near-simultaneous decision of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which sets out how Syria’s chemical weapons must be verifiably eliminated within the first half of 2014. For the first time, the Security Council resolution imposes binding and enforceable obligations on the Syrian regime to comply, with the threat of action under chapter VII of the UN charter if it does not. It also stipulates that those responsible for any use of chemical weapons must be held accountable.

I announced in New York £2 million in funding to enable the OPCW to deploy to Syria last week. It has reported early progress in identifying and destroying chemical weapons. Under its supervision Syrian personnel have commenced the destruction or disabling of missile warheads, aerial bombs and mixing and filling equipment, and the OPCW is carrying out work to assess the accuracy and completeness of the information provided by the regime. British nationals who work for the OPCW are already deployed in Syria as part of the new destruction mission, and we stand ready to provide further support as necessary, such as personnel, technical expertise and information. The House should be in no doubt that the voluntary destruction of a deadly arsenal of weapons that until recently the Assad regime denied it possessed is an important step forward, and a vindication of the threat of military action by the United States of America.

Secondly, hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians continue to suffer atrociously from the regime’s use of conventional weapons. The UK is leading the way in alleviating desperate humanitarian suffering. In the UK’s annual address to the General Assembly, the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed an additional £100 million in UK assistance, bringing our total humanitarian contribution to date to £500 million, the largest ever British response to a single crisis.

The Prime Minister’s campaign, begun at the G20 and followed up by our embassies worldwide, has helped to secure more than $1 billion in new international pledges of humanitarian assistance since the start of September, and we look to other countries to do more to meet the level of suffering and instability caused by such an unprecedented number of people being in need.

Throughout the General Assembly, and particularly in the two meetings I had with the other permanent members of the Security Council, I pressed the case for a Security Council presidential statement urging the Syrian Government to allow unhindered access to people in need, including across borders, and calling on all parties to agree on humanitarian pauses in the fighting to allow the delivery of aid. That statement was subsequently agreed on 2 October. With our encouragement, the UN Secretary-General has announced his intention to convene a new pledging conference in January 2014.

The House will know that the stability of Jordan and Lebanon is high among our priorities, and in that regard I attended, with the P5 Foreign Ministers, the creation of a new international support group for Lebanon during the General Assembly. The UK is now providing £69 million to help Lebanon cope with the refugee crisis. In addition, we are providing £11 million of non-lethal assistance to Lebanese armed forces, and we are helping Jordan with £87 million of UK aid for Syrian refugees and host communities.

Thirdly, on the political process, UN Security Council resolution 2118 also formally endorsed the Geneva communiqué of June last year for the first time, calling for the establishment of a transitional governing body exercising full executive powers, which could include members of the present Government and the opposition and other groups, formed on the basis of mutual consent. The resolution calls for the convening of an international conference on Syria to implement the Geneva communiqué. As P5 Foreign Ministers, we agreed with the UN Secretary-General that we should aim to convene the conference in Geneva by mid-November this year. An intensive period of preparation will be required, led by the UN and Arab League special representative, Lakhdar Brahimi.

I met the Syrian National Coalition President, Ahmed al-Jarba, in New York. He assured me that the coalition remains committed to an inclusive and democratic Syria, that it rejects extremism and that it is committed to the Geneva communiqué. There can be no peaceful and political settlement in Syria without the participation of the moderate opposition. That is why we are providing more than £20 million in non-lethal support to the moderate opposition and will do more in the coming months.

I discussed the conflict in Syria with Iran’s new Foreign Minister, whom I met twice in New York, including with the E3 plus 3 Foreign Ministers, and with whom I had further discussions by telephone yesterday. It is clear that the new President and Ministers in Iran are presenting themselves and their country in a much more positive way than in the recent past. There is no doubt that the tone of meetings with them is different.

We have agreed to resume negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme in Geneva next week, on 15 and 16 October. We are looking forward to seeing serious proposals from Iran to follow up on its stated desire to make rapid progress with negotiations. It will be very important for Iran’s relations with the international community for the marked change of presentation and statements to be accompanied by concrete actions and a viable approach to negotiations.

We must not forget for one moment that, as things stand today, Iran remains in defiance of six UN Security Council resolutions and multiple resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s board of governors and that it is installing more centrifuges in its nuclear facilities. In the absence of change in those policies, we will continue to maintain strong sanctions. A substantial change in British or western policies will require a substantive change in Iran’s nuclear programme.

However, we must test the Iranian Government's sincerity to the full, and it is important that our channels of communication are open for that. Mr Zarif, the Foreign Minister, and I discussed how to improve the functioning of the UK-Iran bilateral relationship. Our diplomatic relations suffered a severe setback when our embassy compounds in Tehran were overrun in 2011 and the Vienna conventions flouted, and when the Iranian Majlis voted to downgrade relations with the UK.

It is understood on both sides that, given this history, progress in our bilateral relationship needs to proceed on a step-by-step and reciprocal basis. The Foreign Minister and I agreed that our officials would meet to discuss this. The first such meeting has already taken place and will be followed up by a further meeting in Geneva next week. This includes discussion of numbers of and conditions for locally engaged staff in the embassy premises of each country and visits to inspect these premises. I have made very clear to Mr Zarif that we are open to more direct contact and further improvements in our bilateral relationship.

We have therefore agreed that both our countries will now appoint a non-resident chargé d'affaires tasked with implementing the building of relations, including interim steps on the way towards eventual re-opening of both our embassies, as well as dialogue on other issues of mutual concern.

We must not underestimate the difficulties ahead. Iran has a complex power structure; there are voices in Iran who do not agree with their Government's stated desire to see progress on nuclear negotiations and a rapprochement with the west, and improvements in our bilateral relations will require confidence on both sides that those improvements can be sustained. But to be open to such improvements is consistent with our desire to find a peaceful resolution to the nuclear dispute and the fact that we have no quarrel with the people of Iran. The House will be conscious of the fact that on all these issues the coming months may be unusually significant and replete with dangers but also with opportunities. Her Majesty's Government will spare no effort to promote a peaceful resolution to each of these conflicts and crises, working closely with our allies at all times and taking full advantage of every diplomatic opening; never starry-eyed but always pursuing progress through resolute diplomacy.

15:47

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

May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it? I would like to start by welcoming the newly appointed Minister for the middle east, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson). I know that Members on both sides will wish to join me in recognising his significant achievement in helping deliver the London Olympics and I am sure that he will continue to bring the same level of commitment and, indeed, skill to his new role in the Foreign Office.

May I also take a moment to pay tribute to his predecessor, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)? He is a man whose obvious talent, commitment and decency—qualities that are recognised and appreciated by many in this House—have not gone unnoticed by Members over recent years. He is a very significant loss to the Government and in all my dealings with him on the middle east I admired his skill, intellect and consistently courteous approach.

This month’s United Nations General Assembly was a moment where real progress needed to be made most urgently on the issue of Syria. Of course I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s call for further action on securing free and unfettered humanitarian access in the country and I welcome the Government’s announcement of an additional £100 million in humanitarian aid for Syria. But sadly, despite this significant additional UK contribution, the UN appeal after the UN General Assembly is still only 44 per cent. funded. Can the Foreign Secretary set out what steps the Government will take now to try to help to ensure that other donors turn unfulfilled pledges into cash commitments?

Since that General Assembly meeting last month, the destruction and disabling of missile warheads, aerial bombs and mixing and filling units within Syria has thankfully now begun. In particular, I want to commend the work of the British personnel working as part of the team carrying out this difficult and dangerous work on the ground in Syria.

Given that this is the first time that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has been tasked with overseeing the destruction of chemical weapons armoury during a live conflict, can the Foreign Secretary provide any further details about how the mission is likely to proceed in the coming months? In particular can he offer the House any guidance with respect to negotiating access to sites currently within rebel-held areas of Syria?

On the middle east peace process, Secretary Kerry’s efforts to restart the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians deserve both our praise and our support. Delivering the necessary compromises from all sides will surely be a task aided by the active involvement of the United States. Can the Foreign Secretary clarify what role US special envoy Martin Indyk is playing in the substantive negotiations? When I recently met President Abbas, he emphasised the nine-month timeframe for these talks. Will the Foreign Secretary set out what progress would have to be made before March 2014 in order to justify a decision to continue negotiations beyond that allotted timetable?

Let me now turn to the issue of Iran. Back in August, I described the Government’s decision not to send ministerial representation to the inauguration of the new Iranian President as a misjudgment and a missed opportunity. At the start of September, I pressed the Foreign Secretary on the possibility of establishing a Syrian contact group, with Iran as a key member. Later last month, I pressed the Government on whether the Foreign Secretary would look to reopen the British embassy in Tehran as soon as it was practical and safe to do so. The Government appeared to give little consideration to these proposals when I first suggested them.

Today the Foreign Secretary cited his meeting with Foreign Minister Zarif and the letter dispatched by the Prime Minister to President Rouhani. While I welcome these recent decisions, I regret that it took so long for these important steps eventually to be taken. In recent months the Government appear to have misjudged their response to the signals emerging from Tehran, and as a result the UK risks being left behind by the absence of a clear strategy towards Iran. Disagreements not just over Iran’s nuclear ambitions but over domestic and international actions by the Iranian regime are profound, and cannot and should not be overlooked. However, it is vital that Iran continues to be encouraged to play a more constructive role, and the UK Government should be doing more to help to facilitate this change. In the light of this, I welcome today’s announcement of a chargé d’affaires having been appointed, but can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that this is an interim step on the way to establishing full diplomatic relations?

Labour remains of the view that the UK Government should maintain pressure on the Iranian regime to change its approach to nuclear enrichment. However, notwithstanding the decades-long difficulties in the bilateral relationship between Iran and the United States, it has, alas, been the American Administration, and not the British Government, who have better understood the signals and made the decisive advances towards improved relations with Iran. On Iran, it is time for the Government to catch up with our American allies.

[Mr Hague]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s initial questions relating to Syria, I think it will be the view across the House that free and unfettered access is of huge importance. He is right to say that the UN appeal for funds is currently 44% funded. As the House heard from my statement, we have done a great deal to make sure that some of that 44% is in place, and we are making a huge contribution ourselves. Our embassies and the Department for International Development’s ministerial team are engaged in a non-stop effort to build up the contributions from other countries. There is now the commitment to a pledging conference, which we hope will take place in Kuwait in January and which is the major international event to work towards in gathering greater contributions for the future.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about the OPCW and how it will proceed, all the known sites for the holding of chemical weapons in Syria are within regime-held territory. We are not aware of the opposition being in possession of chemical weapons, so of course this work is focused, revealingly, entirely on the regime-held areas. What is meant to happen now, according to the timetable that has been established, is that all sites should have been inspected by the 27th of this month; that the regime’s production and mixing and filling equipment in relation to chemical weapons should be destroyed in the next few weeks, by 1 November; and that the details of how to proceed with eliminating all the material and other equipment will be decided by 15 November, with a view to the whole programme being completed in the first half of next year. It is an immense task, but it is good that the OPCW has arrived in Syria and that at the weekend the destruction began of some of the munitions involved. Of course, we will continue to watch this closely, and that includes, as I say, standing ready to provide further expertise as necessary.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about the peace process, obviously the United States has a central role in this, including the United States special envoy. Many of the meetings—the seven rounds of negotiations so far—have been taking place on a bilateral basis, but it is envisaged that there will be closer American participation in those meetings over the coming weeks.

The ambition is to resolve the issues, including the final status issues, within six to nine months. That is the timetable to which the parties are working. It is too early to respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s question about what happens after March 2014.

On Iran, I hope there are no differences across the House about the direction of policy. The right hon. Gentleman asked us to catch up with other countries, but perhaps it is time for him to catch up with what the Government have actually been doing. I assure him and the House that there is no difference of view or approach between the United States, the United Kingdom and, indeed, other western allies. We are in different positions on diplomatic relations because some European countries still have embassies in Tehran. Their embassies were not overrun as ours was in 2011. By contrast, as is well known, the United States has not been in that situation for a very long time—since 1979. Of course there are differences between different countries, but all of us are trying to encourage the opening up by Iran, which the Iranian Ministers are presenting. There is no lack of attention to that.

It has been a long time since any British Foreign Secretary—we would have to go back to the days of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), as we frequently do on these subjects—had as many discussions in the space of a few days with the Foreign Minister of Iran. It is vital that our work to improve the functioning of our bilateral relations takes place on a step-by-step and reciprocal basis. Recently, even getting unhindered access for locally engaged staff to inspect and check up on our embassy premises has remained a very difficult matter, so the House will understand that building up trust and co-operation will be necessary before it will be possible to open an embassy again. We are, therefore, doing that on a step-by-step, reciprocal basis. I do not believe it would be responsible to approach it in a different way. It has been welcomed so far by the Iranian Foreign Ministry, as evidenced by today’s agreement on appointing a non-resident chargé for both countries. That opens the way to further improvements, as I said in my statement, including a view in the future to the full reopening of both embassies, but that will depend on the mutual building of confidence, good co-operation and trust, which has, of course, been missing in the past.

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

I commend my right hon. Friend on his clever attempt to balance both optimism and realism in reviewing the remarkable events of the past few weeks, but may I press him on the issue of chemical weapons? The use of these weapons is a crime against humanity, as the Secretary-General of the United Nations has confirmed. What is my right hon. Friend’s assessment of the possibility of those responsible for their use in Syria—whether on the Government side or the opposition side—ever being brought to justice?

[Mr Hague]

Accountability is very important. I make no secret of the fact that we would have preferred—as, I think, would most of this House—a UN resolution with more specific provisions for accountability, including reference to the International Criminal Court. It was very clear throughout all our talks in New York that no such resolution could be agreed with our Russian colleagues. Of course, it was important to pass a resolution on, and implement the destruction of, the chemical weapons, but we have had to do that without reference to the ICC. Future accountability will, therefore, depend on what happens more broadly with regard to the future of Syria and the determination of Syrians to hold those responsible to account in the future. I hope that they and all of us in the international community will be very clear that we wish to do that.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

First, while congratulating the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson) on his appointment, may I underline the respect for and tribute made to the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for the brilliant way in which he conducted himself as a Minister? I hope the fact that he was held in as high regard by the Opposition as he was by those on the Government Benches did not contribute to the Prime Minister’s decision yesterday.

The Foreign Secretary is right to say that Iran has a complex power structure and that we must proceed step-by-step with reciprocity. Does he accept that another country that has a complex power structure is the United States? President Obama is almost as boxed in as President Rouhani on this issue, while the Foreign Secretary has much greater room for manoeuvre. Will he therefore bear it in mind that the British Government are in a position to take calculated risks and to seize the opportunity with respect to Iran, while the other two may not be? He may be able to take the initiative on Iran, while others may not be able to do so.

[Mr Hague]

I will give a broad “yes” to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but I ask him not to underestimate the focus on this issue in the United States or its readiness to deal directly with the new ministerial leaders in Iran. As he knows, President Obama had a telephone conversation with President Rouhani. Secretary Kerry attended the meeting of the E3 plus 3 Ministers with Mr Zarif, which was the first meeting between a US Secretary of State and an Iranian Foreign Minister for a very long time. The United States does have a complex power structure, but its National Security Council is very focused on this issue. It is important that the E3 plus 3 countries work cohesively on the nuclear issue, rather than emphasising different approaches. We must all in our different ways and using our different national strengths and perspectives on Iran encourage the progress in the nuclear negotiations that is so urgently needed.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

Although I welcome the appointment of the chargé d’affaires, which is to the credit of the new Iranian regime as much as to that of the regime here in London, would it not be wise to judge President Rouhani on his actions, rather than on his words, and to ignore the calls to go faster than the situation merits?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are putting in place a step-by-step reciprocal approach to bilateral relations. It is important to proceed in that way for the reasons that I gave the House a few moments ago. I think that that approach will be the most comfortable one for the Iranian Ministers who are in favour of this process and the one that will be able to command the most support in Iran. For both countries, I think that this is the best way to proceed. It is important that the welcome tone and positive remarks of Iranian Ministers over recent months are matched by serious proposals in the nuclear negotiations and by concrete actions.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

I support the Foreign Secretary in his efforts to build on the success on chemical weapons that has been achieved through negotiations by securing an early Geneva II conference. It is crucial to get the Russians, the Iranians and the Syrian Government there, along with our international allies and the moderate opposition. He may have to refuse to accept that recalcitrant, let alone jihadist, opposition groups can exercise a veto.

May I also ask the Foreign Secretary to schedule a full day’s debate on Syria on a substantive motion, because we have not had a chance to discuss Syria policy in detail, despite his admirably regular updates? A pre-agreed motion might afford the House an opportunity to unite around Syria policy, when in August we were divided on military action.

[Mr Hague]

Personally, I am entirely open to such a debate. The Leader of the House is here. I do not know whether he is open to it, given all the pressures on him, but he will have heard the legitimate point that the right hon. Gentleman has made.

The progress that we have made in setting an ambition to convene the Geneva II peace conference has involved working closely with Russia. It is the product of the five permanent members of the Security Council working together during the General Assembly. That is an important and welcome step on Syria, given the history of the past two and a half years.

I discussed the participation of Iran in future talks with the Iranian Foreign Minister. I have asked the Iranians to accept the outcome of Geneva I as the basis for future discussions. After all, that is accepted by almost all other countries in the world. If that were the common baseline, it would make it easier to include the Iranians in future discussions. I look forward to their further consideration of that.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Would the Foreign Secretary like to praise Parliament for recommending diplomacy rather than war as the best means of tackling the difficult matter of chemical weapons in Syria? That policy seems to be working rather well. Does he agree that Parliament’s influence extended to the United States of America, where the President called our debate in aid as the reason for his change of approach towards consulting Congress and going for peace?

[Mr Hague]

It has always been my habit to praise Parliament, even when I disagree with it, and I will continue to do so. I praise our Parliament and democracy all over the world, and I even hold up such instances as examples of our vibrant democracy. I hope, however, that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind that such progress on chemical weapons—we hope it is progress, provided it is maintained—could not have been made without the credible possibility and threat of military action. We particularly have to thank the United States for that in this connection.

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

While congratulating the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), I add my voice to the tributes that have justifiably been paid to the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). He brought the same commitment to an individual constituency case as he did to matters of great international moment, and for that I and my constituents are grateful. I am equally grateful for the advances that have been made with regard to Syria, not least the west biting the bullet and including Iran. The Foreign Secretary referred to an increase in humanitarian aid, but he failed to detail whether any of that aid will actually be delivered to innocent civilians still trapped within the borders of Syria. Surely that is one area where even closer co-operation with Iran could bring real results.

[Mr Hague]

On the specific question about whether the aid goes to those in Syria, British aid reaches into all 14 governorates of Syria. The international effort, which we support and help to finance, is of course hindered by the fighting, and has sometimes been hindered deliberately by the regime preventing supplies—including much-needed medical supplies—from reaching opposition-held areas. That is the importance of the presidential statement by the Security Council, backed by Russia and China, on improving humanitarian access, including cross-border supplies of aid, and meeting the request of Baroness Amos who leads for these matters at the United Nations. We will follow that up very much indeed, and I hope our ability to hold discussions with Iran will lead to improvements in the situation in Syria. That is another area where Iran will need to change its policies on the ground, which currently include supporting a regime that is murdering and oppressing its own people in huge numbers.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome the good news that the Foreign Secretary has brought to the House, and strongly echo tributes to the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), which are richly deserved. The Foreign Secretary said that the matters of mutual concern he is discussing with Iran include Syria, which is welcome. Does he agree, however, that talks are sometimes better without preconditions, and that it would be positive for all concerned if Iran could be drawn into the Geneva II peace process and talks on Syria?

[Mr Hague]

Of course it is best to have the broadest base possible internationally for the Geneva II process, but, as I said to the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), it is important that that starts from a common assumption and that we are at least able to start from the same starting line. We agreed in Geneva I last year that there should be a transitional Government in Syria with full executive power, formed by mutual consent. That is the position of Russia, China, and all five permanent members of the Security Council. The regime is ready—it says it is ready—to appoint representatives for talks on that basis, and the opposition National Coalition is ready to take part in talks on that basis. It should be possible for Iran—and any other country that has doubts about this—to say that it supports talks on that basis, and that if it participates it would be on that basis. That is what we are looking to Iran to say.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

I welcome the new Minister with responsibility for the middle east to his place, and like many others I pay tribute to his predecessor.

During the debate on Syria on 29 August I asked the Prime Minister whether he agreed that anybody using chemical weapons should face the law in either the International Criminal Court or a specially constituted tribunal. The Foreign Secretary said that Russia has blocked progress on that specific issue at this stage, but will he outline to the House how he will pursue the matter in the future? Surely nobody on any side should be able to use chemical weapons in any part of the world.

[Mr Hague]

That is a very important issue, and it is important that it is pursued by this country and many others over the coming months and years. There is a reference to accountability in the resolution, but as I said to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), we would have preferred much more detail on reference to the International Criminal Court. It is something to which we will have to return, therefore, in the context of a settlement, if one can be arrived at, in the Geneva II process, and something to which the Syrian people will want to return.

In my view, there must be, in the future, either national or international accountability and justice in respect of crimes committed. Some of those relate to chemical weapons, of course, but terrible crimes have been committed with a whole range of weapons, including in the prisons and torture chambers of the Assad regime. Furthermore, of course, there are records of atrocities committed by opponents of the regime as well. Justice should be done for all these crimes, but it will have to be addressed in a peace settlement, given that we cannot agree on it at the Security Council.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend recall that in August many people, not least the Government of Syria, refused to admit that the Syrian regime possessed chemical weapons, and does he agree that had it not been for the actions of the United States, the United Kingdom and others in making it clear that the use of chemical weapons was wholly unacceptable in international law and in putting forward a credible threat of military action, we would never have had UN resolution 2118, we would not now be seeing the inspection of chemical weapons in Syria and we would not be about to see the destruction of those chemical weapons—weapons that, amazingly, people did not think existed as recently as August?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is quite right to say that we are now seeing the commencement of the destruction of weapons that we were told not long ago did not exist at all. That is certainly progress and reflects a major change in policy by Russia and the Syrian regime in Damascus, and there can be little doubt that those changes would not have come about had there not been a rigorous debate about military action in many other countries.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Foreign Secretary rightly praised the US Secretary of State for his efforts to get the Palestinians and Israelis talking to each other again, but he did not refer to the continuing crisis in Gaza or the threats there of terrorist actions into Sinai, which have knock-on consequences in Egypt. Will he update the House on the implications of the problems that still exist in Gaza and the fact that we will not get a viable Palestinian state without unity of both parts of the Palestinian territory?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the situation in Gaza. It is very important that greater access into Gaza be allowed by Israel and Egypt—in the current situation—so we call on both countries to do that. We are giving a lot of assistance: of the £122 million that the Department for International Development is providing over four years to help the Palestinian Authority, about 40% is spent in Gaza, I believe, so there is a lot of direct UK assistance there, but improved access from both directions is needed if the situation is to improve.

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I join the generous and wholly proper tributes to the former Minister for the middle east, but from long association, I know that he could hardly have been replaced by a better successor than the new Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson).

With the extremely welcome progress and opportunity for further progress on weapons of mass destruction in Syria and Iran, will my right hon. Friend assure me that we will not lose focus on Egypt? Having been there three times since the beginning of July, I can assure him that the medium-term prognosis is utterly grim. It is an area to which we will have to give serious attention.

[Mr Hague]

I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that we will not lose focus. I thought it was important to report to the House on these three areas—the middle east peace progress, Syria and Iran—but I do think we need the full day’s debate that others have been asking for to cover all the issues. The future of Egypt is a vital foreign policy issue. I held discussions in New York with the new Foreign Minister of Egypt, and of course we continue to press the Egyptian authorities to implement a successful and inclusive transition that can bring together, in a future democracy, people of a very wide range of views. We are in close touch with the Egyptian authorities and will continue to push them very hard on that.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I should like to add my thanks to the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for all his work as a Minister and for his extraordinary courtesy towards the all-party parliamentary groups. I also welcome the new Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson).

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement on the change of direction in relations with Iran, which represents a huge improvement. Does he recognise that Iran remains a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and that the last review conference envisaged a nuclear weapons-free zone across the whole middle east? A conference was due to be held in Finland but it did not take place. Obviously, such a conference would have to include Iran and all the other nations, including the only nuclear weapons state in the region—namely, Israel. Will he assure the House that he and the Foreign Office still have an aspiration to have such a conference and that they will seriously push for it to be held as soon as possible? In this new atmosphere, the chance of achieving a nuclear weapons-free zone is surely one that should not be lost.

[Mr Hague]

That absolutely remains an aspiration of the Government but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it has been very difficult to bring about. Britain strongly supported the idea at the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference in 2010, but it has not yet proved possible, despite the hard work of the Finnish facilitator, to bring together a conference on weapons of mass destruction in the middle east. However, we will continue our efforts to do so. If we make significant progress and achieve a breakthrough in the nuclear talks with Iran, that will greatly improve the atmosphere for bringing together such a conference.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

I, too, would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for the work that he has done. I would also like to congratulate the Foreign Secretary on pressing the reset button with President Rouhani, because Iran can play an important role in bringing peace to Syria. I also congratulate him on his initiative in trying to bring chemical weapons under control in Syria today. Notwithstanding that, there are serious concerns about crimes against humanity—some involving the use of chemical weapons, some not—and as the evidence becomes clear as a result of the United Nations’ work, will he ensure that such evidence is used to bring Bashar al-Assad and his brother Maher to justice?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for these initiatives. As I have said, the issues of justice and accountability, and of the gathering of evidence, remain vital. We have used British funds to train human rights journalists and others to document the crimes that have been committed, so that the evidence is there in the future, and we will continue to support that kind of work. I believe that the demand in Syria for justice and accountability will be overwhelming as the evidence from this conflict emerges over the coming months and years, and we need to be ready to support that across the whole world.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

On the “Today” programme this morning, Lord Dannatt said that the diversion of interest into Iraq had allowed the Taliban to regroup in Afghanistan. What implications does the Foreign Secretary draw from that for any future UK military intervention in Syria?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are not proposing a UK military intervention in Syria. We are talking about three strands of British policy. One is to implement the UN resolution on chemical weapons, in which we are participating. The second is to continue to lead the world in alleviating human suffering. The third is to bring together a peace conference in Geneva. Those are the things that we are working on, rather than a military intervention.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

I should like to associate myself with the words of the Foreign Secretary in paying tribute to the talent, decency and integrity of the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt).

The Foreign Secretary has rightly condemned the violence of the Syrian regime. He has also said that the violence is not confined to the regime, and that it is also being perpetrated by members of the opposition. Will he take this opportunity to condemn the sickening scenes involving the targeted slaughter of Syria’s Christian community, and make it clear that the people who engage in those acts are not the kind of people with whom we would ever wish to do business?

[Mr Hague]

I totally agree. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to these crimes, which are utterly condemned by Her Majesty’s Government. I am pleased to say that such crimes are also condemned by the Syrian National Coalition, which is committed to a non-sectarian future for Syria and makes great efforts to ensure that it is broadly representative of different faiths, different communities and political persuasions in Syria. This again underlines the need to support moderate, not extremist, opposition in Syria and to bring about a political settlement in which Christians, along with all others, can live peacefully side by side in the country.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I declare a visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories with Labour Friends of Israel. I would like to thank the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for his integrity in handling a complex and sensitive issue.

I very much welcome the work being undertaken to destroy weapons in Syria, but has the Foreign Secretary received any reports showing the transfer of weapons from Syria and Iran to Hezbollah, which could endanger the lives of the people of Lebanon, Syria and Israel?

[Mr Hague]

I do not have any evidence of the transfer of chemical weapons to Hezbollah. Clearly, Hezbollah has received supplies of weapons over a long period, and such weapons have been maintained in Lebanon in breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1701. We all have every right to suspect that those weapons have often come from Iran via Syria. On the issue of chemical weapons, however, I do not have any evidence of their transfer to any other nation or grouping in the region. I hope that the destruction of these weapons can take place verifiably—before there is any risk of that happening.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I, too, want to praise my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for the extraordinary patience, intelligence and careful understanding that he brought to his role.

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on progress made in re-engaging with Iran and on his constructive engagement with the issue of chemical weapons in Syria. I encourage my right hon. Friend, however, to use the opportunity presented by Syria to lead a genuine global campaign against chemical weapons and to devote the resources and staff necessary to make the elimination of chemical weapons one of the key priorities of the British Government.

[Mr Hague]

Britain has a strong history of working to prohibit chemical weapons and of encouraging other countries to sign the chemical weapons convention. Syria’s decision, if verifiably implemented, will of course be a major advance; as it could easily be the largest arsenal of chemical weapons in the world, its destruction would be a major advance. My hon. Friend is quite right that that should lead us only to redouble our efforts to make sure that other stocks of chemical weapons in the world are destroyed.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the former Minister, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), particularly for the regular briefings he provided to Members of all parties; I hope his successor will continue that practice. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement on Lebanon and the extra resources going into the international support group. Has he made any assessment, however, of the impact on the Palestinian refugees, currently living in Lebanon and elsewhere, who have suffered for many years, of the influx of so many Syrian refugees?

[Mr Hague]

The impact on most people in Lebanon is difficult. As the hon. Lady knows, the influx of refugees into that country is proportionately huge, with more than 700,000 refugees living there—a large proportion of Lebanon’s population. The United Kingdom continues to give strong support for Palestinians in Lebanon, and a good deal of the help from the Department for International Development that goes through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency goes into supporting those Palestinians. We are very conscious of the problem; supporting these people is part of our approach to Lebanon.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

In relation to the terrible civil war in Syria, is the Government’s position strictly neutral?

[Mr Hague]

No. We believe that the Assad regime has lost all legitimacy and credibility, not only in the eyes of many of its own people but in the eyes of the world, whereas we recognise members of the national coalition as legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. It would therefore not be right to say that we are strictly neutral. However, we do want to promote a political settlement in which a transitional Government, formed from regime and opposition, can be brought about.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My I add to the many tributes that have been paid to the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)? I am sure that he has received many letters—from me, and from many other Members—about his excellent work in relation to the middle east, and I am sure that he will be missed by Front Benchers.

I agreed with what the Foreign Secretary said about the catastrophic situation in Syria and the fact that more than 2 million refugees are fleeing from the country into the wider region, but what assessment has been made of the likelihood of the conflict’s spreading within the region as well? We know that there is already sectarian violence in Lebanon, but what is happening elsewhere, and what can we do about anything that is happening?

[Mr Hague]

The conflict clearly presents a danger to the stability of Lebanon, Iraq, and, in a different way, Jordan, because of the pressures on its border. That is why we are placing such emphasis on our work in those countries, and particularly on what we can do to reinforce the stability of Lebanon and Jordan. We give them a lot of help, not only in the form of the humanitarian aid that goes through international agencies, but directly. We have given assistance to the Lebanese armed forces on their border; we have sent equipment to help the Jordanian armed forces to cope on their border. Ensuring that, during the period in which we cannot resolve the crisis, we at least help other countries to contain it, is a very important aspect of our policy.

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

Let me also pay a personal tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). He responded on behalf of the Government to the debate during which I made my maiden speech, and my sadness at seeing him leave the Front Bench is matched only by my great pleasure at seeing him back here in the habitation of us lesser mortals.

Some time ago, I asked my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary how long the two-state solution had. He told me then that it had 18 months, but I cannot remember how long ago that was. Can he tell me how long the two-state solution now has before it becomes unviable?

[Mr Hague]

It does not have long. It has many half-lives, I suppose. None of us ever wants to say that it is impossible and cannot be achieved, but I think that this is the last best chance. If we reach next year without having made the progress and achieved the breakthrough that so much hard work is going into now, that will clearly be an enormous setback, and many people will question very seriously whether a two-state solution could ever be arrived at. That has why it has been so important to get everyone together this year for the bilateral negotiations, and that is why we must do all that we can to help those negotiations to succeed.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

In west Africa, Iran gives support to militias that have clashed with Government forces. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had about Iran’s interference in that important region?

[Mr Hague]

As the hon. Gentleman will understand, we have not yet discussed the full range of global affairs during the meetings that we have had so far. Those meetings have concentrated on the nuclear issue, on Syria, and on bilateral relations. However, the appointment of the non-resident chargés that I have announced today will allow us to discuss with Iran a greater range of issues of mutual concern. Nothing is excluded from that, and what is happening in areas such as west Africa could well be legitimate topics for discussion.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I share the Foreign Secretary’s cautious optimism, given the not inconsiderable progress that has been achieved in the middle east since he last made a statement to the House. No little credit for that progress should be laid at the door of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt).

Without being starry-eyed, as the Foreign Secretary put it, may I suggest that one area in which we can pursue issues of mutual concern, particularly with the ordinary people of Iran, is the hard-drugs trade? Many Iranians are now heroin addicts, and many have been killed at the hands of drug barons controlling drug paths in the north of the country. When I visited the country a few years ago, we had seconded to it Metropolitan police officers with expertise in drugs, who were doing some great work that was of mutual benefit. Is that not one of the routes through which we could open up an early relationship with Iran?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, it is. My hon. Friend makes an important point. Combating that trade is in the interests of both countries. I hope that it will be one of the issues of mutual concern that we address at an early stage.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

May I add my appreciation for the work of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)? I think that all Members with an interest in the middle east will acknowledge his complete mastery of his brief, even when they disagreed with the policy that he was defending, on which subject, whatever the Secretary of State is saying to the Israeli Government about withdrawal from the occupied territories, they are not listening. Senior Israeli Ministers said over the summer that they will never allow a Palestinian state, so will the Government take the small step of banning the import of goods from settlements, which the Secretary of State himself is clear are illegal under international law?

[Mr Hague]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the voluntary guidelines on those imports were introduced by the previous Government and we have continued them and support them. All our efforts in the coming months will be directed at trying to make a success of the negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians, so I am not proposing to do anything that cuts across that. The Israelis in those discussions are discussing the creation of a Palestinian state. That is what it is all about—a two-state solution, which means a sovereign, viable Palestinian state and the resolution of the final status issues, including refugees and borders. Therefore, we must keep our eyes on that main prize and return to the many other issues if the talks do not succeed.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The Israeli perspective on Iran is that it is very close to completing its enrichment processes, that it has started the renewed dialogue with the west to provide diplomatic cover for a dash to the line, and that with its ballistic technology it can complete a nuclear weapon or weapons deliverable on Israel. To what extent does the Foreign Secretary share the Israeli analysis?

[Mr Hague]

Israelis and others are right to be alarmed about the Iranian nuclear programme. It continues to increase its stockpile of near 20% enriched uranium. It has no credible civilian use for the significant quantities of enriched material that it has. It has continued to install more centrifuges and the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency has reported that it has not provided access to the heavy water production plant at Arak, which is also a cause for serious concern. That underlines the importance of trying to resolve these issues peacefully, and the importance of maintaining the pressure on Iran and the pressure of the comprehensive sanctions introduced by the European Union, the United States and other countries, which I believe has now brought Iran to the negotiating table. Whether that will succeed remains to be seen.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

The House needs to be aware just how restricted humanitarian access is in Syria. Two weeks ago in Amman, the World Food Programme told me that last month it sought to deliver food and other emergency supplies to 3 million people in Syria but was able to get it through only to 1.25 million people, fewer than half of those who needed it. What difference will the welcome October presidential statement from the Security Council make? How quickly will we see a change on the ground for the civilian victims of the tragedy in Syria?

[Mr Hague]

That is a good question, to which we cannot be certain of the answer. The hon. Gentleman illustrates the extent of the problem very well. It is important that the Security Council has agreed such a statement, because that means that it has been agreed by Russia, among others, and it is Russia that has produced the decisive change in the regime’s attitude on chemical weapons. Therefore, we hope that our colleagues in the Russian Government will join us in demanding from the regime the necessary access on the back of the presidential statement. I will keep the House informed of progress on that.

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

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for doing an outstanding job and, on a personal level, for always being courteous, helpful and understanding. I thank him for that.

It has been said that Iran is prepared to support a transition in Syria without President Assad—a transition between the regime and the opposition. Does the Foreign Secretary have an analysis of that and has he discussed that with the Foreign Minister of Iran?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I have discussed these issues with the Foreign Minister of Iran. As I said in answer to some earlier questions, I have put the case to the Iranians that they should be supporting the Geneva communiqué of last year that there should be a transitional Government in Syria drawn from regime and opposition by mutual consent. As I understand it, and as I have heard the Iranians talk about it, that is not currently their position, but they have not ruled out adopting that position. I will continue to encourage them to do so so that the international consensus around last year’s Geneva communiqué will be greatly strengthened.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State acknowledged that economic progress and a political settlement need to go hand in hand in the middle east peace process. What impact is the expansion of illegal settlements having on Palestinian economic development?

[Mr Hague]

Of course the expansion of settlements on occupied land, which is illegal and which I think we are all clear about in this House, does not assist Palestinian economic development, as the hon. Lady’s question implies. This again underlines the importance of the talks now taking place to resolve final status issues—to resolve the issues of borders and security and refugees. Their success would mean these problems could be brought to an end. So the current position does not help Palestinian economic development. Finding new ways to assist that development, alongside these efforts on the peace process, is worthwhile, but success in the peace process will be needed for that to have a lasting tangible effect.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

May I also thank the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for his work at the Foreign Office and his professionalism and courtesy? I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the appointment of the chargé in order to help build relations, but we should try to minimise the preconditions when talking to the Iranians, as they can often get in the way. There were no preconditions—or very few—when we were talking to Sinn Fein and the provisionals in Northern Ireland back in the 1980s. We need to talk to our enemies in order to make peace, not to our friends. May I also suggest that every opportunity should be taken to explore the other conflicts in the region in which Iran has its finger, because it will offer up many opportunities for progress in the region if we can at least go some way towards normalising relations?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. We have not set preconditions, as he can see from the number of discussions I have had with the Iranian Foreign Minister already, but we do want concrete actions to go along with words, and we do want to proceed on an agreed reciprocal basis in improving the functioning of bilateral relations. I hope that improved functioning can lead to discussion on a wider range of subjects, and my hon. Friend has mentioned some of those that could be included. We will be exploring that over the coming weeks.

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

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s detailed statement, and his efforts to resolve numerous world conflicts. The experts face a year-long mission of unprecedented danger to destroy Syrian chemical weapons that the Syrian President said he never had. How can we trust any other promises the Syrian President may make?

[Mr Hague]

These promises are very difficult to trust, of course. That is why it is so important that verification really takes place and that the OPCW is able to report any non-compliance to the Security Council, as provided for in the resolution, so that the Security Council can consider what action to take. Of course, we all have to approach this subject with a certain degree of scepticism given the previous behaviour of the regime and its use of chemical weapons—the chemical weapons that it denied having for such a long time. On the positive side, however, it has signed up to the chemical weapons convention. Russia has committed itself very strongly to this policy and therefore has a good deal riding on its success. That should give us some cause for optimism about the future.

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

Clearly, the best outcome of the peace conference planned for November would be an early resolution of the conflict in Syria. We should not give up all hope, but that is probably somewhat unrealistic and optimistic, and so we hope that a process will start to lead to that resolution. Given that, does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is essential that humanitarian access is also a major focus of that conference, so that even without a wider settlement coming into effect speedily, the international community provides the same pressure to ensure that the access required is given as soon as possible and is not left as part of a longer-term and wider process?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman is right to think of Geneva II as the start of a process, rather than a single event. It will be difficult, of course, to make it a success, but it is certainly not something that will be over in a few hours or a few days; it is the start of an important process, if it can be brought together. I see no reason why that should not address, at an early stage, humanitarian access, so that the suffering of the people of Syria can be alleviated. I entirely accept his point.

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

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for his kind, thoughtful and reflective replies and briefings on all issues to do with Foreign Office matters. May I also thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and ask him about refugees and the £100 million dedicated to humanitarian aid? What proportion of that money will go to help refugees, particularly those most in need and those with connections to the UK?

[Mr Hague]

The £100 million will be added to the £400 million we have already committed; the great majority of this goes through the international agencies. We will make subsequent announcements about where exactly the recipients of that will be. I mentioned in my statement some of the totals before the £100 million—for Lebanon and for Jordan, where a great deal has gone. But, as I have also said, a good deal of this aid is getting inside Syria. It is not sent on any discriminatory basis—those connected to the UK or not connected to the UK. It is sent to help people in need. It is providing medicine, sanitation, water supplies, blankets, tents and so on to people, wherever we can get these things to them. I know that my colleagues in the Department for International Development will have more detail that they could give the hon. Lady, and I will ask them to write to her with that.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

May I endorse the thanks from Members from across the House to the previous Minister and welcome the new Minister? As the Foreign Secretary may have seen, the chairman of the Charity Commission has said that money intended to ease the refugee crisis was “undoubtedly” going to extremist groups. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that in making these general comments the chairman of the Charity Commission needs to be very careful not to undermine the British people’s confidence in giving money to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal? It is undertaking significant humanitarian aid with the £20 million already raised in supporting those refugees from Syria.

[Mr Hague]

It is very important that we are able to continue to mobilise the immense British generosity we see in cases like this, where people are willing to give to these appeals. Clearly, we are one of the leading nations in this respect in what we provide from taxpayers’ resources, but many individuals and families also make a contribution, which helps to make a serious difference on the ground. I have not seen in detail the Charity Commission’s comments, but all of us will want to continue to urge people to give generously and responsibly to these appeals.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary and to colleagues. I hope that the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) will proudly preserve his own copy of the Hansard report of today’s proceedings for many, many years to come.

Press Self-Regulation

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

16:44

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the progress regarding press self-regulation.

We all agree that what is needed is a workable and effective system of press self-regulation. Equally, I believe, we must protect our free press while striking the right balance between independence and redress for individuals. There can be no question of undermining the press’s ability to criticise or make judgments; that underpins our democracy and holds us to account. However, we are talking today about ensuring that the public has a fair system of redress through which to challenge mistakes and errors when necessary.

I have always echoed Leveson in saying that the success of a new system will be seen in an approach that offers justice and fairness for the public and clearly protects the freedom of the press. The House will be fully aware of the careful deliberations that followed the publication of Leveson’s report and the weight of responsibility that comes with implementing that system.

Significant progress has been made since I last updated the House, particularly by the press, which is well down the track of setting up its own self-regulatory body. All involved in the process now consider a royal charter to oversee that regulatory body to be the correct way forward. Just six months ago, that seemed impossible.

We are now talking about the differences of opinion about how a royal charter should be constructed. The committee of the Privy Council is unable to recommend that the press proposal for a royal charter be granted. Although there are areas where it is acceptable, it is unable to comply with some important Leveson principles and with government policy, such as those on independence and access to arbitration. A copy of the recommendation letter has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses so that right hon. and hon. Members have an opportunity to look at it in detail.

In the light of that fact, we will take forward the cross-party charter that was debated in this House. The charter will be on the agenda at a specially convened meeting of the Privy Council on 30 October. In the interim, I believe that we should finish making our charter workable so that it will meaningfully deliver independent and effective self-regulation.

We have already improved the drafting of the cross-party charter and we have worked with the Scottish Government to make sure that the press does not have to worry about complying with different frameworks on either side of the border. We have had discussions with the Commissioner for Public Appointments to clarify how his role will work. Those are all important improvements. Having considered the press charter, the committee has identified two substantive areas—access to arbitration and the editors code—where we could improve the 18 March draft.

The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and I—indeed, all three parties—agree that those areas could benefit from further consideration. As such, all three parties will work together in the coming days and produce a final draft of the cross-party charter to place in the Libraries of both Houses on Friday. That will allow parliamentarians, the public, the press and whoever else to see the version we intend to seal. If any specific change cannot be agreed by all three parties, we will revert to the 18 March charter debated by Parliament.

We have an opportunity to take a final look at our charter and to bring all parties together and ensure that the final charter is both workable and effective. We have a responsibility to make sure that what we do will be effective and that it will stand the test of time, so we need to make it the best it can be. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get it right, and we all want to do that. To give individuals access to redress while safeguarding our country’s free press is a vital part of our democracy, as will be acknowledged on both sides of the House.

16:49

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

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, for advance notice of it, and for her assurance to the House that the Conservatives remain committed to the charter that will introduce an independent complaints system for the press, which was put before the House by the Prime Minister, with the support of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and unanimously approved by the House on 18 March and by the House of Lords. Will she reaffirm that the charter gives redress to victims when the press breach their code of conduct, while in no way interfering with the freedom of the press?

We believe that the charter should have been submitted for consideration at the Privy Council meeting tomorrow, but it will not be going to that meeting because the Prime Minister has chosen to delay its submission till the end of this month. We regret that, because it has been nearly a year since Leveson reported, and six months since the House agreed the draft charter. There has already been too much delay.

I therefore ask the Secretary of State to confirm to the House that the process that she, the Lib Dems and ourselves have agreed will be followed to ensure absolute transparency of the process and no further delay. That is, that the charter of 18 March will be completed by agreeing any matters that were still in square brackets on 18 March; that aside from that, the 18 March charter as agreed by this House will not be changed unless such a change has the agreement of all three party leaders; that the Secretary of State will this Friday place before the House the final version of the charter—that is, the 18 March charter including the issues that required to be completed, and only any changes if they have been agreed by all three party leaders—and that it will then be put forward to the Privy Council before the end of this month.

Will the Secretary of State agree that what is important for us is to get the charter sealed, to get the recognition panel established and for a regulator to be set up? We must ensure that there will be a fair and effective complaints system independent of the press and independent of politicians. As the Prime Minister said to the Leveson inquiry,

“that’s the test of all this. It’s not: do the politicians or the press feel happy with what we get? It’s: are we…protecting people who have been caught up and absolutely thrown to the wolves”.

So let us have no further delay. Let us get on and implement Leveson as set out by the House on 18 March.

[Maria Miller]

The right hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right that the proposal that we are discussing today is all about redress, and that it is also all about ensuring that we retain freedom of our press, which we all value so highly. It is important, though, that we also recognise that the press charter that was put forward had to have a fair hearing, that it had to have a robust level of scrutiny, and that it was only right that a piece of work that had been put before us was treated in that way. I am sure she would agree that the process we followed was the right way to achieve the right outcome.

Now we will move forward, as the right hon. and learned Lady has outlined. Just to clarify, we will agree any improvements that we, on a three-party basis, feel will make this charter more workable, because, as the right hon. and learned lady will agree, she wants to have an effective charter in place to provide the sort of oversight that we have talked about in recent months. Of course, any changes to that charter would have to be subject to three-party agreement and, as I have outlined, that final version of the charter will be available for all Members to see in the Library this Friday. Following on from that, there will be a specially convened meeting of the Privy Council on 30 October, for us to be able to finally ensure that the seal is put in place.

I think it is important that we make this charter workable, but I agree with the right hon. and learned Lady that it is also important that we get going and put all this in place.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept the first principle set out in Lord Justice Leveson’s report that any solution must be perceived as credible and effective by the press and the public? Does she agree that it would be infinitely preferable to achieve a system of press regulation that delivers the objectives of Lord Justice Leveson’s report, but which also commands the support of as many of the newspapers as possible, rather than a system which commands the support of none of them?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend goes to the heart of the matter when he reminds the House of Lord Leveson’s statement that whatever we take forward, to be effective it must also be credible, and we must take the press and the public with us. It is vital that we do that. Nobody would thank us for putting in place a system that was ineffective, did not work and did not attempt to make sure that self-regulation of the press in this country is effective.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Given that this House voted virtually unanimously seven months ago for this charter, will the Secretary of State say a little more about this further delay and reassure the McCanns, the Dowlers and the other victims that this will not mean a further watering down of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations or kicking them into the long grass, which has happened on every previous occasion?

[Maria Miller]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s question and he is right to say that we have been taking some time to make sure that our response to Lord Leveson’s report is well thought through and effective. I make no excuses for doing that. I think he would be the first to offer his own criticism if the process that was put in place were not effective. It may take some time for us to do this. We received from the press a press charter which, as I said to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham, it was right that we subjected to robust scrutiny to make sure that we looked at it in the correct way. We are now, as I have made very clear, moving forward with the cross-party charter, but there are issues that have been raised which bear further examination in the areas of the standards code, the editors code and arbitration. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear with us. I would rather get it right than just do it quickly.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I am on the wrong side of this argument as far as 530 colleagues in this place are concerned. The best protection and redress are provided by the courts, and does my right hon. Friend agree that the courts have an important part to play in this and will continue to do so?

[Maria Miller]

Of course, my hon. Friend is right to say that the courts continue to have an important role to play, but one thing that we identified through Lord Leveson’s report and more widely was the importance of access to redress. An integral part of Leveson’s report was that an arbitration system should be available, and the lack of that arbitration system within the press charter was one of the reasons that the Privy Council committee took the decision that it has.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

As someone who, throughout this protracted process, has made it clear that I prefer an irresponsible and pernicious press to a state-regulated press, may I nevertheless say that the procrastination by the press organisations has become unacceptable and that the timetable that the right hon. Lady put before the House must be adhered to? We cannot go on like this.

[Maria Miller]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I would like to see a robust press, and I am sure the press would never want to be seen as irresponsible. He is right that it is important that we adhere to the timetable before the House, but, again, I make no excuses to the House today for getting this right. Working with the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham and the noble Lord Wallace in the other place, we will make sure that we do everything that we can, particularly to address the issues of arbitration and the editors code, and make sure that everybody is aware of the additional changes that we have made, as we have highlighted before, with regard to Scotland. It is important that the Scottish press is able to have access to the charter in the same was as any other press.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

Further to the royal charter’s extremely swift passage through both Houses of Parliament, what legal advice has the Secretary of State subsequently received on whether exemplary damages and the allocations of costs would breach article 10 of the European convention on human rights, and will that form any basis for future discussions with the industry?

[Maria Miller]

There is no issue, as my hon. Friend outlines, with regard to European law. We have had full legal advice on that and I am content that there are no problems.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It feels like Groundhog day; we have been here before. You dragged us all here urgently in March to force us to look at a particular version of the charter, and we agreed almost unanimously. I do not know whether you have run out of sealing wax or quills or something—[Interruption.] Sorry, Mr Speaker; I mean the right hon. Lady, not you. Surely to goodness it is time we listened to the public, who have said in poll after poll that the self-regulatory system, which was completely and utterly bust, including the Press Complaints Commission, which did not stand up for victims and perpetuated the problems, must go. If she defaults on this timetable, surely this House, not just Ministers and shadow Ministers, should take the matter into its own hands.

[Maria Miller]

Oh dear, Mr Speaker; we hear it again. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not really implying that he did not want us to make the improvements we have made with regard to Scotland. Clearly, in his world he would exclude Scotland from the charter process, or perhaps he is implying that we should ignore the very real concerns of the local press about the costs of arbitration. He might want to ignore the local press, but I do not.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats welcome the rejection of the PressBoF charter, which would have resulted in business as usual for the press, but the innocent victims of press abuse have been waiting a long time. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that there are no circumstances in which this process could be dragged beyond 30 October?

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, but I will pick him up on just one of them. I do not think that the press charter would have meant business as usual, because clearly it was written in the light of the Leveson report. However, he is right that there were some significant issues that we felt had not been addressed. I can give him a clear undertaking from the Dispatch Box that I have every intention of moving forward with the timetable I have outlined.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

How can the Secretary of State assure the millions of members of the British public who are not involved in the Hacked Off campaign that this will not be a slippery slope to reducing the freedom of the press, particularly with regard to the press saying things about people that nobody likes but that they must still have the right to say? Can she assure the public that this is not a slippery slope?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady speaks a great deal of sense. She is absolutely right that we must ensure that it is not a slippery slope to state regulation. We believe strongly in self-regulation, and the charter simply sets out the framework within which that will be judged. It is of course incumbent on us all, as Members of Parliament, to ensure that no changes are made that might lead to the sorts of problems she outlines, which is why I believe the “no change” clause is so important, because it ensures that any changes to the process will be made only with a very significant majority in both Houses of Parliament.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I am afraid that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), I am very much with the press on this matter. When all three parties agree on something, I am automatically concerned. As a former journalist, I think that the freedom of our press, for which millions of people died, is absolutely crucial. Will the Secretary of State advise the House exactly what role politicians will have in the new charter? To be precise, will we be able to interfere with the charter and potentially affect the freedom of the press?

[Maria Miller]

Politicians will have absolutely no role whatsoever.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Is it not a fact that the road to Leveson has been littered with many bodies: the News of the World, Brookes, Coulson and, who knows, it might even be Paul Dacre of the Daily Mail next? Instead of this prevarication, why does she not accept that it is refreshing that on occasions the Opposition are right? Get on with it and let us get this Leveson inquiry done and dusted.

[Maria Miller]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has noticed but we are actually working as three parties together here, so it is not about anybody being righter than anybody else. I would gently point out to him that we need to make sure we have an effective charter for the long term, and that if we had simply gone ahead with the charter as set out on 18 March, we would have effectively blocked Scotland from being involved and ignored real concerns coming from the local press. I am sure that he would not have wanted anybody to do that.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend understand, even if she does not agree, that there is deep suspicion among many elements of the press and that that is born out of how this charter came into being: in a meeting in the Leader of the Opposition’s office in the middle of the night over pizzas with messages to-ing and fro-ing to No. 10 and with Hacked Off present but the press deliberately excluded? Will my right hon. Friend state categorically at the Dispatch Box that it is her determination to have a charter that all the press can live with and sign up to? Will she also— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) really ought to calm down. We hear all the time about the two-thirds majority. The Clerks have made it clear that that is a parliamentary nonsense. It might well be the wish of this House of Commons that the charter cannot be changed except by a two-thirds majority, but we cannot bind a future House of Commons. It could be a simple majority in a future House.

[Maria Miller]

I understand my hon. Friend’s strength of feeling and I have to say that the optics around 18 March did not help a difficult situation. But I do not think we should let that get in the way of the importance of getting a self-regulatory process in place and ensuring that the charter that oversees that is as strong as it can be. As Leveson said in his report, we will be effective only if we take the public and the press with us. If we are going to have effective press self-regulation, that is exactly what we should do and it is exactly what I intend to do.

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

We recognise the shameful abuses that rightly led to the Leveson inquiry but is the Secretary of State aware that although the proposals put forward by the press were inadequate on self-regulation, there is genuine concern among publications that were in no way involved with the abuses of the past about what is being proposed. I have considerable doubts about what is being put forward, and the concerns about the freedom of the press are by no means confined to those on the Tory Benches.

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is right that we have to get the balance right between having a framework of self-regulation and making sure that we protect the freedom of the press. He can have my assurance that that is at the heart of all our thinking, but we cannot ignore the fact that the Press Complaints Commission approach has been discredited. I see the hon. Gentleman nodding; I hope that means that he agrees that we need to look at something to put in its place.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Will the Secretary of State make clear how flexible she is prepared to be in enabling an agreement that the press can sign up to? Without that, it would be a complete nonsense. Will she give a cast-iron guarantee that there will be no veto in this process for Hacked Off and its celebrity backers?

[Maria Miller]

I can absolutely guarantee that in view of the discussions on finalising the charter between me, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham and Lord Wallace for the Liberal Democrats.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

My hon. Friends and I believe that there should be an end to self-regulation and, instead, truly independent regulation of the press. The Secretary of State said that all three political parties are involved in drawing up the charter, but there is no one from Northern Ireland; and she has consulted the Scottish Executive but not the Northern Ireland Executive. How is she going to ensure that the views of people in Northern Ireland, where this is a live issue, are fully reflected in the charter?

[Maria Miller]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the whole premise on which we are putting forward self-regulation of the press is that it would be independent. Indeed, one of the reasons we are not pressing ahead with the press charter is that the Privy Council committee did not feel that it gave sufficient independence. I welcome his interest as regards the involvement of Northern Ireland. He is right that currently the charter would be in place for Scotland. However, we have not had interest from Northern Ireland in becoming involved. If he would like to effect that interest, I would very much welcome it.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Already, in the past week, we have seen one shadow Secretary of State threatening to sue his counterpart; the powerful are a sensitive bunch. Is this regulation not far more about protecting the powerful than the public? Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that we are not going to see a slide towards self-censorship by the press in fearing litigation?

[Maria Miller]

I can understand why my hon. Friend might want to raise individual cases, but I certainly would not want to develop a piece of self-regulation based on individual cases. I assure her that we want the new system to be robust but fair and independent, and certainly not to end in the results that she talked about.

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

Does the Secretary of State truly appreciate that these repeated delays will be interpreted by the public and victims of press abuse as the Government continuing to kow-tow to powerful press barons, and that this currying of favour stands in complete contrast to the courage shown by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in taking on the malign behaviour and bullying of the likes of the Daily Mail? Given the delays, can she give the House the specific assurance that on 30 October at the Privy Council meeting the charter will take effect immediately on its being sealed and not at some delayed date in the future?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman should consider this a little more carefully. We had put before us a charter from the press that, rightly, had to be carefully considered. That charter had important areas of consistency with Lord Leveson’s proposals. I think the hon. Gentleman might have been one of the first to jump up if it had not been dealt with correctly, because he would want to see the right process undertaken, not least because not doing so could have led to even further delay. I can absolutely say to him that we have a clear way forward, and I am very confident that we can stick to the timetable.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

I recognise the efforts of the Secretary of State in seeking to bring about agreement between the three main parties in this House, bearing in mind that many will have shifted their positions significantly since the initial debate following Lord Justice Leveson’s report. May I suggest that a fourth party also needs to agree, and that is the press? Will the Secretary of State not be rushed into any announcement or any decision without the agreement of the press, as Lord Justice Leveson demands?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right that if we are going to have effective self-regulation, we need to take the public and the press with us, as Leveson pointed out. If we have a robust but fair process, we have more likelihood of being able to achieve that. I am sure that Members in all parts of the House would want to have a system that people felt that they could work with rather than one that they could not work with, so he can be assured that that is the approach we are taking.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does not self-regulation almost inevitably mean no regulation? After three quarters of a century of strict charter control of broadcasters in this country, including a duty of balance, is it not true that the press has had a free for all whereby those who are weak and powerless have no chance of challenging it, and that the result is that the public, in overwhelming numbers, trust the broadcast media and do not trust the written press?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman has a view on this, but many different industries have very effective self-regulation, so I do not think he can simply write off self-regulation as ineffective. Evidence suggests that he is not entirely correct about that. It is important that the new process includes a very clear way of redress though arbitration. This will be a real innovation. We need to make sure that it is used correctly and in a way that we intend it to be used. That is one of the areas that I hope we can explore further on a cross-party basis, particularly so that we do not leave our local press exposed to any undue costs.

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

As this charter is being cooked up by the three party leaders, it is hard to see how my right hon. Friend’s answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) can conceivably be correct. Is she able to give any example of the arbitrary prerogative power of the Crown being used to impose a charter on an industry that has not agreed it?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend will know, of course, that what I am trying to do is make sure that we have a fair system in which people will want to take part. We have followed a good process and I think that the new system will improve demonstrably on the current one. I hope the press will find it straightforward to support it once we publish our final document on Friday.

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

Alongside the architecture of regulation, Lord Leveson commended consideration of proposals by the National Union of Journalists to include a conscience clause in journalists’ employment contracts. That was welcomed by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Prime Minister on the day that Leveson was published. The last time the Secretary of State appeared before us she encouraged the companies and the NUJ to meet to consider the proposals for a conscience clause. Will she report on what progress has been made?

[Maria Miller]

I have nothing to add other than I am sure that employers will want to look at the proposal. It is important that I am focusing efforts on making sure that the charter is in place to oversee the self-regulatory body. That is my priority at the moment, but I will, obviously, pick up on the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

How will my right hon. Friend insist that the self-regulatory system that has already been set up by the press be morphed into the new system if the press refuse to do it?

[Maria Miller]

That is an issue for the press. The last thing I want to see is the Government becoming unnecessarily involved in the setting up of a self-regulatory system. That is very much for the press. As I said in my opening statement, I believe the press is making good progress. We have been clear in our response to Leveson and I am sure it will have taken that into account. It is for the press to deal with these matters.

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

As a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee I have long held the view that there are forces of darkness within and outwith the House that have a vested interest in keeping this process running up to as close to the next general election as possible so that they can claim that those who support legislation are in some way interfering with the free press, which is a total myth. However, I agree with the right hon. Lady on Scotland: the one thing that unites Scotland is that we do not want Alex Salmond anywhere near the press.

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman cites forces of darkness, but I am not sure how effective they are, given that we have already made provisions on damages in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and on the no-change clause in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. That shows a very clear intention, so perhaps the forces of darkness are not so dark after all.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure the Secretary of State has noted the hon. Gentleman’s remarks in her little book. I do not suppose it will be published, but we are intrigued by the method she deploys. It may be imitated over a period—I know not.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is the danger of a legal challenge to any process that the Privy Council adopts? That might delay the implementation of the Leveson principles, which, as she knows, I support strongly. What assessment has she made of the timetable for the process she is proposing? Is it robust enough to withstand any legal challenge from those who are determined to delay this much-needed change?

[Maria Miller]

I will keep my little book well and truly away from you, Mr Speaker.

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. It is important to follow robust procedures at all stages of a process such as this. I make no apology for considering fully the press charter that was put before us. As I have said, there were important areas of consistency with Leveson and it was clearly written in the light of Leveson. That must be acknowledged. I am confident that the timetable that we are following is robust. I have taken the necessary advice at every step of the way to ensure that I can be confident of that.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I understand from information released by the Department today that the Secretary of State met the newspaper editors on nine occasions during the three months to the end of June, but did not meet the victims or the representatives of their campaigns on a single occasion. Does she not accept that the impression has been created today that it is those who own the media who are being listened to, rather than the public, the victims or the journalists and others who work in the media? Leveson has already been severely watered down. Will she assure us that no further watering down will take place?

[Maria Miller]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady chooses those words. I do not think that her party’s Front Benchers share her feeling that the response has been watered down. My meetings are a matter of public record through the Cabinet Office in the usual way. She will know that I and my officials meet regularly with all people who have an interest in this area, as she would expect. I hope that she will welcome that.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I am slightly disappointed that the Secretary of State, unlike most women, does not appear to be able to multi-task. The period since March does not appear to have been used to best effect and more time is still needed to tidy up this matter. Other aspects of Leveson, such as the recommendations on the ownership of the press, appear to have been disregarded. There has been ample time for the Secretary of State to provide a response on such matters.

[Maria Miller]

Obviously, the hon. Lady may have her own view on this matter. My view is that we need to have a robust process by which we can stand. That is what the Government, working with Labour Front Benchers, have been doing. I am sure that she would not advocate rushing these things. When we agreed to the cross-party charter in March, it was clear that further work had to be done. The Scottish Government have understandably taken time to consider the matter and to debate it in the Scottish Parliament. I am sure that she would not want to suggest that that was unsuitable. Like her, I want Scotland to be involved in the process.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for acknowledging the distinct cross-party initiative in Scotland and the joint work that has been done to meet some of the cross-border challenges that lie ahead. However, a lot of people in Scotland will be surprised to find that we are somehow responsible for delaying the process. Will she assure me that she will continue to work with Scottish Ministers to ensure that we get the best possible outcome for both Parliaments through the joint initiatives?

[Maria Miller]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not misunderstand me. I was not saying that any delay had been caused by Scotland—quite the opposite. I was saying that it was right to take time to do things properly. I welcome the involvement of Scotland in taking the proposals forward. As I have said to Northern Ireland Members, I would also welcome their interest.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

It is not just because of the Northern Ireland twilight zone that some of us have doubts about whether a three-party compact, sealed by the Privy Council, is the best way of enshrining the Leveson principles. The Secretary of State has today stressed terms such as “credible” and “workable”. If large sections of the press refuse to work with and credit this proposal, how does she envisage that the courts will end up possibly wrestling with that dichotomy, and what happens if that then reverts back to Parliament?

[Maria Miller]

I perhaps need to get back to the hon. Gentleman on the specific point regarding Northern Ireland. I think I am right in saying that publications issued in Northern Ireland are subject either to the Republic of Ireland’s regime, or to the existing Press Complaints Commission regime, but I am happy to consider the matter further. I feel that we have a strong way forward and I do not think we will end up with the sort of situation that the hon. Gentleman outlines. We have taken the time—rightly—to get this right, and I hope the new self-regulatory process that we put in place is robust and will not fall into the sorts of problems he outlines.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Further to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) on Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State indicate why, as this is a reserved issue, the Government did not initiate consultation and discussion with the Northern Ireland Assembly? Did they initiate consultation with the Scottish Parliament?

[Maria Miller]

My understanding is that we did ask for involvement of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but that has not been taken up at this point in time. I would be happy to get back to the hon. Gentleman with further details on that.

Speaker’s Statement

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we move on to the ten-minute rule Bill, I have two announcements to make to the House. The first concerns a matter of privilege. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has written to me concerning a police information notice, addressed to him by Sussex police and dated 4 September 2013. Having considered the issue, I have decided that this is a matter to which I should allow the precedence accorded to matters of privilege. Therefore, under the rules set out in pages 273-4 of “Erskine May”, the hon. Gentleman may table a motion today for debate at the commencement of public business tomorrow, Wednesday 9 October. The hon. Gentleman’s motion will appear on tomorrow’s Order Paper, to be taken after any urgent questions and statements.

My second announcement concerns the election of a First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means in place of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans). In accordance with Standing Order No. 2A, I am now able to inform the House of the detailed arrangements. Nominations to fill the vacancy must be received in writing in the Lower Table Office between 10 am and 5 pm on Tuesday next, 15 October. The rules concerning nomination will be set out in the announcements section of the Order Paper, and an information note for Members will be available from the Vote Office and on the intranet.

Only members of a party represented in Her Majesty’s Government may be candidates in this election. If more than one nomination is submitted, the ballot will take place between 11.30 am and 2 pm on Wednesday next, 16 October, in the Aye Lobby, with time added on for any Divisions in the House, in the same way as it is for deferred Divisions. As soon as practicable after the votes have been counted, I will announce to the House the results of the ballot.

Point of Order

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

17:29

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am terribly sorry, but I should have drawn Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I write a column in The Independent, which people might think has a bearing on my views on press regulation. I am terribly sorry that I did not do it—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]—and I am glad to get some “hear, hears” from the Government side, which I do not normally get.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic courtesy. That is on the record.

We come now to the ten-minute rule motion. I call Mr Grahame M. Morris. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is trying to hoodwink me into thinking that I should be calling the other Graeme Morrice, whose surname is spelt with a c and who does not have the middle initial M. He would expect that his attempted hoodwinking of the Speaker should fail, however, and it has failed. I call Mr Grahame M. Morris.

Freedom of Information (Private Healthcare Companies)

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

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

17:30

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to apply to private healthcare companies; and for connected purposes.

The Bill would extend the provisions of the 2000 Act to all bodies, whether public, private or voluntary, bidding for NHS contracts and ensure that freedom of information legislation is applied equally in the implementation of any public contract.

Freedom of information is one of the Labour Government’s greatest achievements, ensuring transparency and accountability in modern government and allowing the public access to information on what is being done in their name and how their money is being spent. In recent years, we have witnessed an acceleration in the number of public services being outsourced, and today roughly £1 in every £3 that the Government spend goes to independent or private sector providers. Indeed, owing to the Government’s policy of opening up public services to the private and voluntary sectors, billions of pounds of NHS contracts are now being made available to the private sector, following the implementation of the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

Unfortunately, while more and more taxpayer money is being handed to the private sector, especially in the NHS, FOI responsibilities are not following the public pound. There is a big issue here about transparency, because the public should know what is happening in their name, as was brought home to me recently in a demonstration against NHS privatisation in Manchester that I attended, along with more than 50,000 other people, but which was barely reported on by our public sector broadcaster.

Private health care companies should not be permitted to hide behind a cloak of commercial confidentiality. Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being awarded to private sector companies under barely transparent contracts. Meanwhile, private companies are free to benefit by gaining detailed knowledge of public sector bodies through their use and submission of FOI requests. The same information is then used by the private sector to undercut or outbid the very same public sector bodies when contracts are tendered or put up for renewal.

I understand that the Information Commissioner expressed concern to the Justice Select Committee that accountability would be undermined if FOI did not apply to private providers of public services. I also understand that in opposition the Prime Minister was convinced about this matter, having previously promised to increase the range of publicly funded bodies subject to scrutiny using section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act. The coalition agreement also promised to extend the scope of the Act to provide greater transparency, but unfortunately it would appear that nothing is being done to address the democratic deficit caused by the outsourcing of public services.

The Government should be chastened by recent events. For example, the tagging scandal—involving Serco and G4S and uncovered by the Serious Fraud Office—showed that these companies had defrauded the taxpayer of more than £50 million. Perhaps we need a hard-hitting advertising campaign, with advertising hoardings on vans driven around the City of London warning off corporate fraudsters from bidding for public contracts. The danger for our NHS is that we are inviting convicted fraudsters into our health system.

HCA, which is the world’s biggest private health care company, recently won the contract to provide cancer treatment for NHS brain tumour patients, stopping patients receiving world-class treatment at London’s University College hospital. The Competition Commission has already caught HCA overcharging private patients in the United Kingdom. In the United States, HCA has had to pay fines and costs in excess of $2 billion for systematically defrauding federal health care programmes. The public are right to be concerned about these providers coming into the NHS. If that is to happen, it is essential that their operations and their contracts with the NHS should be open, transparent and subject to public scrutiny.

There is currently little we can do to ensure that private providers comply with freedom of information requests. Under the new NHS framework, clinical commissioning groups and the NHS Commissioning Board are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, but private contractors are not. From the outset, FOI regulations give private providers an unfair competitive advantage when bidding for contracts, due to unequal disclosure requirements. NHS bodies are forced to disclose any poor performance, but private providers bidding for a contract have no similar duty to disclose. They effectively start with a blank sheet. They could have spent many years treating private patients, but the public have no right to scrutinise their performance prior to their being awarded an NHS contract.

As private providers are not subject to FOI legislation, little can be done if they refuse to provide information or state that they do not have the information requested by a commissioning body. The Information Commissioner has no power to investigate a private contractor. He cannot serve information notices requiring a contractor to supply information for an investigation or take enforcement action if a contractor fails to comply with its contractual obligations.

The purpose of the Bill is to strengthen FOI legislation and to introduce vital safeguards so that the public can see how their money is being spent. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will support fair competition, a level playing field and the duty of equal disclosure throughout the bidding process for NHS services. The public have a right to know the record of public and private providers before contracts are awarded. Those safeguards can work only if the Information Commissioner has the same rights to seek information and carry out investigations, and to make all providers of public services comply with freedom of information legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Grahame M. Morris, Ian Mearns, Ian Lavery, John Cryer, Paul Blomfield, Mr. Kevin Barron, Mrs Mary Glindon, Pat Glass, Barbara Keeley, Rosie Cooper, Debbie Abrahams and Valerie Vaz present the Bill.

Grahame M. Morris accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 November 2013, and to be printed (Bill 109).

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

17:39

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

I beg to move,

That the Order of 3 September 2013 (Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill: Programme) be varied as follows:

Proceedings on Consideration

For paragraph (6) substitute–

“(6) Proceedings on Consideration–

(a) shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown, and

(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

17:40

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

I rise with some sadness to urge the House to reject the programme motion that has just been moved by the Deputy Leader of the House. I do so not because programmes are often inappropriate. When filibustering takes place, as often happens on a Friday, usually led by Conservative Members who sit at the very back opposite, meaningful debate often does not take place, so one can clearly see the case for having a programme motion. It would be fair to say that programme motions can often help to ensure that all topics are covered when a Bill is in Committee. In this case, however, much of the Bill has not been scrutinised in the way that the Deputy Leader of the House tried to suggest that it had been. Given how little time is set out in the programme motion, it is unlikely that we will be able to carry out line-by-line scrutiny.

Sadly, all this continues to be a bit of blot on the record of the Leader of the House and, indeed, his Liberal Democrat colleague, because they did not see the need for proper consultation with the third sector before the Bill was brought in. I accept that there was some consultation on what might be in the lobbying provisions, but there was certainly no pre-legislative scrutiny of either of the first two parts of the Bill. A proper amount of parliamentary scrutiny could have begun to have put this at least partly right. As regards part 3, the whole House is aware that the Government do not like anyone belonging to a trade union or standing up for themselves as work, so the lack of consultation over this part is hardly surprising. It is nevertheless still very disappointing.

What we have, then, is a Bill that is being rushed through Parliament. It has attracted huge concern from across the third sector about the chilling impact it will have on the perfectly legitimate campaigning activities of charities, so detailed line-by-line consideration could have begun to make up for that lack of consultation with charities before the Bill was published.

Indeed, consideration has been further delayed today by two major statements. Of course we would all have wanted those statements to be made, but as a result of them, unless the programme motion is resisted, the House will have even less time in which to consider the legitimate concerns put to many of us about part 1, let alone parts 2 and 3. If the Bill had been debated upstairs, it would have been far less disrupted by urgent business in this Chamber and more comprehensive scrutiny might—I say “might”—have been achieved.

What have we had so far? We have had one day for Second Reading, just three days for Committee and now just two for Report. Virtually every other piece of Government legislation will get more scrutiny than this Bill. I remember charities legislation during the last Session—a small Treasury Bill to amend gift aid provisions, yet that Bill was in Committee for two whole weeks, as well as having a full day for Second Reading and Report.

Most of the lobbying industry and its stakeholders think this Bill is little more than the emperor’s new clothes for the industry. It amounts thus far to a pretence of action: when so few will be covered, the damaging lack of transparency that exists in the industry at the moment will remain even after this Bill, as drafted, goes through. It is thus difficult to see how we will have time over the next two days to do justice to the concerns that have been put to hon. Members—on the Government side as well as on our side. I therefore urge the House to reject the motion and I encourage the Government to allocate more time for debate.

17:45

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

I never thought that I would see the day when I would be on my hind legs opposing a programme motion, because I am one of the strongest advocates of programming that anyone could find. Back in the distant days when I was in the Government Whips Office, Mrs Ann Taylor—the then Chief Whip—and I, along with a number of colleagues¸ worked very hard with the then Opposition to agree on a process of effective timetabling. Effective timetabling benefits the House, benefits its Members, and, above all, benefits those on the Back Benches, although it is not always to the benefit of the Government. That was, at least, the theory about programme motions, and I supported it strongly.

The whole concept of a programme motion is that it is part of the process of the House, and part of respecting our democracy. It is not a mere ceremonial, or a nod in the right direction; it actually means that we end up with better law. It means that the House goes through the processes of Second Reading, Committee and Report before sending a Bill to the second Chamber, but does so in a comprehensive way so that we all end up with much better law.

If that process is corrupted—which is what has happened in respect of this Bill—it means that the House cannot, across the party divides, help a Government of whatever colour to make a Bill more effective. That is precisely what has happened in this instance, and it has happened because, although for a long period the progress of this policy issue was characterised by lethargy, in recent days it has been handled with hyper-speed in the House. It is not appropriate for us to discuss the reasons for that during a debate on a programme motion, but we will discuss them as we proceed through the Report stage.

It took my Committee—the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee—a long time to consider the Bill, or rather to consider a consultative document. We did our job carefully on behalf of the House before submitting our report to the Government, who took the best part of a year to respond. They responded only when they were forced to do so, because, as a result of their own timetable, they were trying to rush the progress of the Bill, which was then subjected to the hysterically fast progress that has meant that it has not been considered properly by the House. Given the time that has elapsed between the issuing of the consultative paper and now, it would have been perfectly possible for us to engage in a proper process of pre-legislative scrutiny involving my Select Committee, to give the Bill a proper Committee stage, and still to have bags of time left according to the timetable that we have now set ourselves.

That is why, for the first time in over 20 years in the House, I am on my feet saying that this is an abuse. Parliament has been disrespected; Parliament has been abused. The timetable that we are now being asked to meet constitutes the exact opposite of the lethargy that caused the Government to take over a year to reply to my Committee. One day before the House rose for the summer recess in July, we were presented with this Bill. It is not a Bill that my Committee had examined, it is not a Bill that the House had considered, it is not a Bill that was referred to the Electoral Commission, and it is not a Bill that was referred to third parties such as charities—10,500 of them. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House was probably busy chattering away at that point and not listening to them, just as he is not listening to me now.

There is a price to pay for not listening. I do not know whether the Leader of the House has learned that price, but, although he has had a couple of experiences, he does not seem to have learned it. The price of not consulting people, and of treating the House with disrespect, is that one of the very few weapons that we can deploy to protest against a programme motion comes into play.

Having appeared one day before we rose for the recess, the Bill was given its Second Reading one day after we returned. Three working days: is that a world record for this Parliament?

We are going to ask our friends and colleagues in the second Chamber to look at the way we have scrutinised the Bill under this programme motion, and they will say, “What’s wrong with these clowns? Can’t they take most of the key issues and debate them?” No, we cannot. A number of important, serious issues in the Bill will receive virtually no consideration. A number of key issues are before us today and tomorrow, but a lot of stuff will fall off the agenda. A lot of stuff has already fallen off the agenda, because Mr Speaker must choose what is debated and what is not; a lot of good stuff has already been filtered out.

We are not even going to present the dog’s breakfast of this Bill in a proper bowl for their lordships—it will not be in the silver platter that they deserve. They are going to say that we are not capable of doing our job. Is it just my Select Committee, an all-party Committee, that feels that way? Is it just that I happen to be a Select Committee Chair sitting on the Labour Benches? Is it a partisan thing? Let us look at some other people who feel that this is not the way to do business, who will be hurt by the Bill or who will be given roles under the Bill and who have not been consulted.

I hope that all Members, on both sides of the House, feel that the Electoral Commission is one of the most valuable and impartial parts of our democracy. We undermine it at our peril. It sorts out the nuts and bolts of our democracy so that we can glide across the top and have the policy and political debates that the country expects us to have. It does a great job. On one of the earlier occasions when we were considering the Bill, I mentioned that it is very difficult to get the Electoral Commission to commit one way or another on the politics of these proposals—believe me, Mr Deputy Speaker, we have tried. The Electoral Commission said, “We are going to stick to our role. We are here to be impartial. We do see some things that are not very appropriate.” However, if we read between the lines, we see that the Electoral Commission is profoundly uneasy about the role in which it is being cast by the Government. Part of the reason it is uneasy is that it was not even consulted at the right time, at an early enough moment, on measures that change its terms of reference and the job it has to do, let alone on becoming the police of freedom of speech and intervening in election meetings, at hustings or at some other point. It is being put in that role without being properly consulted.

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

I commend my hon. Friend for the work that he and his Committee have done on the matter. He is right to say that there is a lot of concern out there, not only in the Electoral Commission about the role that it has been given, but among small community groups, which feel that they will have to seek advice from an organisation that may not itself be clear on how to deal with the issue or be resourced sufficiently. I have never had as many requests in objection to a Bill from community groups as I have on this Bill. Those people want us to take our time and get this right. They feel that at the moment it is an utter dog’s breakfast.

[Mr Allen]

My hon. Friend is right. There are more than 10,500 charities and voluntary sector organisations. Many of them are big beasts and have been around a long time. Those organisations can look after themselves, summon a barrister, get a brief and argue their corner—eventually, having been let in to see the Government. Many of the big organisations came before the Select Committee, some distinguished members of which are here. However, as my hon. Friend says, many groups are minnows. One court case—no, not even a court case; one legal intervention could bankrupt many of them.

I will not get into the substance of the Bill; you would call me to order if I did so, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, the role of those charities and their trustees is to defend the organisation. They do that not by going to court after a dog’s breakfast has been passed by the House. They do it by listening to debates in the Chamber that have been given adequate time under a programme motion, so that my hon. Friend and others can stand up for those small organisations and say, “Parliament has given me enough time to say why this is wrong.” He is not alone; I suspect that 650 Members in the House have received representations from organisations large and small. I am not referring just to the mass campaigns and the big beasts. I am referring to people who are genuinely worried about the Bill. We must let those arguments be heard and they are not being heard.

[Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I share my hon. Friend’s deep concern about the timetable and on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights I have written to the Government about the matter. We will only tomorrow be able to discuss our heads of report. I hope that by the end of next week we will be able to produce a report. Only then will our Committee’s view be heard.

[Mr Allen]

My hon. Friend describes my experience, too, as a fellow Select Committee Chair. We have been compressed in our consideration throughout the House. The Select Committee structure is meant to do a job for Members, so that we can discuss the issues properly under a proper programme motion. His Select Committee has been squeezed by the programme motion and by the Government’s haste at the wrong end of the process, and that means that we do not consider the Bill properly. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and Members throughout the House who are members of my Select Committee came back when the House was in recess to take evidence. I ask the Leader of the House: is that the way the Government want to be seen to be conducting the business and affairs of the House? That is why adequate time is needed, and the programme motion should provide that.

Just this morning, ahead of this debate, I as Chair of the relevant Select Committee and the Electoral Commission convened a meeting, which was open to all Members, to discuss the Bill. One idea throughout the consideration came from the commission: if only we had had a little more time. Instead of being equivocal—perhaps this will work; perhaps it will not. Let us try it; let us have an open mind—the Electoral Commission could have been properly consulted. My Select Committee interviewed the commission, and I quote from our report:

“It is extraordinary that the Government did not consult the Board and Accounting Officer of the Electoral Commission about the change it is making to the Commission's role. We note also that the Commission has concerns about its ability to identify cases of potential non-compliance”.

That would impact on every Member of Parliament. What if we have a meeting attended by the League Against Cruel Sports and the Countryside Alliance and they start picking a fight with each other and complaining about each other on legal grounds? If we are going to ask the Electoral Commission all of a sudden to start policing that, we should at least have the good grace to consult it so that it can pick holes in the measure, we can get it right and, even with bad legislation, make it halfway workable. As this Bill leaves this House, we are still asking fundamental questions about whether it can be useful in practice or whether it is a minefield.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend recall that one of the most surprising bits of information we have heard as a Committee is that under the previous Government, 75 Bills went through all the stages in the House, including Royal Assent, and were never enforced. Is it his view that this Bill is so awful and impractical that even if it goes go through all its stages it will be unenforceable?

[Mr Allen]

I will not answer my hon. Friend’s question because I would incur your wrath, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, were we able to debate under a proper programme motion, my hon. Friend could make those important points at some length.

Leaving aside the Electoral Commission, the bodies that will be hurt most by any legislation of this sort were also not consulted. It takes a truly heroic effort in this place to get 10,000-odd charities up in arms. Members have been contacted by many such organisations over the past weeks and months, and I am sure that even today they will have received lengthy protests from key organisations such as the Royal British Legion and Oxfam who are saying, “We’ve not had our say. We feel we’re being railroaded.” It is not the role of Parliament to push people and push legislation through without a proper case being made by the Government.

Part 2 is the most sensitive part of the Bill, and if this programme motion is passed we may come to it tomorrow, but most of the bodies and people who will be most affected by it feel that the whole of part 2 should be withdrawn. If there had been a Cabinet reshuffle at the higher levels perhaps an incoming Leader of the House might have said, “I’m blowed if I’m going to be hung with this for the next two months,” and might have scrapped it. We are going to soldier on and try to make the best of it, however, but we can only make the best of it if we have the time to scrutinise properly some of the Bill’s key issues.

People outside this House do not want us to play games. This is the first time in my political life that I have asked colleagues not to support a programme motion. I am generally a great advocate of programme motions, but I oppose this programme motion because of what charity after charity, and voluntary sector organisation after voluntary sector organisation, and third sector organisation after third sector organisation, are saying. Civil Society says in its briefing about the programming:

“There has been a lack of pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation with organisations that might be affected by the change which is in stark opposition to the supposed purpose of the Bill which is to increase transparency and oversight”,

not reduce it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have been very lenient, but we are in danger of repeating arguments by bringing different organisations into the discussion. I understand the frustration that the Chair of the Select Committee feels, but he will understand that our debate is purely about the timetabling and nothing else; it is not about the detail of what may or may not come.

[Mr Allen]

I strongly support your view, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will not repeat anything, and will instead move on to the very long list of brand new points that I can put before the House.

The National Council for Voluntary Organisations makes a completely new point about the programming:

“We also have concerns about the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny and the lack of consultation with organisations that might be affected by the changes in order to ensure they are clear and workable. Government is committed”

—apparently—

“to the national Compact which states that ‘where it is appropriate, and enables meaningful engagement, conduct 12-week formal written consultations, with clear explanations and rationale for any shorter time-frames’”.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know I am quite mature in years, but my hearing is still fairly acute and I think we are hearing about the programme of the Government. About 15 minutes have passed since we last heard about the programming of this Bill.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I shall repeat what I just said to Mr Allen: we need to get to the point. This debate is about the programme motion. I have allowed a little leeway, and he has used that leeway. I think he is now in danger of taking advantage of the Chamber, and I am sure he is about to finish.

[Mr Allen]

Since, sadly, I am accusing the Government of taking advantage of this Chamber, it is incumbent upon me not to do so, but I am not talking about the Government’s programme; I am instead talking about the programme motion, by which I mean the timetabling.

This timetable is an insult to those who work day and night in charities; it is an insult to Members of this House who are receiving representations about what is a very important matter but are unable to voice them in this Chamber; and—above all, perhaps—it is an insult to our legislative colleagues in the second Chamber who expect us to send them a Bill in halfway-decent repair.

Speaking for my Select Committee, which has members from parties on both sides of the House, we have worked incredibly hard to try to fulfil our role for this House and for Parliament. Unless we are allowed to debate these issues properly and fully, I will ask my colleagues to vote against the programme motion.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

18:05

Division 91

Ayes: 317

---

Conservative: 263
Liberal Democrat: 52
Independent: 1

Noes: 249

---

Labour: 228
Democratic Unionist Party: 7
Scottish National Party: 5
Plaid Cymru: 3
Conservative: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[1st Allocated Day]

[Relevant documents: The Seventh Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, on the Government’s Lobbying Bill, HC 601, and the First Report from the Committee on Standards, on the Government’s Lobbying Bill, HC 638.]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Committee

18:25

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I should say at the outset that I do not intend to move new clause 1, although I want to take the opportunity to raise matters that concern it and to support Government amendments 28 and 29. Similarly, I do not intend to press amendment 1 to a vote.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. May I advise the hon. Gentleman that he needs to move his new clause so that we can debate the amendments? When he replies to the debate, he can ask the leave of the House to withdraw it.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am rather appalled, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have had to be pulled up on that procedural matter in my 21st year in this House.

New Clause 1

Bill of rights

‘Nothing in this Act shall be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689.’. —(Mr Jenkin.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Jenkin]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 28.

Amendment 1, in schedule 1, page 51, line 6, leave out paragraphs 1 and 2.

Government amendment 29.

Amendment 78, page 51, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

[Mr Jenkin]

I want to use this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the report by the House of Lords and House of Commons Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which was produced only a month or two ago. I believe that it sets down the terms on which we should consider parliamentary privilege, its importance and its relevance. In particular, chapter 2, on general principles, draws attention to privilege’s continuing relevance and value and notes that parliamentary

“proceedings must be immune from interference by the executive, the courts or anyone else who may wish to impede or influence those proceedings in pursuit of their own ends.”

The principle of parliamentary privilege rests on the concept of exclusive cognisance. That is referred to at the beginning of schedule 1, which quotes an extract from the 1689 Bill of Rights and refers to any matter that

“otherwise affects the scope of the exclusive cognisance of Parliament.”

The term “cognisance” might seem rather archaic, but it encapsulates what privilege is about. That is, as our report states:

“Parliament enjoys sole jurisdiction—normally described by the archaic term ‘exclusive cognisance’—over all matters subject to parliamentary privilege.”

That concept underpins parliamentary privilege. As we explain:

“Thus Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, the most important statutory expression of parliamentary privilege, states that ‘the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament’.”

We go on to explain that the most important part of that is that

“both Members and non-Members… are not legally liable for things said or done in the course”

of our parliamentary proceedings,

“nor are those outside who are adversely affected by things said or done in Parliament able to seek redress through the courts.”

17:30

That causes a lot of concern in some people’s minds because it is, in fact, an exception to the rule of law, which seems to be a fundamental principle of our democracy. But as one of our witnesses, Adam Tucker, a lecturer in law, told us:

“The rule of law is not, however, an absolute principle. Its claims must be balanced against the competing claims of other principles. One of those competing principles is the separation of powers”.

It is even accepted by the European Court of Human Rights that the immunity of parliamentary proceedings is an important fundamental constitutional principle. Its only limitation is a doctrine that has been developed by the courts, known as the doctrine of necessity. That is the test that the courts apply. If Parliament claims privilege, the courts will apply the doctrine—is it necessary to allow Parliament this protection in order that it should be able to carry on its proceedings?

We are engaged in the possibility, in this Bill, of legislating on parliamentary privilege, and this is the most important part of our report in respect of this part of the Bill. As we learned in the Chaytor case, the extent of parliamentary privilege is ultimately a matter for the court, but the courts, as we say in our report, can only interpret and apply the law; Parliament alone can make the law. And as the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Judge, in oral evidence, said to us,

“ultimately it is Parliament that is sovereign”.

That was demonstrated in the Stockdale v. Hansard case, when Hansard was sued for reporting Parliament and we had to pass the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840, which afforded the immunity of Parliament to the proceedings as reported in Hansard so that is on a statutory basis.

It is always a choice for Parliament whether to legislate in order to express what we hold should be immune from the courts, but there are significant disadvantages in legislating. First, parliamentary privilege has to evolve as Parliament evolves and as the law evolves. If we were to try and define what parliamentary privilege is in detail—well, all the advice that our Committee had was not to try and do so. Indeed, were we to try and do so in statute, we would be tempting the courts into limiting parliamentary privilege, perhaps far further than we intended.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

It seems to me that the kernel of the problem is that this is a Bill to regulate lobbying. An important part of an MP’s job is to lobby for his or her constituency and constituents, and we are paid salaries, so in that sense we are paid lobbyists; but surely that part of our role, like every other part of the role, must be immune from the interventions of the court and must not be in any way modified by the legislation before us.

[Mr Jenkin]

I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but it is not generally asserted that, for example, correspondence between him representing his constituents and a Minister is privileged, because it would be difficult to prove that that constituted proceedings in Parliament. I do not think, therefore, that we can seek to extend parliamentary privilege in the Bill. What we do as our job to represent our constituents is clearly not intended to be included in the regulation of lobbying. It would be intolerable if Members of Parliament had to register as lobbyists in order to represent their constituents, or indeed represent any other interests. I will return to that point later, if my right hon. Friend will forgive me.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that in the previous Parliament there was concern about the way that certain Members were behaving, and two were summoned to the Committee. One was receiving £75,000 to represent a company; the other was receiving £105,000. They received those sums entirely to lobby on behalf of a commercial organisation. One of their excuses was, “The organisation has employees in my constituency.” But surely it is the core job of an MP to lobby for his constituents, and if MPs are offered money to do it, that should be seen for what it is, which is a bung, an inducement or a bribe.

[Mr Jenkin]

I recognise the sentiment the hon. Gentleman expresses, and I share his outrage at any abuse that he suggests took place, but we have our own rules in this House. We adjudicate on these matters, and in fact we apply very harsh terms to people we believe to be guilty of paid advocacy. For many decades, since 1945 or even earlier, paid advocacy has been utterly abhorrent to this House. No longer do we have MPs sitting in the railway interest, as they did during the 19th century. The important distinction here is that we regulate that from within this House, as proceedings of this House. We do not need or require the courts to interfere in those matters. I do not think we are providing any leniency to Members that the courts would not also afford. Indeed, it might be far harder to obtain a prosecution in court for a matter such as that than to create in this House the right atmosphere of discipline and self-discipline that we expect from all hon. Members.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

I am following my hon. Friend’s argument closely. Rather than my standing here in the railway interest, I stand in the anti-railway interest in respect of HS2, hoping that the Government will see sense and abandon the project. Will he confirm that there should be nothing in the Bill that would restrict my standing up on behalf of my constituents against HS2, or restrict my constituents in lobbying this place against that project?

[Mr Jenkin]

I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend. I just want to emphasise that the amendments I am speaking to deal with the narrower question of privilege, although I will return to the risk, which I think the Minister must address, of the wider drawing in of Members’ activities into the scope of the Bill.

[Mr Redwood]

Further to that exchange, does my hon. Friend not see my case, which is that if the Bill is in danger of restricting our privilege to write letters on behalf of our constituents as properly paid advocates for our constituents, we need to stop that happening? Otherwise, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) will not be able to campaign against something in her constituency by writing to a Minister without registering under the Bill.

[Mr Jenkin]

I will return to that matter, but when my right hon. Friend employs the word “privilege” in that context, he is not employing it in terms of parliamentary privilege. It is not a parliamentary privilege that protects our ability to write to Ministers on behalf of our constituents. That is not covered by parliamentary privilege.

With the indulgence of the House, I wonder whether I might quote the Lord Chief Justice when he made it clear that we should, if possible, avoid legislating on matters regarding privilege. He said:

“Parliament has to decide whether it has sufficient privilege to be able to conduct its business in the way that Parliament wishes. If you have reservations about that, you have to produce a system that enables you to have the conditions under which you can perform your responsibilities properly. If you had no real reservations about it, I would not go down the legislative route that defined, semi-defined, subdivided, allowed for, or exercised this and that, because you would end up in interminable discussions, and, in court, interminable arguments, about what that really meant. Unless you are dissatisfied with the way in which your privileges operate, I would leave this well alone.”

By that, I think he means that the courts are predisposed to defer to proceedings in Parliament, whatever statutes may say.

The 1689 Bill of Rights is one of those special statutes in our legal system that is implicitly present in every statute. We do not need to repeat what is in the Bill of Rights 1689 in every statute in order to immunise it for the purpose of parliamentary privilege. The one exception that we have made is in respect of the IPSA legislation—the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009—in which we inserted the words that I am proposing in my new clause:

“Nothing in this Act shall be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689.”

I submit that the House of Lords put that clause in the Parliamentary Standards Bill in rather extreme circumstances. When that Bill arrived in this House, it seemed that it was going to go into areas that were previously considered part of the exclusive cognisance of this House. It was going to refer to disciplining Members for what we did in this House, and that was going to draw parliamentary proceedings into the consideration of the courts in a way that was unprecedented. All that was eventually taken out by the House of Lords. In those exceptional circumstances, when the courts were under enormous public pressure to take more draconian action following the expenses fiasco, it was reasonable for Parliament to put that clause into that Bill, but generally we should try to avoid putting any reference to the Bill of Rights 1689 into legislation.

My amendment 1 suggested that we delete paragraph 1 of schedule 1. I note that the Government have now proposed that we remove both paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of schedule 1. Paragraph 1 removes language which is lifted from the Bill of Rights 1689, without referring to the 1689 Act. Because there is no reference to it, paragraph 1 does not place the wording in the special category in which the Act exists.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is reaching the nub of the issue. With something as delicate as article IX of the Bill of Rights, there is nothing worse than trying to produce another version of what it is supposed to mean, which is bound to cause confusion and uncertainty and raise the question of interpretation, making it more likely to be adjudicated by the courts, whereas the Lord Chief Justice said that that should be left well alone.

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend has, typically, put more pithily than I could a complex legal argument. By drawing the courts into adjudicating on these words, we would be devaluing the 1689 Bill of Rights. That would be irresponsible. If the courts start arguing about all this, we will have to legislate on the matter and risk losing our historic immunity.

Our conclusions, clearly stated in the report, were:

“The extent of Parliament’s exclusive cognisance changes over time, as the work of Parliament evolves”

and it would be impractical

“to draw up an exhaustive list”.

We continued:

“Where there is uncertainty in a case brought before the courts, the extent of Parliament’s exclusive cognisance will be determined by the courts.”

We stated that

“if Parliament were to consider that its privileges had been reduced to the extent that it could no longer effectively perform its core work, it could in the last resort change the law”,

but finally that

“legislation should only be used when absolutely necessary, to resolve uncertainty or in the unlikely event of Parliament’s exclusive cognisance being materially diminished by the courts.”

Neither of those last two conditions exists. There is no uncertainty.

We made further recommendations about how our 1689 privileges could be clarified. It is fashionable to believe that over the years parliamentary privilege has been eroded by the courts. That is a two-way street. In certain circumstances, Parliament might exercise privilege in a manner that has recently been ruled to be subject to court proceedings. It would depend on the circumstances, and we need to hold out the prospect that in extremis we would exercise privilege in a way that the courts might not expect us to do, given the way that privilege has been exercised in the past.

We no longer send out a posse of soldiers to arrest people on behalf of Parliament, and I do not suppose we will return to that in these democratic days, but who knows what will happen in the future? Parliament should reserve its right to assert its privilege in order to be able to conduct its proceedings immune from the courts, immune from the Executive, under any circumstances.

18:45

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) tabled amendment 1, which is exactly the same as amendments 28 and 29 tabled by the Government. Is my hon. Friend saying that he no longer thinks amendment 1 and therefore amendments 28 and 29 are appropriate and that new clause 1 should be the preferred way forward?

[Mr Jenkin]

I have moved new clause 1, but I shall wait to hear what the Minister says in response to the debate. I suspect that I will be greatly reassured by what he says in respect of parliamentary privilege, and that by removing any reference to the Bill of Rights or any wording thereof, the two Government amendments put this Bill back in the normal category of all Bills, that privilege applies and that the unstated presence of the 1689 Bill of Rights looms over this Bill as it does over any Act and our privileges are therefore secure, there is no ambiguity about that and it is accepted by the courts.

Indeed, I do not expect that the courts wish to be drawn into adjudicating on detailed matters of privilege. It remains uncomfortable and untidy that hon. Members might try to avail themselves of parliamentary privilege when they are not entitled to it and we end up with embarrassing court actions, but that is not an excuse for legislation in this area. The courts have demonstrated, as we saw in the Chaytor case, that they are capable of disposing of those cases in a manner that we would find perfectly acceptable.

Echoing the comments of my right hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), I still have concerns about the implications of the Bill. These measures were drawn up, presumably, to protect Members of Parliament. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 states:

“A Member of Parliament who makes communications within section 2(3) on behalf of a person or persons resident in his or her constituency does not, by reason of those communications, carry on the business of consultant lobbying.”

How have we written a Bill that could possibly construe Members of Parliament going about their ordinary course of business as carrying out consultant lobbying? Yes, we are paid by Parliament and therefore we are paid, and yes, we are paid, in part, to represent our constituents, but is it assumed that any court might by accident include us in the definition of lobbying and therefore require us to register as lobbyists in order to represent our constituents?

I am pleased that that is being taken out because it was absurd to confine the exemption merely to representing residents in our constituencies, as defined by section 4 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. If I were representing a 15-year-old, I would be caught by the Act. It was an absurd piece of drafting. Why was it necessary to put it into the Bill? I hope the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that the Government are taking it out of the Bill now. That is the right thing to do.

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

The hon. Gentleman has made an extremely interesting speech, which thus far has touched on issues surrounding Members of this House. Has he given any thought to the possible implications of the Bill as originally drafted, and as it will be without the offending paragraphs if the Government carry the House, for Members of the other place?

[Mr Jenkin]

I note the earlier debate on the guillotine. All I can say is thank God for the other place. The hon. Gentleman raises a point that Members there may want to address, though if the Minister can give us the assurance that we need that he has complete confidence and has had advice that no court could possibly construe a Member of Parliament as a lobbyist, I imagine that would also apply to a Member of the other place. But the hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly valid point.

The point, of course, is that we are paid by Parliament to serve the national interest, and to exercise our independent judgment on behalf of that interest, to represent our constituents and to play our part in proceedings as members of political parties, because without parties democracy would not function. Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that all the normal dealings of a Member of Parliament, whether or not he or she is paid or sponsored by outside interests in the usual legitimate way, will not fall within the scope of the Bill and that we will not be required to register as lobbyists? It is important that he gives that assurance so that the courts are clear that that was the intention of the Act.

[Mr Thomas]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who made an extremely interesting speech to which I listened carefully. Like him, I am encouraged by the Government’s decision to table the amendments deleting the two offending paragraphs to schedule 1. We tabled amendment 78 as a probing amendment, but I do not intend to move it if the Leader of the House is suitably convincing when he comments on Government amendments 28 and 29. Nevertheless, there is a series of questions that merit asking about how we got to this point and whether the amendments will resolve all the concerns.

I will deal first with some of the context of these discussions. Until the Government tabled their amendments, it appeared that they were determined to write into legislation a set of paragraphs that would have meant more Members of Parliament being affected by the Bill than actual lobbyists being registered under it. Lynton Crosby and all those in-house energy company lobbyists to whom the Government listen will not have to register because the Bill is still so badly drafted, but Members of Parliament raising concerns, perhaps on behalf of people under the age of 18 or asylum seekers fleeing torture who are resident in their constituencies, might have had to register.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very important that a shadow spokesman should be able to represent any interest group, company or activity in the country as they see fit and still receive their parliamentary salary without falling foul of the lobbying rules?

[Mr Thomas]

The right hon. Gentleman and I do not agree on much, but we agree on that extremely valuable point.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking a second intervention so quickly. Will he add to his list the peculiar situation we have in Northern Ireland, where there are five absentee Sinn Fein Members? MPs who do take their seats receive communications from those five constituencies asking us to make representations to various Ministers. I would hate to be labelled a consultant lobbyist simply for acting properly on behalf of constituents who are not represented in this House by a sitting MP.

[Mr Thomas]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point and underlines the problems there would have been had the Government not listened to the concerns of Members on both sides of the House and tabled their amendments.

[Mr Jenkin]

The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has made an extremely valuable point. It shows how narrow a view some of the people who draft this legislation have of what Members of Parliament actually do. They think that we are simply a post box for our constituents. They do not understand that we are meant to exercise our judgment and represent interests from outside our constituencies as well as views and opinions, and indeed the national interest. They have no conception of that, which I am afraid is reflected in the Bill’s original drafting.

[Mr Thomas]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I want to explain how those two paragraphs arrived in the Bill.

[Paul Flynn]

May I raise with my hon. Friend a question that he himself has raised? There is a difference between this House and the other House. There was a recent investigation into the conduct of a Member of the House of Lords who was behaving in a way that would be condemned in this place as reprehensible, but the Lords have not come to a final conclusion. It relates to a Lord who was campaigning and lobbying on behalf of the Cayman Islands. The excuse given was that there is a difference between the two Houses because Members of the House of Lords are not paid and so are entitled to go around making money by hiring themselves out to the highest bidder. Surely that is a matter of public scandal that must be addressed.

[Mr Thomas]

If my hon. Friend, who is an expert on these questions, will bear with me, I will come later to some of the issues relating to the House of Lords and the extent to which the Bill affects the performance of its Members.

I accept that it was probably not the intention of the Leader of the House that Members of Parliament should be affected in the way that I and other Members who have intervened have described and that that was a result of the Bill being so badly rushed. Had Members on both sides of the House not raised concerns, these sensible amendments would not have been put forward by the Government.

As I indicated, I want to ask a couple of questions about the impact of the Government’s amendments and whether any lessons have been learnt from the process by which the offending paragraphs ended up in the Bill. As several Members made clear on Second Reading, and as the standards committee spelled out, there was a series of concerns about the inclusion of paragraphs 1 and 2 to schedule 1 and their impact on parliamentary privilege. The Committee’s helpful report noted the evidence that had been received by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in March this year. The evidence from Lord Judge underlined the risk of including specific exemptions for MPs in this, or indeed any, Bill. It also underlined the concern that future legislation relating to Members without such an exemption might inadvertently affect parliamentary privilege.

Did the Leader of the House consider that report from the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, and if not, why not? Did he take any advice on the inclusion of those paragraphs before signing them off and presenting the Bill to Parliament? Does he now accept that pre-legislative scrutiny, and perhaps a further period of public consultation with the industry and its stakeholders, might have prevented such a considerable error?

A further concern the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege highlighted relates to the inclusion of a definition of who is resident in an MP’s constituency using the 1983 Act’s description of who can and cannot vote.

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

At least eight or nine major charities are headquartered in my constituency. Does he believe that I would be prevented from representing their interests because they, as corporate bodies, are not resident? How does he see that affecting my ability to represent those charitable interests?

[Mr Thomas]

I think that I did the hon. Gentleman an enormous service back in the 2005 general election, but I am happy to try to be of service to him now. He has rightly raised a concern about whether he would have been able to do the job he wants to do on behalf of those charities had the Government not finally brought forward their amendments.

19:00

[Mrs Gillan]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has been very generous in giving way. I have taken a great interest in autism and introduced a private member’s Bill that ultimately became an Act. I worked with the National Autism Society, which provided me with back-up, information and material for distribution among colleagues. I worry that the Bill would inhibit any MP in acting that way. I was acting not on behalf of a constituent but on behalf of the cause, and will continue to do so. I want to make sure that nothing stands in the way of that work of an MP.

[Mr Thomas]

I commend the hon. Lady for her work with the National Autism Society, not least because it does an excellent job but also because a former member of my staff works for it. Whether her work with the National Autism Society would have been called into question by the Bill is an extremely pertinent point. It is a worry that Ministers rushed out the Bill, and it appears—this is why I have asked the question of the Leader of the House—that not very much advice was taken from the House authorities before the Bill was published. As a result, considerable concerns have been raised by Members on both sides of the House, detracting inevitably from the House’s ability to look at other parts of the Bill.

Will the Leader of the House set out with whom he, his ministerial colleagues or others involved in drafting the Bill consulted before inserting the offending paragraphs? I ask because it has not always been easy to track which Minister and which Department was leading on this Bill and it would be useful to know whether the Leader of the House has considered whether a repeat of the error might be avoided in the future. I emphasise gently to the Leader of the House that the mistake might have been avoided had there been pre-legislative scrutiny, a further period of public consultation and a proper attempt to involve the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in particular.

I turn now to a question that I raised in an intervention on the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex: the impact of the Bill on the other place. As the Bill is currently drafted, a Member of Parliament’s pay could also be construed—a point the right hon. Member for Wokingham made—as payment for third-party consultant lobbying. In the other place, peers are given an allowance and are not paid a salary. There is an expectation that those in the other place can earn a living beyond their work there. The House of Lords code of conduct is currently being reviewed by a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. It would be helpful to get a specific assurance from the Leader of the House, or his colleague the Deputy Leader, on the extent to which, if at all, the Bill as drafted, and as it would be if the Government amendments were carried, would affect the other place. These are clearly questions that members in the other place will want to explore, quite rightly. But we also have a responsibility to think through some of the issues around the other place. It would be helpful to hear from the Leader of the House on the extent to which he has considered this question.

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Leader of the House.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

May I say to the Leader of the House that I did not realise that Mr Cash wished to come in? I call Mr Cash.

[Mr Cash]

I am sorry for inhibiting my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for a short moment.

I just want to endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said and draw attention to the real reasons why this matter is so important. I have already made the point that the proposal would simply create confusion and the extreme likelihood that there would be interpretations by the courts as a result of a difference of language between what is contained in schedule 1 and the wording of article 9 of the Bill of Rights. It is best left alone; that was the essence of what the Lord Chief Justice said.

As someone who served on the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, I want to make something absolutely clear. Curiously enough, the word privilege is almost a misnomer. It is not a privilege; it is a necessity. I would say that of any Member of this House. We cannot have freedom of speech to protect our constituents without having the right to be able to say whatever needs to be said in this House to protect them. That is whether in relation to HS2, on which I share the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan)—I am totally against it—or anything else. The absolute necessity for maintaining the right of an MP to speak within the framework of the rules of the House must not be interfered with by any court or any outside agency. We have to have that right as that is the essence of our democracy.

What we are really discussing here, apart from the very important question—I concede that it is important—of not getting into a conflict with the courts or having differences of emphasis or wording that could give rise to interpretations, is that it is absolutely essential to remember that these issues are for the benefit of our constituents and the national interest.

In 1999 the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege —our predecessor committee—said:

“Parliament makes the law and raises taxes. It is also the place where ministers are called to account by representatives of the whole nation for their decisions and their expenditure of public money. Grievances great and small can be aired regardless of the power or wealth of those criticised.

In order to carry out these public duties”—

I repeat the word “public”—

“without fear or favour, parliament and its members and officers need certain rights and immunities. Parliament needs the right to regulate its own affairs free from intervention by the government or the courts. Members need to be able to speak freely, uninhibited by possible defamation claims.”

The Irish Government argued recently at the European Court of Human Rights that

“parliamentary immunity has developed throughout the world not as a constraint upon the rights of the citizen but as a fundamental liberty.”

I could enlarge on this but I do not need to do so.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way at this point. He says “around the world”. It is often thought that parliamentary privilege is unique to our rather odd partly written constitution, where the fundamental principles are accepted and not written down. That is not the case. Every parliamentary democracy in the world grants its legislative authority some kind of immunity in order to ensure that it can carry on its function of holding the Executive to account, and legislating and discussing with impunity. It is not unique to us; it exists in America, Australia and elsewhere. They all wrestle with this problem of how to make it work.

[Mr Cash]

That is the very point I am seeking to make. I would also point out that a number of other countries have got themselves into serious turmoil and trouble where the right of the people to speak freely is inessential and incidental to the manner in which their constitution is construed. In many countries, whether dictatorships or quasi-democracies, the inhibitions on the freedom of their members of parliament to speak as they must on behalf of the national interest or on behalf of their constituents is constrained by a lot of activities which, in effect, put them in fear. It is precisely because this House as a whole ensures, through its own regulation of the behaviour of Members, that that freedom is maintained, that we can guarantee that we can serve our constituents in the national interest.

That is all I need to say, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I need to say something, just to help you, because obviously I know that you want to discuss the new clause and do not want to drift into the wider arena. I am sure you will have appreciated me trying to help you with that.

[Mr Cash]

Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker, and there is no wider arena than your remit. Having said that, this is not just about a simple, narrow point; it is about a broader issue that interacts with it. As far as I am concerned, that is all I need to say.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is excellent news.

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Tagged on to this debate is a report by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which I chair, that we published on the day of the Bill’s Second Reading. It was all a bit of a hurry because of the Government’s haste to get these provisions into Parliament. On 18 July I wrote to the Leader of the House with some major concerns that we had about the Bill’s implications for Members of Parliament and the consequential implications for the codes of conduct—our own rules in relation to Members’ activities.

The House of Commons has long been concerned about lobbying. As early as 1695, the House resolved:

“The Offer of any Money, or other Advantage, to any Member of Parliament, for the promoting of any Matter whatsoever, depending, or to be transacted, in Parliament, is a high Crime and Misdemeanour, and tends to the Subversion of the Constitution.”

Successive resolutions have restricted what Members are permitted to do. The current code of conduct states:

“No Member shall act as a paid advocate in any proceedings of the House.”

Indeed, the “Guide to the Rules relating to the Code of Conduct of Members” makes it clear that prohibition on advocacy is not limited to proceedings in the House or approaches to Ministers but extends to approaches to colleagues and to any servants of the Crown. Consultant lobbying is usually understood to consist of the acceptance of money in direct return for lobbying activity. Under the code of conduct as currently written, this would almost certainly be a breach of the advocacy rule. We noted that the requirements for the registration of Members’ financial interests are far more detailed than the Bill’s requirements for entries in the register of consultant lobbyists. There was grave concern that had it remained as first published, there would have been major conflict between Members of this House and organisations outside.

We recognised that although Members are permitted to have outside interests, a Member who carried out consultant lobbying would be breaking the current rules of conduct of the House. None the less, we also recognised that that could change if the House changed its rules to permit such activity, though we considered that to be extremely unlikely. If that were the case, Members would then not be immune from the general, nor should they be. If the advocacy rule were ever rescinded, a Member who acted as a consultant lobbyist should be subject to the same rules as any other such lobbyist.

We had to draw up the report very quickly because of the timetable that we have had for the Bill. We brought up two major concerns in our conclusion. First, we said:

“In our view, the difficulties about the way in which the legislation applies to Members of Parliament would be swept away if paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 was removed.”

The Government’s amendment 29 does that, I am pleased to say. As has been clearly pointed out in the debate, under the paragraph I would be potentially restricted to lobbying the Secretary of State or a senior civil servant only on the basis of a constituent having contacted me about an issue. That would be nonsensical. It would mean that to be able to do the work that I have been doing on public health for many years in this Chamber, I would first have to get a constituent to write to me about it. It could also affect my ability to go to a recognised charity that is concerned about public health issues and work with it in the hope of getting more effective legislation. We all do that, as the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) said.

19:15

I was deeply concerned, and remain so, about the registrar’s powers to decide on the powers of consultant lobbyists. Numerous people pointed out to us in written evidence that, in effect, there was no consultation between the registrar and Parliament about the rules that could be brought in and about lobbying in relation to constituents. We saw a great danger that, as a consequence, there could be conflict not just with the registrar but with the law, which would potentially become involved and get mixed up in our rules.

Secondly, we said:

“We consider it necessary to make clear that Members’ ordinary work is not caught by the Bill.”

In our correspondence during the few weeks up until 3 September, the Leader of the House clarified that that was to be the case. We also said that the Bill should state that

“reference to payment does not include a reference to the salary”

of a Member of Parliament. To the Government’s credit, that was taken out in Committee and during the early proceedings on the Bill. It was fairly well clarified that neither the registrar nor anybody else could say that someone’s salary for being a Member of this House could be construed as being a payment for lobbying.

On those two issues, I am quite happy with the action that the Government have taken, as is, I am sure, the rest of the Committee. However, this is hasty legislation that has been thrown into the public domain. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), I came back a day early and gave evidence to his Committee on this matter, although we were all brought back anyway on wider issues. These things need to be better thought out.

As an individual Member,I have further concerns that my Committee did not much look at, such as the powers of the registrar, which could mean that we end up with conflict. I am worried about the effect on charities, be they locally or nationally based. Charities play a major role in lobbying us as Back Benchers, as opposed to Front Benchers, about what should or should not be happening in legislation. If we are not able to be lobbied by charities and others, we will just become creatures of the Executive, who will be telling us what should and should not be happening. That would be unhelpful.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

I thank the Government and the Leader of the House and his team for paying attention to the report that my right hon. Friend put together. That shows that it can be done. We improve legislation the more we talk and the more we listen. This is a very good example of that, and I hope that there will be many more examples to come.

[Mr Barron]

On the two issues that we were concerned about, the Government have seen sense. This hasty piece of legislation has been changed so that we, as Members of Parliament, are not prevented from representing our constituents on wider issues. The day this Chamber can listen only to advice coming from the Executive, we may as well be in Stalinist Russia, and that is not something that I would feel comfortable with.

[Mr Redwood]

A couple of Opposition Members have raised the issue of paid advocacy and I want to reassure anyone following our debate that no one in this Chamber is saying that MPs should be allowed to receive top-up money from outside this House and then advocate the cause of those paying them. That is clearly wrong. It is against the rules and nothing in the Bill would facilitate it. I think we all agree on that, so that argument is a red herring.

The issue we are debating is the crucial one of the legitimate role of an MP and whether it can continue untrammelled by a Bill that could inadvertently capture legitimate things that an MP does. If the Leader of the House is going to guide us to reject the new clause, I want reassurance that the lobbying element of an MP’s job will be completely untouched by the way in which he wants the Bill to end up. In moving the new clause, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) made it clear that he is trying to resolve the issue of the legitimate work of an MP.

A very important part of an MP’s job is to be the chief lobbyist for their constituency but, as colleagues have said, we may also wish to be a lobbyist for another interest group that is not based in our constituency. It may be a very important part of a shadow Minister’s job to represent an industry, charity or group of underprivileged people who are not in their constituency, in order to shape national policy. Individual Members may wish to pursue similar themes, even if they are not prominent in their constituencies. It enriches our debates and makes for a fairer society if anyone from outside this House can find MPs who support their cause and who can be their advocates. We are lobbyists for all sorts of groups and interests throughout the country, whether they are in our constituencies or not. It is very important that a court or external body does not assume that, because we are paid a salary and because we lobby Ministers on behalf of the interests of people and companies throughout the country, we are subject to the rules under discussion.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) that we are not seeking special privilege. We are saying that this Bill is designed to stop abuse of the lobbying system and I want a reassurance from the Leader of the House that it has not been worded in a way that inadvertently could trap MPs as if we were an abuse of the lobbying system, when the healthy expression of lobbying, through and of MPs, is fundamental to our democracy. I think that view is shared throughout the Chamber. The great difference between a free society and a tyranny or an authoritarian regime is that any group, interest, person or company in our country can try to find an MP who thinks they have a fair cause, and if they persuade an MP of that—without any payment of money or anything inappropriate—their cause can run in this House and have the chance of influencing Ministers.

I hope that the Leader of the House can reassure me that the Bill will leave absolutely no doubt that we can be lobbied and that we can lobby, and that we are the free lobbyist for anyone with a good cause.

[Mrs Gillan]

I do not wish to detain the House for long. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). When the Leader of the House responds to the debate and speaks to his amendments, it is very important that he makes it clear that we as MPs are not placing ourselves in any special position other than to represent the interests of others, which is why we have been sent to this place.

The two instances that I have raised in interventions are highly personal to me, namely HS2 and the National Autistic Society. When people throughout the country read the HS2 Bill they immediately interpreted it as a drag on their lobbying of Government and on MPs who want to speak against the project. More importantly, we have to make sure that charities and other bodies that seek our help do not misconstrue the situation and think that we will be gagged in any way. This is called the gagging Bill in common parlance, which is why I want to make sure that the Leader of the House gives us a reassurance, as I am sure he will. The one thing I know is that he has been listening very carefully to the cases that have been made across the board. Rather than detain the House any longer, I look forward to receiving the reassurances sought by Government and Opposition Members that the Bill will not inhibit us in any way.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to this short debate, and particularly to my hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and for Stone (Mr Cash) for tabling the new clause. I hope I will be able to reassure them that, through Government amendments 28 and 29, we will achieve the objectives that they and other Members seek. I hope that this debate on Report will begin with full agreement on how the Bill should be structured.

There are two issues with regard to this group of amendments: one is parliamentary privilege and the other is the position of Members of Parliament themselves. I reassure Members that the Government are committed to ensuring that the Bill’s provisions do not infringe on parliamentary privilege. The Government recognise that the privileges of Parliament are an integral and, indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone has said, necessary part of our constitutional arrangements. As the 18th century Clerk of the House, John Hatsell, commented, they are absolutely necessary for the due execution of Parliament’s powers.

Parliamentary privilege is an intrinsic and essential element of our democracy. It upholds Members’ right to freedom of speech and protects Parliament from external interference.

Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689 reflects those historic and vital rights by providing that

“the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament should not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”.

This Bill will in no way challenge the freedom of speech of parliamentarians.

Equally, we are committed to ensuring that the provisions do not intrude on Parliament’s exclusive cognisance and to upholding the principle famously set out by Sir William Blackstone in 1830, that

“the whole of the law and custom of Parliament has its origin in this one maxim, that whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament, ought to be examined, discussed and adjudged in that House and not elsewhere.”

As Members have made clear and helpfully acknowledged, following careful consideration we have concluded that the inclusion of a reference to parliamentary privilege in the Bill—either in the manner provided for by paragraph 1 of schedule 1 or in that outlined in new clause 1, if we were to proceed with it—could invite examination, discussion and judgment from sources external to Parliament. The retention or inclusion of such a provision could prompt unhelpful rulings by the courts regarding the nature or extent of privilege or its interaction with other statute. That point has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex and by the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee.

I am grateful to the Committee and to its Chairman for his contribution to the debate. The Committee’s view and its helpful reference to the views of Lord Judge have helped us reach a conclusion. I hope the Committee will agree that Government amendment 28 meets its objective.

I am confident that Members will share our desire to protect Parliament’s right to regulate its own affairs and, as provided in the Bill of Rights, not to have its proceedings questioned. I am equally confident that the way in which that will be ensured in the context of this Bill will be to remove the reference to privilege outlined in paragraph 1 of schedule 1 and, as a consequence and for the same reason, to resist the inclusion of a similar provision as proposed by new clause 1. Government amendment 28 will therefore help to protect the privileges of Parliament from undue judicial interpretation in the context of this statute. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex would withdraw the new clause in consequence of Government amendment 28.

[Lady Hermon]

I have listened carefully to the Leader of House’s explanation and am slightly concerned. Paragraph 22 of the explanatory notes states specifically that paragraphs 1 and 2 of schedule 1

“make provision to ensure that no provision of the bill could be infringing parliamentary privilege”.

Is the Leader of the House saying, therefore, that if paragraphs 1 and 2 are removed by the Government’s amendments there is no possibility of any other provision in the Bill infringing parliamentary privilege? Is that the assurance he is giving?

19:29

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex explained the matter well. A provision was inserted into the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 because that statute would have impinged directly on the privileges and rights of Parliament. A saving provision was necessary in that context.

Lord Judge was right in what he said to the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and that is at the heart of our thinking on the matter. If we say in some Bills that nothing in the Bill infringes the principle of parliamentary privilege, not only would that be subject to judicial interpretation, but courts might conclude that other statutes that do not have such a saving provision may infringe parliamentary privilege. They might take the lack of a saving provision as an indication that Parliament did not expressly wish to avoid that happening. That is not our view. Our view is that parliamentary privilege subsists, that nothing in the Bill will infringe it and that courts should not interpret any part of it as infringing parliamentary privilege, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex explained.

The second issue under this group is the exemption of Members of Parliament. The Government have always been clear that the normal activity of a Member of Parliament will not be captured by the definition of consultant lobbying. The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) referred to the report by the Standards Committee. I wrote to him with an explanation at the end of August, which stated:

“In order to be required to register under the Bill a person must lobby ‘in the course of a business’ and ‘in return for payment’.”

That is part of the definition of consultant lobbying. I continued:

“Performing one’s public role as a Member of Parliament does not amount to carrying on a business and is therefore exempt. This is equally true of anyone holding an elected office such as an MEP or councillor.”

I might add, in response to an earlier question, that the same would be true of a Member of the House of Lords. A Member of the House of Lords, in exercising their public duty, would not be regarded as carrying on a business and would therefore be exempt.

Concern was expressed by various people that the normal activities of elected officials might be captured by the provisions on the register. I am happy to provide the reassurance that they will not be. That was never our intention and, in our view, the Bill will not have that effect.

Out of an abundance of caution, in addition to the “in the course of a business” requirement, the Bill included a specific, overlapping exemption for Members of Parliament because of their uniquely high level of communication with Ministers and permanent secretaries. However, it became clear on Second Reading that there was dissatisfaction with the exemption, as drafted. That has been expressed again in this debate. There was concern that paragraph 2 of schedule 1 described the normal activities of a Member of Parliament inadequately.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am listening carefully to what the Leader of the House is saying. Of course, all this depends on what one means by the normal activities of a Member of Parliament. Does he agree that the normal activities of a Member of Parliament include representing anybody, so long as we are not paid to represent them? We are free to represent anybody, whether they be a business in the City or a charity.

[Mr Lansley]

I understand that completely. If I have not explained my point fully, let me explain it again. Under clause 2(1)(a), part of the definition of consultant lobbying is that it is carried out

“in the course of a business and in return for payment”.

When the Bill was introduced, in order to make it absolutely clear that Members of Parliament were not covered, we included a provision about the communications that are made by Members of Parliament in paragraph 2 of schedule 1.

On Second Reading, I explained that we believed that Members of Parliament were exempt by virtue of their public duty meaning that they were not engaged in the course of a business. It was clear that the inclusion of the additional provision in schedule 1 created an unnecessary and unhelpful confusion because, as has been said in this debate, it does not encapsulate all the activities of a Member of Parliament in carrying out their functions.

Members will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) said in Committee that we would therefore adopt a different approach. I thank her for all her work on the Bill and welcome the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who has responsibility for cities and constitution. I will not ask him to explain the Bill at this stage, but will allow him to take responsibility for the policy when he has had a chance to apply his considerable talents to it.

We discussed, welcomed and accepted what the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee said and, in Committee, we accepted an amendment that he tabled. That amendment resulted in an improved exemption in schedule 1, which clarified the interaction between parliamentarians and the register. Members will recall that the definition of consultant lobbying states that it must be

“in the course of a business and in return for payment”.

Paragraph 6(2) of schedule 1 states that “payment” in those circumstances

“does not include any sums payable to a member of either House of Parliament”—

again, this refers to the point about Members of the House of Lords—under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, pursuant to a resolution, or out of money provided by Parliament or the Consolidated Fund.

Members of Parliament are therefore exempt under both limbs of the definition. They are not engaged in the course of a business and the payment that they receive is not regarded as payment for the purposes of the Bill. For that reason, we think that there is now a cast-iron, belt-and-braces exemption for Members of Parliament.

I might add that Members of the House of Lords are exempt in so far as they are acting in their public duties. If a Member of this House received payment for contacting a Minister or permanent secretary, it would be contrary to the Members’ code of conduct. The Chairman of the Standards Committee will correct me if I am wrong. The code in the House of Lords makes it clear that nobody can undertake paid advocacy in the House of Lords or advise somebody on the proceedings of the House, but it does not preclude somebody engaging in lobbying activity in the course of a business and in return for payment. My reading is that it is not inconceivable that some Members of the House of Lords would be required to register as consultant lobbyists as a consequence of their business activities. They would certainly not be required to register by virtue of their activities as Members of the House of Lords. I apologise for that detour.

As a consequence of accepting the amendment tabled by the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, we would have removed paragraph 2 of schedule 1 in Committee, but it was not reached. Amendment 29 will remove that redundant paragraph. I hope that the Opposition accept that amendment 78 is therefore unnecessary. I also ask my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex to withdraw new clause 1.

[Lady Hermon]

I am most grateful to the Leader of the House for his very helpful explanation. Just to be sure, will he confirm that if I receive communications from constituents of the five absentee Sinn Fein Members—and, indeed, of any other Members of this House who take their seats—and I make representations or write to a Minister, the Director of Public Prosecutions or a senior Government official, that will not be caught by the Bill?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. She would not be affected by the Bill as she would be behaving as a Member of Parliament and not engaging in the course of a business. The payment she receives as a Member of Parliament is not regarded as payment for these purposes, and she can undertake all her normal activities. The same is true for the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) who sits on the Opposition Front Bench, because shadow Ministers and Members may raise any issues they wish. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) can represent not only her constituents but anybody she likes in her responsibilities as a Member of Parliament, and is in no way constrained from doing so.

[Mr Thomas]

The Leader of the House has been at his most reasonable in the past few minutes, but he has not yet touched on how we ended up in this position. I asked whether he would set out who was consulted—were the House authorities consulted before the Bill was published? I asked, and I gently ask again, whether he would accept that one lesson of this episode and this Bill might be that pre-legislative scrutiny would have been helpful?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman knows from our previous conversation that we talked to the House authorities about parliamentary privilege. The implication of what he says is that the Bill was in a sense deficient because Members of Parliament were caught, but they were not. In the original Bill, Members of Parliament were exempt by virtue of the fact that they were engaged in a public duty as office holders, not in the course of a business. To that extent, we included provisions intended to give additional reassurance, but that simply muddied the waters and it was simpler to do it in the way that we, together with the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, accepted. We accepted an amendment in Committee, and all I am doing today—I hope—is making it clear that the combination of those amendments in Committee and the amendments now being considered respects the views of the Standards and Privileges Committee and protects the rights of this House in relation to privilege. It also entirely protects the position of Members of Parliament who are undertaking their duties, however they construe them. On that basis, I hope Members will support Government amendments 28 and 29.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for being utterly clear about the intention of this Bill, which is that Members of Parliament and Members of the other place are not intended to be included in the provisions of the Bill. He has listened and read the report from the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and the Standards and Privileges Committee of this House, and has understood the concerns raised. I emphasise the importance of removing the second paragraph in schedule 1, subject to amendment 29, because were it to remain it would have the effect of narrowing the exemption to an absurd degree. That is why it is important to remove it; it is not only redundant but would be highly damaging because it would suggest that what is not excluded by the clause would implicitly be included under the Bill. I will not press new clause 1 to a vote, because the Leader of the House is dealing with these matters in an exemplary manner, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Duty to apply a code of conduct

‘(1) The Registrar shall, after wide consultation with relevant stakeholders including the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee, prepare a code of conduct with which all registered persons will be required to comply, and may produce revised codes from time to time.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay any professional lobbying code of conduct before Parliament.

(3) Any code shall provide that any inappropriate financial relations between registered persons and Parliamentarians are strictly forbidden.

(4) An organisation or person included on the register which contravenes the provisions of the code of conduct shall be liable to civil penalties as set out in section 14.’.—(Mr Thomas.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Thomas]

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

19:44

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 6—Duty to report—

‘The Registrar will report annually to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons on the operation of the Register.’.

Amendment 84, page 54, line 15, after ‘satisfied’, insert ‘after consultation with the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons’.

Government amendment 31.

Amendment 85, page 3, line 7, leave out from ‘business’ to end of line 8.

Amendment 86, page 3, line 15, at end insert—

‘(h) the name of the employer and the address of employer‘s business; and

(i) the names of members of staff employed by the person registered.’.

Government amendments 17 and 18.

Amendment 87, page 3, line 21, at end insert—

‘(c) the approximate value of the registered person’s spending on their lobbying activities for each quarter.’.

Government amendments 19 and 20.

Amendment 89, page 3, line 37, after ‘client information’, insert ‘and spending on lobbying’.

Government amendments 21 and 22.

Amendment 100, page 3, line 47, at end add—

‘(c) if the registered person engaged in lobbying in the quarter in return for payment (whether or not the payment has been received), the purpose and subject matter of the lobbying services provided by the registered person; and

(d) if the registered person received payment in the quarter to engage in lobbying (whether or not the lobbying has been done) the purpose and subject matter of the lobbying services provided by the registered person.’.

Amendment 90, page 4, line 7, at end insert—

‘(7) Spending on lobbying for each quarter is the approximate value of the amount a registered person spends on their lobbying activity for each quarter.’.

Government amendments 23 and 24.

Amendment 92, page 4, line 40, after ‘appropriate’, insert ‘including in written form’.

Amendment 93, page 5, line 26, leave out Clause 10.

Government amendment 25.

Amendment 94, page 6, line 28, after ‘incomplete’, insert ‘or misleading’.

Amendment 95, page 6, line 36, after ‘incomplete’, insert ‘or misleading’.

Amendment 96, page 6, line 42, after ‘incomplete’, insert ‘or misleading’.

Government amendments 26 and 27.

[Mr Thomas]

Reasonable though the Leader of the House was about the previous set of amendments, he will have to reach unprecedented oratorical heights for the Opposition not to press new clause 4 to a vote. The new clause seeks to establish a code of conduct that would help establish standards of behaviour for consultant lobbyists. Such codes exist already in a number of other countries that have tough lobbying regulations—Canada and Australia, for example, both have codes of conduct to which registered lobbyists must adhere. Indeed, this House’s Political and Constitutional Reform Committee also recommended a statutory code of conduct.

There was some debate in Committee about the elements of a possible code of conduct, and that point bears dwelling on and expanding a little. Surely, top of the list of standards in a code of conduct should be the requirement that lobbyists and their clients tell the truth to those they meet. Another element that might be worthy of inclusion in the code is that lobbyists must be open about who their clients are. Members of the House, Ministers and permanent secretaries are entitled to know who is lobbying them and for what purpose. Surely there should be a requirement that lobbyists advise their clients if they are about to commit illegal or unethical acts.

It is not clear to Labour Members—and, I suspect, to other Members—why Ministers do not want such basic principles of good behaviour enshrined in a code of conduct. In Committee, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), suggested:

“The experience of regulators in other jurisdictions clearly shows that statutory codes of conduct for lobbying can be unworkable and unenforceable.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 786.]

Sadly, she did not feel able to give the Committee any more information than that bald statement. If it remains the Government’s position that they do not support a code of conduct, it would be helpful for the House, those in the other place and those who watch our proceedings if they set out clearly the international examples that led them to the conclusion that statutory codes of conduct are unworkable and unenforceable.

If there is no code of conduct, we will be in the rather odd position in which the registrar can punish lateness in providing or submitting information, but cannot punish lobbyists who deliberately hide who they are working for from those they are lobbying. Before being drawn up, a code of conduct would need to be properly consulted on with all relevant stakeholders, including the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I accept there are already a number of voluntary codes of conduct in the lobbying industry, some of which are extremely comprehensive. Sadly, however, not every lobbyist is a member of one or other of those voluntary codes.

Gavin Devine, chief executive of MHP Communications, one of the bigger lobbying firms, noted there is a risk that simply securing a place on the register might enable lobbyists to imply they had a kitemark or some sort of endorsement, without having to operate to particular standards. Other evidence presented to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee suggested there might be an economic issue for some who decide to register and pay the registration fee, but do not want to pay any more for the cost of being a consultant lobbyist, and therefore would no longer be part of a voluntary code of conduct.

Surely, there is a risk that, once registered, a lobbyist will simply decide not to bother with any of the voluntary codes of conduct. On 9 September, the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) tried to argue, interestingly, that peer pressure would drive lobbyists to adhere to a voluntary code of conduct. Unfortunately, given that there are several voluntary codes across the industry, that would risk having different standards. Having one clear basic code of conduct would offer clarity about the minimum standards that lobbyists should meet, avoid confusion about which voluntary register was the best one and offer clarity to the House and the Government about the standards required of those who seek to lobby us. A code of conduct might also help to regulate those who want to lobby the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Greater London Assembly or the National Assembly for Wales, were they to be included in the code of conduct.

One voluntary code that bears looking at is that produced by the Association of Professional Political Consultants. Why do not Ministers think that its 18 elements should be standardised across the industry? Item 2 states:

“Political consultants must act with honesty towards clients and the institutions of government.”

Surely, we all want to see consultant lobbyists acting with honesty towards clients and the institutions of government. Why do the Leader of the House and his colleagues in government think that such a provision should not be written into a code of conduct and that every consultant lobbyist should have to abide by that most basic of standards?

The APPC code also states that lobbyists

“must use reasonable endeavours to satisfy themselves of the truth and accuracy of all statements made or information provided to clients or by or on behalf of clients to institutions of government.”

Again, that seeks to continue the principle of truthfulness among those who seek to lobby Parliament and the institutions of government. Why should there not be such a reasonable expectation that when we are told something, it is truthful and accurate? It is not clear, certainly among the Opposition, why Ministers think that such basic standards should not be required of all those who lobby.

The APPC code also makes it clear that those who sign it should be

“open in disclosing the identity of their clients and must not misrepresent their interests.”

Again, I ask the Leader of the House why such a basic standard for the lobbying industry should not be enshrined in a code of conduct. Why should everyone who seeks to lobby us not be required to meet that most basic of standards?

Another provision that might be included in a code is the requirement that lobbyists do not make misleading, exaggerated or extravagant claims to clients. Anyone who has followed the unfortunate publicity that some lobbyists have generated will be aware that some have made exaggerated claims for their influence on the Government or Members of Parliament. Again, a basic requirement that lobbyists should not make misleading, exaggerated or extravagant claims would surely help to protect those who use the services of the lobbying industry. Why do Ministers not think that clients should be protected from such basic bad behaviour by a would-be lobbyist and therefore have it written into a code of conduct?

Interestingly, the APPC code deals with payments and offers of entertainment and mementoes. It makes it clear that

“political consultants must not offer or give, or cause a client to offer or give, any financial or other incentive to”

somebody in government

“that could be construed in any way as a bribe or solicitation of favour”

Again, that must be a basic standard we would want all consultant lobbyists to abide by. If one shares that view, it should be written into a code of conduct, so that all consultant lobbyists have to abide by it, not just those who, in this case, choose to be members of the APPC.

[Lady Hermon]

The wording of new clause 4, to which the hon. Gentleman is speaking, is curious. It states:

“Any code shall provide that any inappropriate financial relations between registered persons and Parliamentarians are strictly forbidden.”

That suggests that there are inappropriate financial relations and appropriate financial relations, which I am sure is not what he meant.

[Mr Thomas]

Indeed not, although I do not see the hon. Lady’s concern about the wording. She will be aware of several cases of allegations of inappropriate relationships, which we need to address, and a code of conduct could help us to do that.

[Lady Hermon]

To clarify, is it the Opposition’s position in the new clause that some financial relations between parliamentarians and registered consultant lobbyists are in fact appropriate? Surely, any financial relationship should be strictly forbidden. The word “inappropriate” should not be there at all.

[Mr Thomas]

We are seeking to establish the principle that there should be a code of conduct dealing with the relationship between Members of Parliament and the industry and covering a whole series of other questions. I hope that the hon. Lady will be persuaded of the need for such a code of conduct. I accept that consultation on the detail would be required, but if we could persuade her and the whole House to join us in the Lobby to support new clause 4, and if it were carried, I would hope she wanted to respond to such a consultation.

[Lady Hermon]

I am so sorry to be persistent, but I am even more confused than when I made my first intervention on this point. I am wildly enthusiastic about having a code and am willing to support the principle, but I cannot support the wording in the new clause. I would like the hon. Gentleman to explain what could possibly be an appropriate financial relationship between a registered lobbyist and a parliamentarian. No financial relationship is appropriate, so my problem is with the word “inappropriate”. Will he address that point, please?

[Mr Thomas]

The hon. Lady is right that it is very difficult to see how any direct financial relationship could be appropriate. I come back to a particular provision in the APPC code that might shed some light on this issue. The provision makes it clear that in relation to entertainment, for example, or to token mementos, no incentive should be given. It might be possible to suggest that such circumstances involve a financial incentive, but my point is that we need a code of conduct and we need clear details of what should be in it. I hope that that explanation will persuade the hon. Lady to support our proposal for a basic code of conduct, and that she will be able to play a role in being consulted on the details.

New clause 6 would place a duty on the registrar to report to Parliament annually on the operation of the register. The Information Commissioner has a similar duty under the Data Protection Act 1998. At the moment, the Bill implies little accountability to Parliament by the registrar. Given the registrar’s powers to impose civil penalties, to issue guidance and to make financial decisions, some accountability ought surely to be provided for in law. Let us remember when, all those long days ago, Government Members supported the signing of the coalition agreement. Page 21 of that document contained a commitment to strengthen the powers of Select Committees to scrutinise major public appointments. Surely new clause 6 follows the spirit of that provision. Indeed, even the Liberal Democrat manifesto promised to increase parliamentary scrutiny of Government appointments. New clause 6 would allow just that.

Even at this late stage—if not today and tomorrow, then in the other place—we hope that the Bill can be made more effective and, crucially, more wide ranging in regard to the number of lobbyists it covers. It remains our view that it should cover all lobbyists, and that it should provide for a clear code of conduct. The registrar would have an even more important role to play if these proposals were accepted, as we hope they will be. There is therefore even more need to ensure the registrar’s accountability to Parliament.

20:00

Amendment 84 provides that, in the unlikely and unusual circumstances of the registrar facing dismissal by Ministers, the dismissal could be confirmed only after consultation with the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. Given the registrar’s importance in regulating the activities of those who seek to lobby Members of this House, as well as Ministers, it is surely reasonably to ensure that the ultimate disciplinary sanction could be taken only after discussions with Parliament.

Amendment 86 would require lobbyists to name those for whom they were working, and for whom their staff were working. Whether the Conservatives like it or not, the adverse publicity that the employment of Lynton Crosby has secured for them has been caused in part by the lack of clarity from the Prime Minister about whether Mr Crosby’s firm and its many members of staff are working for anyone else in the UK at the same time as they are working for the Conservative party. We want transparency in lobbying, and the Government say that they too want to abide by that ambition. In that case, lobbyists should at least be required to disclose which clients they and their staff are working for.

Amendments 87, 89 and 90 would require a declaration of how much had been spent on lobbying in a particular period. If we want to understand what lobbyists are doing, and if we want proper transparency in our politics regarding the scale of lobbyists’ influence, we need to understand where and why big money is being spent on buying consultant lobbying services.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I have followed the debate with a great deal of interest. It seems to me that the additional safeguards that the hon. Gentleman wants to put in place would be so convoluted as to create a lawyers’ nightmare. Surely it would be simpler to strengthen the guidance to Ministers and Members of Parliament than to try to enshrine all this in the Bill.

[Mr Thomas]

I say gently to the hon. Lady that I understand her frustration with the process, but we are trying to make the best of a bad job by the Government, and to tidy up a poorly prepared Bill. She makes a reasonable point, however. Had we had the opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny and for a further period of consultation with the industry on the details of the lobbying provisions in the Bill, we might not have needed to table amendments to try to make the Government’s proposals more workable.

[Mrs Main]

I have a degree of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Many of us have concerns about the Bill, but he might just be making matters worse, despite his best intentions. I do not believe that the Bill will catch the behind-the-scenes lobbying that the public are most concerned about. The emphasis should therefore be more on ensuring that Ministers and Members of Parliament act totally correctly, rather than on trying to second-guess every little nuance that a lobbyist might come up with.

[Mr Thomas]

I have to disagree with the hon. Lady. If we can get the rules for lobbyists right—or as right as we possibly can—at the beginning of the process, we should be able to limit the scope for problems further down the line. In tabling our amendments, we have been motivated by what has happened in other countries that have statutory codes of conduct. Our research suggests that such measures have had a positive impact in helping to make lobbying more transparent in those other jurisdictions. That is why I commend our proposals to the hon. Lady and to the House.

I suspect that, once lobbyists had got used to the new regime, they would become extremely comfortable with a code of conduct and with the other requirements that I have set out. Clearly, there would be a need for the registrar to do some educational work, but I am sure that that would be possible. I am concerned, however, that because so few lobbyists will be covered by the provisions of the Bill, the registrar might not be financially sustainable in the way Ministers hope. If that is the case, I fear that there would not be sufficient resources to do the educational work that would form part of the registrar’s public duties. I hear the hon. Lady’s reluctance, but I urge her to keep the faith and to come with us into the Lobby tonight in an effort to make a bad Bill a little bit better. [Interruption.] I think I heard her say that the Bill was rubbish, or at least saw her mouth those words. I would not use such terms, but I understand her frustration with those on her own side.

I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) speaking to amendment 100. His interesting amendment seeks to require the declaration of the purpose and subject matter of a lobbying exercise. Our amendments 86, 87, 89 and 90 would have a similar effect, but I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will offer his own specific analysis of the merits of his amendment.

Amendment 92 would allow the registrar to publish the register—not only on a website, but in any other form that the registrar thinks appropriate, including, I would suggest, in written form. The key here is to ensure that the register is as accessible as possible.

Amendment 93 would remove the provision that deals with privilege and self-incrimination. This is surely a somewhat archaic principle, holding that an individual cannot be compelled to provide information that would then incriminate them. I am not sure why we need this provision to be included, so the Leader of the House might like to dwell in his reply on the need for its inclusion. This is essentially a probing amendment, intended to allow the Government to set out their argument.

Amendments 94 to 96 would ensure that a lobbyist who submitted a misleading entry to the register would be committing an offence under the Bill. Again, we seek to make the register a more transparent document and an accurate source of information about who lobbyists are working for and how much they are receiving for doing so. We want the legislation to provide for clear consequences if lobbyists fail to provide the required clarity and transparency about their lobbying work. If, for example, a lobbyist’s entry were somewhat ambiguous, the registrar could, under our amendment, take steps to compel the lobbyist to be more open, clearer and more transparent about their activities. If the Leader of the House intends to oppose these amendments, I would be interested to hear his thoughts on whether misleading entries should be regarded as acceptable and on why no sanctions should be imposed on lobbyists who provide the registrar with misleading information.

I very much hope that the Government will, in the end, come round to the view that in-house lobbyists need to be brought under the scope of this legislation. A code of conduct, provided for by the principal new clause in the group, could then cover a whole series of lobbying activities and require all lobbyists to adhere to clearer standards of behaviour. Many in the lobbying industry who are practitioners of political lobbying work to high ethical standards, and they unsurprisingly support a code of conduct. It is far from clear why the Government do not support a statutory code of conduct.

[Mr Allen]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I call Graham Allen; Ministers must wait.

[Mr Allen]

I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, even before I have said anything, if he wants to say something.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

You have the floor, Mr Allen. Please continue.

[Mr Allen]

I am just trying to be helpful.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) has given us a tour de force on this group of amendments, leaving me mainly to sweep up on amendment 100, which I am happy to do.

Amendment 100 emerged from the considerations of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform when the Bill was put before us and we had a chance to take evidence from witnesses. I hope that the amendment is helpful in raising a number of issues that I would like the Government to consider.

We heard a few moments ago from my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, and I endorse his views in that the Government have listened on the particular item he mentioned, as a result of which we have a better Bill, although it is still far from perfect. That just shows that where there is interaction—this does not mean that the Government have to swallow every probing amendment that finds itself on to the amendment paper—there is a possibility of a little bit of give and take. From my perspective as a parliamentarian, I understand that some of the ethics coming from the Front Bench have to be a little sharper and a bit more oppositional, but I sometimes have the luxury of posing a view on behalf of Parliament that might find favour, albeit not necessarily in its existing form. Let that debate continue.

20:15

This is why, unprecedentedly in my own political career, I opposed the programme motion earlier today—because we did not have the chance in so many fields and areas to interact with the Government. Where we have had that chance, it has, by and large, been a productive relationship. I hope that, because this House has not had as much of that chance as we would like, colleagues in the other place will find an open door and be allowed more give and take so that the Bill evolves and gets better and better as it goes through the parliamentary process. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the Leader of the House was about to launch forth from the Dispatch Box or whether he was merely stretching, having sat in his place for 40 minutes. Clearly, he was just stretching.

As I say, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West has covered most of the issues, but on a more specific and narrow point, I would like to look at the issue of the information provided in the register. It was an issue that my Select Committee took very seriously, and we took a lot of evidence on it. Looking at the nitty-gritty of the Bill through the first consultation we undertook, we thought that we would have a Bill that dealt only with what we are discussing today—not with what we will be discussing tomorrow, as that was added at a later stage. Today, however, we are discussing lobbying, lobbyists and the process of lobbying. We thought that we had made quite a sensible and constructive contribution to that debate. Subsequently, we then rather hurriedly took additional witness evidence, including from the Leader of the House, but from people on all sides of the arguments about what lobbying is and what form regulation should take.

One point that was common to all those who spoke to us was that they felt that the big chance had been missed. They believed that the lobbying problem had been accurately identified by the Prime Minister and perceptively identified by the Deputy Prime Minister in the run-up to and during the last general election. People were surprised, however, that none of those issues that raised such public concern—and the concern of two party leaders who became partners in the coalition—were addressed in the Bill that was produced to deal with lobbying. Rather, lobbyists were narrowly defined and those to be lobbied were narrowly defined. We thus felt through that period that a big chance had been missed to do what we all thought the lobbying Bill was about. The detail of all that was taken seriously, as people from a wide range of views said, “Let us try to help; let us try to define the problem a little more accurately”—by reflecting, for example, on what sort of information should be provided. That is clearly at the heart of amendment 100.

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. I think it would be most helpful if he gave us some examples of the range of people who wanted to know more about what the subject matter of the lobbying was.

[Mr Allen]

I would be pleased to do so. My Select Committee, composed of Members of all parties, pulled together the full list of those who gave us evidence, and we published it. On the specific point that the hon. Lady mentions, my report heard from interested people ranging from a former chief executive of five trade associations, Mark Boleat, the Information Commissioner’s Office and Spinwatch, which was on one particular wing of the argument, to academics such as Dr Hogan, Professor Murphy and Dr Chari, to Iain Anderson, the deputy chairman of the Association of Professional and Political Consultants, the Committee on Standards in Public Life—mentioned earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley—and the list goes on and on. Many people and organisations in all parts of the lobbying industry gave evidence to the Committee, and there was a surprising degree of consensus on the issue of what might happen, particularly in relation to information provided in the register.

This is another missed opportunity. First the Government missed the opportunity to tackle some of the big issues involved in what the public regard as lobbying; now, by ramming the Bill through the House of Commons at such a late stage like a bull charging at a gate and by leaving any effective scrutiny to the other place, they have failed to cash in on the good will that exists among organisations in the lobbying business which might be expected to be at daggers drawn.

In fact—partly as a result of a process of discussion and debate in which my Committee played its part, but partly because of public interest in the issue—people began to say things such as “Let us try to find a sensible way forward. Let us find some basic steps on which we can all agree.” Perhaps the issue could be revisited in a couple of years when things had settled down, or perhaps cases could be responded to as they arose when loopholes were identified.

No one ever expects a measure to be perfect initially. I think that we missed that chance, that possibility of consensus. We suggested that there could be a pause, certainly in respect of clause 2, and that we, or at any rate a Committee of the House, could—within a set time such as six months, and not as a means of delay—bring back to the House a fully fledged Bill that would command consensus among all those with an interest, rather than a Bill which, sadly, commands consensus because no one likes it.

The Bill has no friends. It has a driver in the Leader of the House, but no one is saying “Thank goodness for this Bill.” There are no people out in the streets marching up and down saying “Thank goodness Parliament has got it right.” I think that it reflects badly on the reputation of this place, and we are seen to be failing the public, when a public issue such as anxiety about lobbying can be put to bed in a rational way but we produce a Bill that has so many loopholes, one of which relates to the information provided in the register.

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

I have just observed that other members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights are not in the Chamber. Although I did not attend the last meeting, I know that it is in the public domain that the Chair of the Committee wrote to the Leader of the House expressing similar concern about speed and lack of scrutiny. The report has not been written and I am therefore not at liberty to reveal the likely proposals, but I think that there is a fairly widespread cross-party view that more time would produce a better and more comprehensive Bill.

[Mr Allen]

I think that if I am allowed to speak for long enough in replying to the right hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Human Rights Committee may appear from somewhere, and may be able to inform the House of the Committee’s view on whether the Bill, as currently constituted, should be subject to a pause so that it can be examined effectively in the context of the human rights aspects to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.

[Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Allen]

Ah! The Chair of the Committee is present.

[Dr Francis]

But not in my usual place.

My hon. Friend has made an important point. As he knows, tomorrow the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) and I will discuss the heads of the report. In September, we agreed that it was very inopportune that we should have to deal with matters of great import in such great haste. The Committee feels strongly that we need far more time.

[Mr Allen]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The amendment to which the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) is speaking relates to the issue of registered persons, which, as he said at the outset, is specific and narrow. The debate is not about the time that has been allocated to discussion of the Bill. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) has assisted the hon. Member for Nottingham North, and I hope that he will now speak directly to his amendment.

[Mr Allen]

I am very sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. Two experienced Members led me astray, and diverted me from the points that I was seeking to make about delays and human rights. I am sure that they took your strictures very personally.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that we are not where we would like to be, and that an opportunity has been missed. Why does he think that? Why, in his view, have we not taken action that most Members would support?

[Mr Allen]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The Members who are present this evening are indeed experienced, and the hon. Member for Nottingham North is very experienced. He knows that the purpose of the debate is to focus on the matters contained in the amendments. Perhaps Members who wish to comment on matters relating to Third Reading, or to other amendments, could save their remarks for those occasions. I am sure that, given the huge amount of work that has been done by the hon. Gentleman’s Committee, he will now want to return to the subject of amendment 100.

[Mr Allen]

I must ask Members to stop tempting me to stray, because I have some important points to make about the amendment. Other points can be made at other times.

Let me now make some comments relating specifically to the information provided in the register. I shall try to be even-handed, as my Committee was, and balance the arguments that were presented to us. I have already mentioned Mark Boleat, the former chief executive of five trade associations. He thought that the Bill, as constituted, was sufficient. He said:

“Subject to the definition of ‘lobbyist’ being widened, the information to be included on the register is satisfactory.”

The Information Commissioner’s Office commented:

“It is clear that the nature of the information to be provided for inclusion on the register by those engaged in lobbying activities will provide a useful source of information not previously available on a routine basis.”

I do not suggest that this is a clear-cut, black-and-white issue—I think that there are contending views—but the balance of the evidence given to the Committee clearly indicated that slightly more detailed information could be provided in the register. For example, there was a significant degree of agreement that the additional information should include disclosure of the subject matter of lobbying, and some agreement about inclusion of the purpose of the lobbying and the list of those who had been lobbied.

Having put that on the record, I hope that, either today or at some other stage, Ministers will digest it and decide whether they consider it reasonable for such measures to be included in the Bill. I am hopeful that that would receive consent both here and in the other place.

Some people also argued for financial disclosure in the register. As one might expect, Spinwatch stated that the information required under the Bill was “wholly insufficient”, adding:

“For a register to meaningfully allow public scrutiny of lobbying, it must include information from lobbyists on their interactions with government. In other words: whom they are meeting and what issues they are discussing. Members of the public wanting to see which outside organisations are exerting influence on a particular policy area, for example, will be unable to do so under this proposal.”

As I mentioned, there was a joint submission to the Committee from three eminent academics: Dr Hogan, Professor Murphy and Dr Chari. They argued for the inclusion in the register of

“the subject matter and purpose of the lobbying”.

20:30

The Royal College of Midwives commented:

“It is hard to see how the information requested will add greatly to the transparency of the lobbying process...Would it be too burdensome, at the very least, to ask for the register also to spell out the issues on which clients are seeking to lobby (e.g. improved conditions for farm animals), and the nature of the lobbying that has taken place (e.g. all-party group on road hauliers established)?”

Therefore, evidence was coming in all the time about how seriously the detail, the nitty-gritty, of the lobbying part of the Bill should be examined. Those are important, serious issues that will not only affect the livelihoods of those in the lobbying business, but influence the transparency of those who are being lobbied, their accountability and how effectively they are lobbied. That is one detail of an important, extended set of original legislative prerogatives that we are being asked to look at. I briefly allude to the fact that earlier I felt that we needed not just more time on the Floor of the House but adequate time to tease out these issues. There are not wild differences of view but there are understandable differences of nuance. Parliament has a role in helping to make legislation work. If we have that starting point, people can come together and make even a Bill that some of us largely disagree with workable. I hope that the second Chamber can pick that up, too.

Iain Anderson, deputy chair of the Association of Professional Political Consultants, supported publishing information about the purpose and subject matter of lobbying, but suggested that that could be done most effectively and efficiently when details of ministerial and official meetings were published, rather than in the register. That is a perfectly valid view. I have heard it put by Government Front Benchers. It is perfectly justifiable. The Committee on Standards in Public Life also argued that information on the subject matter could be included either on the register or in the details that were published of meetings. The difficulty with including the information in the data about ministerial and official meetings is that, if the definition of lobbying is expanded to encompass conduct and contact with the rest of the senior civil service, special advisers and others, who do not necessarily publish details of their meetings, the coverage of such information would be patchy at best. That would not necessarily be advantageous when we are trying to pull such a Bill together.

[Dr Francis]

My hon. Friend is making an interesting and powerful point. Did his Select Committee consider the possibility that the public, if enough time had been allowed, would have considered it appropriate for national newspapers to be seen as lobbyists?

[Mr Allen]

Again, my hon. Friend is seeking to take advantage of my good nature. Madam Deputy Speaker gives me the row when colleagues do that, so I am going to avoid the temptation that he puts in my way. I do not wish to offend again.

[Lady Hermon]

rose—

[Mr Allen]

I hope that the hon. Lady is not going to do something similar and get me into trouble.

[Lady Hermon]

I would never lead an hon. Member astray. The hon. Gentleman has raised a serious issue to do with the transparency of lobbying. Those are the words in the Bill: transparency of lobbying. Therefore, it is essential that the subject matter of the lobbyist group that meets the Minister or senior civil servant, talks to them, phones or whatever is noted. Clause 4(2)(g) says that the entry must include

“such other information as may be specified in regulations.”

Therefore, I would like the Leader of the House to confirm tonight that there is provision in the Bill for the subject matter of the lobbying to be required by regulation. If he were to give the House that assurance tonight, would that influence the hon. Gentleman’s decision on whether to press amendment 100 this evening?

[Mr Allen]

I do not want to incur the wrath of the Deputy Speaker, so I had better not say anything on clause 4(2)(g) as my amendment relates to clause 5. I do not intend to press my amendment to a Division, however. What I wish to do is engage the Leader of the House on an issue on which there is both concern and a lot of constructive activity. If he chooses to tap into it, there is a lot of constructive endeavour out there seeking to get this right for all the people who are concerned about lobbying. On that basis I am putting a number of items on the record in the hope that, either here or in the other place, we examine the following very difficult question: if we are going to register lobbying, do we register the subject too, and if so, how do we best do that for the sake both of convenience and of the transparency and accountability on which this whole Bill rests? I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of my Select Committee, and that it is absolutely not beyond the wit of Government, to come up with something, put it on the Order Paper in the second Chamber and find a way forward that allows everybody to make progress.

We are not talking about a detailed note and a minute and so forth—I do not imagine the hon. Lady is talking about that either. Alexandra Runswick, the director of Unlock Democracy, is one of the people who gave evidence to us. She said:

“I think that misrepresents the nature of the information we are looking for in the register. We are not expecting a transcript of the meeting, but what policy area it is that is being lobbied on. There are already individual MPs who publish their diaries and say, for example, ‘I met Unlock Democracy about the Lobbying Bill.’ That is the level of information that we are looking at—the policy that is being lobbied about, not the exact information that was shared with the person whom you are lobbying.”

That strikes me as eminently reasonable, but if it is not in those exact words something that the Government feel they can adopt, perhaps it is something they feel they can work with, so what we produce from these Houses is not a laughing stock to people out there who say, “There they go again; the old boys in the club have stitched it up again. Look at what they’ve done. This isn’t going to tackle lobbying. We’ve seen that it’s not tackling some of the key lobbying issues that got this subject into the public domain, and now look at it! They’re not even going to tell us what they want to talk about in two words.”

That does not do a service to the House or to this Bill. Lobbyists and those being lobbied are also very clear that that does not help them in what most of them do, which is a fair day’s honest work trying to do their job effectively. They understand that this looks as though there is something to hide, when in fact, as in most walks of life, 99.9% of them are just doing a fair day’s work.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The hon. Gentleman rightly makes the point that if the topic on which the lobbying is taking place can be kept secret, people will have no sense of true transparency, but does he agree that not only do the public need to be satisfied about, and protected by, such transparency, but so, too, do the people contracting the lobbyists and the lobbyists, because they should be free of any accusations of ulterior motives or ulterior agendas, or lobbying on other issues, by being able to say clearly, “This is what it was for; that is what it was about”?

[Mr Allen]

That is why I think sorting out the information provided in the register is essential to this part of the Bill.

Political Lobbying and Media Relations stated:

“Explicit information on the details of meetings between lobbyists and ministers should not be published.”

I agree with that. It continues:

“This removes the right of privacy to individual organisations who often have sensitive information that they wish to share with elected representatives.”

As far as I can gather, nobody is actually suggesting that that should be done and that there should almost be a video camera present whenever such an interaction takes place. We are modestly suggesting, as food for thought, that there should be some means of registering the subject that is the object of the debate involving the lobbyist.

[Mrs Main]

As the hon. Gentleman will have realised from the last debate, I have great concerns about a specific development of rail freight in my constituency. If the topic was lodged just as, “Discussion about getting freight off roads and on to rail”, I would be none the wiser as to whether the discussion was about a specific development that I am particularly concerned about. So I am a little concerned that his broad-brush approach might end up with people who wish to phrase things in such a way concealing matters rather than revealing them.

[Mr Allen]

The hon. Lady made a telling intervention about that in our last set of debates. I am sure she will forgive me for not knowing enough about the detail of the case; the subject appeared to be very specific. It would have been a lie to say that this was a general discussion about transport and haulage; that would have been to conceal the truth. It is not for me to judge, because I do not know the case, but that particular interaction would have been much better described in specifics; without going into technical detail, mention could have been made of the constituency and the people involved. That could have been done in a few words, and the hon. Lady, one of her constituents or someone interested in this particular case would have picked that up from the register. She would then, rightly, have been able to ask further questions of a Minister or a friend of a Minister. She would have been able to say, “Hang on. What does this actually mean? I have a constituency interest here. I have been following this. What went on here?” From that, we can move things forward. We are not saying, “Let’s have a full minute of that particular thing in the public domain for everybody.” We want to give people the lever to make transparency and accountability actually work.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I know what the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) is talking about, and she made an important point that we should recognise: the distinction between those lobbying for commercial interests and those, apparently or even genuinely, lobbying for an altruistic case, for example, on behalf of the environment. Members of a lobbying group wanting to reduce emissions and to get people off road and on to rail might be being used by commercial interests. The distinction between the two things is very important.

[Mr Allen]

We need a dose of common sense here, so that the stuff in the public domain is not onerous for all those people involved in it but is none the less informative for those who wish to go further and ask questions. Deciding on a form of words that makes that apparent and makes it acceptable to almost everyone who is lobbied or who is a lobbyist is well within our capabilities. That is why my Committee has suggested—I speak not as an individual MP but on behalf of a Select Committee of this House which looked at this matter with care—that the Leader of the House and his team have another look at this. In order to get that debate going, we have suggested, in amendment 100, that we add the words

“the purpose and subject matter of the lobbying services”.

Our amendment states:

“if the registered person engaged in lobbying in the quarter in return for payment (whether or not the payment has been received), the purpose and subject matter of the lobbying services provided by the registered person”.

We hope the proposal is helpful and I think that people out there would expect it of us. We should not be pressing to have a particular form of words, but we should certainly be pressing to have the Government think about how they meet this very obvious public requirement. On the basis of good faith that the Government Front-Bench team will take this issue away, I will not seek to press amendment 100 to a vote.

20:45

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to colleagues for the two speeches on this group of amendments.

Let me start with new clause 4, moved by the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas). The proposed new clause would require the registrar, after consultation with stakeholders including the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, to produce a code with which all registered persons must comply or face a civil penalty. We are talking about a statutory code with a requirement for a penalty if it is not complied with. The exchanges between the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) amply illustrated that there is scant detail about what such a code would contain, so the amendments reveal that the Opposition intend to create not only a register of lobbyists but a full-blown general regulator of the industry. While the Government are seeking to shine the light of transparency on the key issues in lobbying and the impact on key decision makers, the Opposition are bent on regulating the lobbying industry as a whole. They would regulate the behaviour of the huge number of individuals and organisations that would be captured by the definition of professional lobbying that they suggested in Committee.

The Government recognise the industry’s efforts to improve lobbying practice by introducing its own codes of conduct and we are confident that that will continue. Those codes promote the ethical behaviour that is essential to the integrity and reputation of the lobbying industry. The voluntary, self-regulated codes contain laudable principles and good practice guidance, but their translation into statute is hardly sensible—nor is it feasible. The experience of regulators in other jurisdictions illustrates clearly that statutory codes of conduct for lobbying are effectively unworkable and unenforceable.

[Mr Thomas]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Lansley]

I was going to answer the point that the hon. Gentleman made earlier, so let me give him an example and then I will let him intervene.

The consequence of seeking to regulate the whole industry is that in Congress the point has been reached at which there is an 894-page manual. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously proposing that we should go down that path, having a similar relationship between the lobbying industry and this Parliament to that in Congress?

[Mr Thomas]

The right hon. Gentleman is now making a different point from that made by the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) in Committee. She argued that there were plenty of examples of statutory codes of conduct that were not working. The right hon. Gentleman is making a different point and I would gently suggest to him that the experience from Canada and Australia, where statutory codes of conduct exist, suggests that such codes can be made to work perfectly effectively.

[Mr Lansley]

I do not agree. The consequence of large-scale statutory codes is considerable expenditure.

Let us consider the simple questions to which we have no answers. The new clause states only that there should not be inappropriate financial relationships; the hon. Gentleman does not tell us what those inappropriate relationships are or explain why they are not already prohibited by instruments such as parliamentarians’ codes of conduct, which we discussed earlier, or laws on bribery and corruption. How would the provisions of the code be enforced? What resources would the registrar require to monitor and enforce compliance, particularly if seeking to enforce compliance against imprecise, vague and wide-ranging—understandably so, as far as the voluntary code is concerned—principles and prescriptions? Trying to set up such a structure of enforcement in relation to such a wide-ranging code for such a large number of people is completely unsustainable. Who would foot the bill? The bill for the measures in Canada is equivalent to £3 million and this proposal would clearly cost much more. In any case, the Canadians go about things in a different way from us. It is not a case of adopting what they do, because they do not take our approach. We set out, through the transparency of Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ diaries, to approach the issue in a completely different fashion.

We are not trying to set up a register that controls what the lobbying industry does. Our approach recognises that lobbyists have a job to do. They are engaged in a self-regulatory structure. We are not trying to introduce a bureaucratic monster to oversee all that. We are clear that the key decision makers should be transparent about who they are seeing, and that—as the Bill would now ensure—where it is not transparent, in that they are meeting someone who is representing, as it were, their own interests, where they meet consultant lobbyists, those consultant lobbyists, through the register, are required to disclose who their clients are.

I am afraid that new clause 4, and much of what we heard from those on the Labour Front Bench and from the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), suggests that either they are not clear about what problem they are trying to address or they are simply trying to create a bureaucracy. We are not in that business. They are trying to create something that the Government have been very clear we do not want to create. We believe in transparency. We do not believe in the large-scale regulation that they are pursuing.

[Simon Hughes]

Like my right hon. Friend, I am keen that we do not have some great bureaucratic invention to deal with this issue. There is one thing I do not understand, however. If a public relations company that has 500 clients comes to speak to my right hon. Friend or a Secretary of State or a permanent secretary, what would be the difficulty in making it a requirement that the company makes it clear which client it is coming to speak on behalf of? Otherwise, one does not get very much further by just knowing which company is making the representation.

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend, characteristically, makes a better point than those on the Opposition Front Bench did. It is consistent with the approach that we are taking, but I respectfully suggest that we should not include such a requirement in the Bill, as amendment 100 seeks to do, because the register is not the place where those meetings are recorded. They are recorded in ministerial diaries. The issue is getting transparency in ministerial diaries.

We are the first Government to publish details of those meetings and other transparent relationships. We have extended the scope of that, not only in lobbying but in relation to the media; we publish that information. The Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), picking up the work undertaken by his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), is engaged in ensuring that information provided by Departments provides sufficient detail about the subject of meetings. If one has the register, which discloses who the consultant lobbyist is and their clients, and Ministers’ diaries, which are clear about the purpose of a meeting, one should be able to see the character of the relationship —who is lobbying whom, and for what.

[Simon Hughes]

I completely understand that, and I commend the Government, as my right hon. Friend knows, for the change in the rules about the publication of diaries, which is very welcome. May I ask him a practical question, which may answer my concerns and those of others? What will be the intended delay between the meeting and the diary publication or the appearance in the register? People often need that knowledge soon after the event—not a long time after, when it may be too late to be relevant.

[Mr Lansley]

We have already made a commitment that Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ diaries for each quarter would be published by the end of the subsequent quarter.

[Mr Thomas]

Is not the point about Ministers’ diaries that so few consultant lobbyists actually go to meet Ministers directly? Making a great virtue of the publication of Ministers’ diaries is therefore a complete red herring.

[Mr Lansley]

That brings us to some of the other amendments. We are clear that the key decision makers are the gap in terms of transparency. We want to be clear whom the key decision makers are seeing. There are plenty of amendments on that subject in the next group, so I will not answer that point. It would of course be possible to extend that to lots of other groups, but we should consider the bureaucracy that would be created by doing so, by imagining 5,000 senior civil servants all publishing their diaries.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

Let me make some progress, then I will give way again. There are quite a number of amendments in the group and I want to address each of them briefly.

New clause 6 requires that the registrar provide an annual report to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. The Chair of the Committee did not, I think, refer to new clause 6, and I am not aware that the Committee made such a proposal. If the Committee wants to call the registrar to give evidence to it on an annual basis, it is quite within its rights to do so, and the Government would be happy to support that, but we do not believe it is appropriate to set this down as a statutory requirement.

Opposition amendment 84 requires the Minister to consult the PCRC before dismissing the registrar—another interesting proposal, but I am not sure that the amendment adds anything of substance to the Bill. In essence, this is part of the same issue as the independence of the registrar, which I believe is already made clear in the wording of the Bill. The registrar will be independent of the lobbying industry and the Government and will have a clear remit to operate independently of both. The Minister will be able to dismiss the registrar only when he or she is satisfied that the registrar is unable, unwilling or unfit to perform the functions of his or her office, and any decision by the Minster could be challenged in the usual way via judicial review.

Opposition amendment 85 removes the requirement that lobbyists who have no business address must register their private residence. I can understand the concern to protect the privacy of individuals on the register, especially given the more onerous and invasive reporting requirements proposed elsewhere by the Opposition, but I am not sure that the removal of the requirement to register an address is a helpful one. A registered address is critical if the registrar is successfully to issue information notices, investigate compliance, and serve penalty notices. The great majority of consultant lobbyists will have one or more dedicated business addresses, so no issue will arise. The handful of individual consultant lobbyists who have no separate business address—I recognise that there is no requirement to register for those who do not meet the threshold of undertaking a business that is VAT-registered—can choose to obtain such an address and use that or they can submit their personal residential address. I therefore do not agree that this step is a wise one.

Given the Opposition’s concern about privacy, do they really want to require, as proposed by their amendment 86, that every organisation that lobbies must declare the names of all members of staff employed? Let us take an example. Given the way in which other Opposition amendments would apply, if an academic were engaged in contact with a Minister in pursuance of a subject on which they had undertaken research, the Opposition’s definition—not ours—would require that to be registered, whereas we would say that that was incidental and that the academic was not engaged mainly in lobbying activity. The Opposition would say that it should be included and, by extension, the names of everybody who works for the university should be entered in the register. That is unrealistic and makes no sense.

Amendments 87, 89 and 90 would amend the information requirements outlined in clause 4 to require that lobbyists also disclose financial information. Amendment 100, as I mentioned earlier, would alter the information requirements outlined in clause 4. We have been very clear that the objective of the register is the identification of the interests that are being represented by consultant lobbying firms. Lobbyists should therefore be required to disclose their clients. We are not persuaded that the burden of providing further information that would be imposed on the industry and the regulator is justified by the limited insight that it would provide. One can readily envisage the administrative nightmare that would result from trying to determine the costs of lobbying activity, especially where this had to be disaggregated from wider business activities. Requiring the disclosure of financial information relating to lobbying activity is not, in our view, proportionate to the problem identified.

Amendment 92 makes it explicit that the registrar may publish the register in written form. I can assure the Opposition that this is already implicit in 7(2), which states that the register may publish the register

“in such other form or forms as the Registrar thinks appropriate.”

The registrar can do whatever is necessary, including publishing the register in written form.

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for allowing me to intervene, even at this stage. Before he concludes his comments rejecting amendment 100, may I remind him of his opening remarks in response to this group of clauses? He said that the Government intend to shine the light of transparency—a great phrase—on lobbying, and we say, “Hear, hear” to that, but I cannot understand his justification for not requiring the subject matter of a meeting to be registered. He suggested that that is publication of the diaries of Ministers and permanent secretaries, but the Leader of the House will know better than any of us that the definition of permanent secretary includes the DPP, the chief medical officer and the chief executive of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Are they obliged to publish their diaries?

[Mr Lansley]

The point I was making is that the register that the Bill establishes is not where meetings will be listed. Meetings will be listed in the diary of the Minister or the permanent secretary. Consequently, in so far as it is appropriate for a meeting’s character to be disclosed, it will be disclosed in the ministerial diaries. To try to construct in the Bill the idea that the subject of meetings will be disclosed in the register would be to misunderstand what the register does. The register discloses the clients of consultant lobbyists, not the subjects on which they are lobbying.

[Mark Durkan]

The Leader of the House has still not made any convincing case for why the register should not specify the topic of the lobbying. The idea of relying solely on ministerial diaries, with people having to look up the register and then the diaries on the basis that they already have a suspicion, clearly imposes more difficulty. If this is meant to be about transparency in lobbying, why cannot there be transparency in the register?

21:00

[Mr Lansley]

With respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening to my previous answer. Consultant lobbyists disclose in the register who their clients are. The diaries of Ministers and permanent secretaries disclose who they meet. If the Secretary of State for Transport meets British Airways, it is transparent that British Airways is representing its interests. However, if the XYZ airline is represented by a consultant lobbyist, the register will disclose that the airline is the client of that lobbyist, and it will be transparent through the Minister’s diary that he or she has met that lobbyist and, as a consequence, it will be clear who they are meeting. The issue is not whether there is transparency but the mechanism by which transparency is delivered. It is delivered through the publication of Ministers’ diaries, and the gap in transparency that we have identified, and which the Bill remedies, is the gap in understanding, if Ministers or permanent secretaries meet consultant lobbyists, who their clients are.

[Lady Hermon]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Lansley]

No, I have answered that question.

Amendment 93, tabled by the Opposition, would remove clause 10. I must confess that I am still bemused. We made it quite clear in Committee that the effect of doing so would be that in response to an information notice a person would not be required to provide any self-incriminating information, including in relation to any offence committed in relation to the register itself. The amendment would entirely undermine the enforcement regime relating to the register.

The Opposition’s amendments 94, 95 and 96 would make it an offence for consultant lobbyists to report misleading information. Although the intention behind the amendments is undoubtedly sound, I do not believe that they would have a substantive effect, as in order to be misleading the information must be either inaccurate or incomplete, and that is already covered by the clause.

The Government’s amendments in this group include amendment 31, which will allow the registrar to make direct payments to staff who have been seconded to support the office holder in addition to or instead of payments being made to the Minister or other person who seconded staff to the registrar. The registrar can also make payments to Ministers or other persons who supply accommodation or other services to the registrar under the general provision to make arrangements set out in paragraph 8(1)(b) of schedule 2.

Clause 4(3) outlines the client information that should be included in each register entry. Amendment 17 clarifies that if the registered consultant lobbyist has not engaged in lobbying or been paid to engage in lobbying during that quarter, its register entry for that quarter will contain a statement to that effect, as set out in clause 5(5), in lieu of any client information.

Amendments 18 and 19 will ensure the clarity and consistency of references to the periods for which consultant lobbyists are obliged to provide information. In the existing Bill, the three-month period prior to their initial registration about which consultant lobbyists must provide information in their register entry is called the “relevant pre-registration period”. This amendment changes the references to that phrase in clause 4 to the phrase “pre-registration quarter”, reflecting the references to the quarters for which client information is required after registration and ensuring consistency across the Bill. I hope that is clear.

Amendment 20 will ensure that the parameters of the pre-registration quarter are unambiguously defined as the three months ending on the date on which the person applies to be registered. The amendment changes the definition of the relevant pre-registration quarter period from the period of three months preceding the application date to the period of three months ending on the application date.

Amendments 21 and 22 will make it clear that register entries must include the names of the person or persons on whose behalf lobbying is undertaken, reflecting the reality that consultant lobbyists are likely to be engaged by more than one person during a quarter, and ensures consistency across the provisions of the Bill.

Amendment 23 clarifies the registrar's duty to update the register in accordance with the information returns submitted by consultant lobbyists by removing the unnecessary reference to “receiving the information return” which is covered in the following sub-paragraph.

Amendment 24 makes clear the separation of what the registrar is required to do, and what it may do. The registrar must publish the register in accordance with requirements set out in section 6. The registrar may also publish entries in respect of persons who were but are no longer entered in the register, but this is not a subset of its requirements under section 6.

Amendment 25 makes it clear that it is an offence for a “registered” person to carry on the business of consultant lobbying if they have submitted incomplete information to the registrar. This puts beyond any shadow of a doubt the class of person that is caught by this provision.

Amendment 26 will clarify that a person guilty of an offence relating to the register is liable to a fine, whether they are summarily convicted or are convicted on indictment. If convicted in a Crown court, the fine will be unlimited. If convicted in a magistrates court in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the fine will not exceed the statutory maximum. If convicted in a magistrates court in England or Wales before the coming into force of section 85 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, the fine will not exceed the statutory maximum; if convicted after the coming into force of that Act, which removes the statutory maximum in England and Wales, the fine will be unlimited.

Amendment 27 further clarifies that an appeal against an information notice or the notice or imposition of a penalty can be heard either by the first tier tribunal or, if so determined by or under the tribunal procedure rules, the upper tribunal.

When the time comes, I would welcome the opportunity to move the Government amendments standing in my name.

[Mr Thomas]

We have had a very good debate on these amendments but, sadly, what has become clear is that whenever meaningful transparency has been suggested, the Leader of the House has cited the danger of a huge level of bureaucracy as the reason real transparency cannot be achieved. This Bill is badly titled; instead of the Transparency of Lobbying Bill, it would be better and more accurate to describe it as a little bit of transparency on a little bit of lobbying Bill.

The Leader of the House did not revert to the attempt made by the former Minister, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who suggested that there were plenty of examples of countries around the world that had statutory codes of conduct that suggested that such codes were unworkable. The one effort that the right hon. Gentleman made was to cite the American political system as being a reason that a statutory code of conduct would not work here. Not even the scale of incompetence that the coalition parties are managing to achieve in government comes close to the scale of dysfunctionality in the American political system at the moment. It is not a meaningful comparison to cite the American code of conduct; more sensible would have been to point to the examples of Australia and Canada, as I sought to do. Experience there does show that a statutory code of conduct can be made workable and enforceable, and could help to achieve the objective of delivering real transparency when lobbyists meet Ministers and indeed members of the House of Commons. A clear, basic code of conduct would avoid confusion over which voluntary register was the best one. It would offer clarity to the House and, indeed, to those in Government about the standards expected and required by those lobbying. I urge the Government to accept, even at this late stage, the benefit of having a code of conduct, even for the tiny number of lobbyists their Bill will cover.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), in a very well-judged speech, highlighted the number of loopholes that exist in the Bill. He cited the balance of evidence presented to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, suggesting that further information should be included in the register, including the scale of financial information, the subject matter of the lobbying, and the purpose of the lobbying activity. He noted that representations for that additional information had come to the Committee from a range of organisations as diverse as Spinwatch all the way through to the Royal College of Nursing.

Our amendments sought to inject that greater level of information and transparency into the process. I deeply regret that even at this late stage Ministers are not willing to consider even their own versions of the amendments. I therefore seek the opportunity to press the new clause to a vote and urge all Members of the House to support it.

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

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

21:11

Division 92

Ayes: 224

---

Labour: 208
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Scottish National Party: 5
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 292

---

Conservative: 247
Liberal Democrat: 43
Independent: 1

New Clause 7

Consultant lobbying

‘A person does not carry on the business of consultant lobbying if—

(a) the person is a constituent contacting or communicating with their Member of Parliament;

(b) the person is making communications solely on his or her own behalf;

(c) the person is responding to a government consultation exercise;

(d) the person is responding to an invitation to submit information or evidence to a Committee of either House of Parliament;

(e) the person is acting in an official capacity on behalf of a government organisation;

(f) the person is making communications without remuneration; or

(g) the person is responding to or complying with a court order.’.—(Chi Onwurah.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 68, in clause 2, page 2, line 1, leave out ‘a business’ and insert ‘their lobbying activity’.

Amendment 69, page 2, line 3, after ‘persons’, insert ‘or employer’.

Amendment 70, page 2, line 4, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

‘(ba) the person concerned is trading as a sole trader or company, or is an employee of such a person’.

Amendment 97, page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

‘(3) The communications within this subsection are oral or written communications made personally to a Member of either House of Parliament, a Minister of the Crown or permanent secretary or senior civil servant or special adviser relating to—

(a) the development, adoption or modification of any proposal of the Government to make or amend primary or subordinate legislation;

(b) the development, adoption or modification of any other policy of the Government;

(c) the making, giving or issuing by the Government of, or the taking of any other steps by the Government in relation to—

(i) any contract or other agreement,

(ii) any grant or other financial assistance, or

(iii) any licence or other authorisation; or

(d) the exercise of any other function of the Government.’.

Amendment 98, page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

‘(3) The communications within this subsection are oral or written communications made personally to a Minister of the Crown or permanent secretary or senior civil servant or special adviser relating to—

(e) the development, adoption or modification of any proposal of the Government to make or amend primary or subordinate legislation;

(f) the development, adoption or modification of any other policy of the Government;

(g) the making, giving or issuing by the Government of, or the taking of any other steps by the Government in relation to—

(iv) any contract or other agreement,

(ii) any grant or other financial assistance, or

(iii) any licence or other authorisation; or

(h) the exercise of any other function of the Government.’.

Amendment 71, page 2, line 8, after ‘written’, insert ‘, including electronic,’.

Amendment 73, page 2, line 9, leave out from ‘communications’ to ‘relating’ in line 10 and insert ‘are made to government or parliament’.

Amendment 116, page 2, line 10, after ‘secretary’, insert ‘or special adviser’.

Amendment 72, page 2, line 12, after ‘subordinate’, insert ‘or European’.

Amendment 74, page 2, line 20, at end insert ‘or parliament’.

Amendment 75, page 2, line 21, leave out ‘Minister or permanent secretary’ and insert ‘person being lobbied’.

Amendment 76, page 2, line 25, leave out from beginning of line 25 to end of subsection (5) and insert— ‘

“government and parliament” includes within the United Kingdom—

(a) Ministers or officials of government departments;

(b) Members and staff of either House of Parliament;

(c) Special Advisers and senior civil servants;

(d) Non-Ministerial Departments, Non-departmental public bodies and executive agencies and their senior staff; and

(e) Advisers and consultants to government and parliament within the meaning of this subsection, who are not employed by, or seconded to government or parliament but have an official, if temporary, role.’.

Amendment 99, page 2, line 33, at end add—

‘“senior civil servant” means a person holding a position of Grade 5 or above in the Civil Service of the State.

“special advisor” had the same meaning as in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

Government amendment 30

Amendment 80, in schedule 1, page 52, line 7, leave out paragraph 4.

Amendment 83, page 53, line 26, leave out paragraph 12.

21:30

[Chi Onwurah]

With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), following her decision to focus on her constituency and resign from the Cabinet Office. I wish her well, although those good wishes do not extend to success in the next general election campaign.

Everyone in the Opposition certainly felt for the hon. Lady, however, and I am sure that she is glad to be out from under this garland of an albatross, this dog’s dinner, this lobbyists’ charter—just some of the ways in which the Bill has been memorably described. Although there might be some debate about how best to describe the Bill—perhaps a dog’s dinner of an albatross—there is absolute unanimity that it is a total mess. Rarely have so many diverse groups been united in agreement—truly, the Government can claim to be a force for unity in the country in regards to the opposition they manage to inspire.

New clause 7 would ensure that some critical groups and individuals are not caught up in the Bill. One of the reasons the Bill attracts so much opposition is that it stands up for the powerful against the weak. A small firm of lobbyists, perhaps specialising in green technology on behalf of social enterprises that cannot afford to hire expensive lobbyists, will be caught up by the Bill and forced to pay possibly thousands to be on the register, but a 150-person-strong public affairs team in a big six energy company will absolutely not be caught. As the Public Relations Consultants Association has said, fewer organisations will be required to sign this register than are currently on the voluntary register. As a result, these consultancies, which will mainly be small and medium-sized enterprises because larger ones tend not to be exclusively lobbying businesses, will each be required to pay potentially thousands a year—not my estimate—mainly to register a list of names of staff and clients, which most of them already do.

With this Bill, it is hard to distinguish between the result of poor drafting and poor judgment on the part of the Government. Only a Government of startling incompetence could draft a so-called lobbying Bill that captures only 1% of lobbying activity. In an apparent attempt to address that, the Government have tabled some amendments, but as the chair of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, Iain Anderson, said recently:

“The amendments have not changed the scope of the Bill's impact on the lobbying industry. It shows that they are not listening. There has been no change to the definition of those who lobby, and who they lobby. Rational arguments and Parliament’s wider concerns are being ignored.”

So there we have it. Rational arguments and Parliament’s wider concerns are being entirely ignored in the drafting and redrafting of the Bill.

It is not just lobbyists, however, who are queuing up to mock the Bill. In Committee, very few Government Back Benchers stood up to defend the Bill, and I see that there are hardly any here this evening. I hope that such as are here will support us in trying to change the Bill. In fact, not a single Government Back Bencher spoke in support of the Bill in Committee.

New clause 7 and its dependent amendments would make it clear who should be excluded from lobbying regulation and ensure that certain historic duties in relationships were not damaged. Paragraph (a) of the new clause would ensure that any person who was

“a constituent contacting or communicating with their Member of Parliament”

was not defined as being engaged in lobbying. We have already talked about the importance of the role of Members of Parliament in representing the interests of their constituents. We are all here because our constituents elected us to represent their views and interests here in Parliament, and the word “lobbying” relates to the ability of people to come here and find their representative —in the Lobby, perhaps—and ask them to do something or to vote in a certain way. Technology has changed the way in which we are lobbied, but this incompetently drafted Bill must not cast a shadow on the right of our constituents to lobby us, in whatever way they choose.

I hope that you will forgive me for going off at a slight tangent, Mr Speaker, but some of those new forms of contact and lobbying, including those used by campaign groups such as 38 Degrees, are threatened by part 2 of the Bill, which we shall discuss tomorrow. This leads me to question again whether this is a deliberate attempt to undermine our democracy or merely carelessness and an attempt to rush a Bill on lobbying on to the statute book before the next election, no matter how badly drafted and incompetently set out it might be. It is essential that the link between Members and their constituents should be protected, and not damaged—inadvertently or otherwise—by poor legislation.

Paragraph (b) of the new clause would add a person who was

“making communications solely on his or her own behalf”

to the list of exceptions. Similarly, paragraph (f) would adds a person who was

“making communications without remuneration”.

It is important that people should be allowed to communicate with the Government on their own behalf, and that communication with the Government that is not being paid for should not be disrupted. New clause 7 would ensure that those who were not paid for their lobbying would not have to bear a financial burden at the expense of big corporations and large firms. Nor should that burden fall solely on small and medium-sized enterprises, which is why we have tabled separate amendments widening the scope of the register.

Paragraph (c) of the new clause would exempt a person who was

“responding to a government consultation exercise”

and paragraph (d) would exempt a person who was

“responding to an invitation to submit information or evidence”

to a parliamentary Select Committee or Public Bill Committee. Similarly, paragraph (g) would exempt a person who was

“responding to or complying with a court order”.

Paragraph (e) would exempt a person

“acting in an official capacity on behalf of a government organisation”.

I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that those scenarios should not be caught up by the Bill simply because of poor drafting.

The other amendments in the group seek to extend the range of lobbying activities covered by what is supposedly a lobbying Bill. Amendments 68 and 69 would extend the range of such activities. Amendments 71 and 73 would widen the scope of the Bill. Amendment 71 in particular would widen its scope to include e-mails, an electronic form of communication that the Government might not value but which can certainly be used for lobbying. Amendments 74 and 75 would widen the scope of who it would be possible to lobby. Amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, would ensure that it was not only permanent secretaries who could be lobbied.

I am eager to hear the response of the Leader of the House to the points raised. We have seen this evening a lack of willingness to consider making changes to the Bill, despite the almost complete unanimity of the lobbying industry—it stands strangely at one in this—in viewing this Bill as badly drafted and likely to reduce transparency in an industry that is well in need of increased transparency. That is contrary to what the Bill set out to do and contrary to the promise in both coalition parties’ manifestos to increase transparency. As I say, I am eager to hear the right hon. Gentleman’s reply. I am not sure how the Government intend to offer the protections that we seek without our amendment, but I look forward to hearing the right hon. Gentleman address the concerns that I have raised.

[Simon Hughes]

I shall make just a brief point in support of my amendment 116, which would make a simple change to list of people who, when lobbied, are to be subject to appropriate registration. At the moment, the list includes a Minister of the Crown or a permanent secretary, and my proposal is to add special advisers to that list. They are clearly a group of people known to be part of the political system operating out there as a bridge between Ministers, Departments and the public. It seems to me that they are naturally perceived to be people who can receive messages from lobbyists and pass them on to their political bosses. It would be good politics and not a complication to add this group of people to the list. I know that so far this has been considered but rejected by the Government. I hope that they will be open to the possibility of adding it either tonight or, if not, when the Bill goes to the other place for further consideration.

[Mr Speaker]

Has the right hon. Gentleman finished? He has. I thank him and call Mr Paul Flynn.

[Paul Flynn]

It is a rare occasion when one feels that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has been disappointingly brief. [Laughter.] I cannot remember any similar occasion.

I rise with a sense of excitement about the Bill because anyone who speaks to it will go down in parliamentary history as partaking in one of the worst Bills that has ever appeared before the House. Students of the future will study this with amazement—to think that a Bill of this kind could ever be introduced. Speaking to the amendments is rather like trying to chromium-plate a pile of horse dung, imagining that we could improve it in any way.

I feel sympathetic, as was said from the Front Bench, towards the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who as the responsible Minister was given the gloomy task of introducing this Bill to our Select Committee in July, on the last day before we went off for the summer recess. She had a torrid time, trying to defend the indefensible. I said that I was sympathetic to her, given that she was sitting there, garlanded with an albatross of nonsense. I am delighted to know that she has given up and gone to spend more time with the truth, having escaped from the Front Bench. I wish her well in her future career; it could not have got worse. I am sure that when she was assailed by this blizzard of e-mails—not from just 10 or 20 charities, but from hundreds—she realised how damaging the Bill was. These amendments would go some way to improving it.

As was said earlier, we should see the wheeze. Of course no hon. Member behaves badly; nothing done in this House or the other place would be dishonourable. The whole purpose behind the Bill and why it was introduced was to address hints of a scandal. It was not yet established, but there was a fear that a scandal had taken place, involving the country of Fiji. The matter has still not been settled, but there was also an equally minor scandal involving a Member of the other place with respect to the Cayman Islands.

21:44

We are in a very vulnerable position. The Member involved in the Cayman Islands case was doing something that would be absolutely forbidden in the House of Commons, but it was justified after the first stage of the investigation in the other House on the grounds that Members of that House are not paid and have to earn a few bob here and there. If they are taking money from another country—and there are Members in this House who are doing the same thing, acting as representatives of countries such as Azerbaijan and various other oppressive regimes—that is apparently okay. However, it is not okay. We have a serious group of scandals here that we are not addressing.

The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark suggested that we should include special advisers. Well, of course we should, and—one of the amendments deals with this—we should also include electronic mail. I believe that 500 e-mails were sent by one of Murdoch’s lackeys to a Secretary of State’s special adviser in an attempt to influence him in regard to a decision. Is it okay for the Bill not to cover that?

The Bill does not cover the great problems that we had with one particular Secretary of State who achieved absolution through resignation. There was a very worrying situation involving a lobbyist who was working for that Secretary of State. He was not employed by that Secretary of State, or by the Government; apparently, he was employed by certain right-wing think-tanks in America, but he was certainly present at private meetings, and was privy to all kinds of information. When the matter came out, it should have been referred to the adviser on ministerial interests, but it was not. The adviser resigned, and another was appointed. When our Committee held a hearing to consider whether the proposed replacement was the right man, we decided unanimously that he was not. We voted against it, but he got in. We said, “What we need is a Rottweiler, but what we have is a poodle.” We must deal with the lobbying that takes place at the highest level in respect of decisions to go to war and decisions to buy armaments.

Let me give an example of something that could happen here; indeed, something similar is happening here. In America, a couple called the Kagans were at Petraeus’s right hand. They were present at every private meeting that took place, and constantly advised Petraeus to beef up the aggression and play down the war movement. They were not employed by Petraeus, they were not employed by the military and they were not employed by the American Government. They were employed by the American arms industry. That gives us some clue as to why we have continual pressure for perpetual war to keep the orders going. Is that taken care of in the Bill?

We have a scandal in this country, which was revealed by The Sunday Times. Apparently, in the past 15 years the astronomical figure of 3,500 former civil servants have been working for the arms industry. Many members of the civil service now retire at a very early age and embark on a second career, using their civil service expertise and contacts files. In one instance, a General Kiszely offered his services. He said that when he went to the Cenotaph and was waiting for the Queen to turn up, there was not much else to do: one would not be thinking about the fallen. He said that it was a good marketing opportunity, and that he could talk to people there and settle contracts.

New clause 7, in particular, is designed to deal with the fact that the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments provides very weak rules to limit the way in which former Ministers, civil servants, generals and admirals can prostitute the knowledge that they gain when they are in high office in order to make as much money as they can afterwards. The problem is not the damage they do afterwards, because their knowledge is a wasting asset and soon becomes out of date. The great problem is this. When people are Ministers, top civil servants or heads of Department, what are they doing? When they have to settle contracts involving billions of pounds, do they say they will do so in the public interest and in the pursuit of best value for money, or in the back of their mind are they thinking that if they give the contract to firm A, B or C, one of them might do a deal with them and they may get their hacienda in Spain in retirement as a result of that decision? It is a deeply corrupting part of our system. ACBA never succeeds in limiting it; it has no powers. It can take any decision and give any advice, but it cannot impose those decisions.

In a fascinating television programme, the ACBA chair—

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman, who is making a powerful speech, as usual, but I am slightly worried that if he carries on for much longer we will not be able to grill the Leader of the House.

[Paul Flynn]

I would not want to deny the hon. Gentleman—a possible future Deputy Speaker of the House—that privilege. I believe that he is one of the candidates. It is fascinating to get these invitations. One from an hon. Lady said, “Vote for me and you won’t have to put up with me on the Benches. I will be silenced.” Therefore, we are voting for the one we most want to silence as a Deputy Speaker and we think is most loathsome. It is a hard task, because we have a rich choice.

We were waiting for the Bill. We were promised it on 10 March 2010. This was going to be the great crusading Parliament against lobbying. This was going to be the new scandal. Nothing happened: comatose for nearly three years. Suddenly there was a scandal on the way and the Government decided to act. The Bill was conceived in haste. It was written in fear and in malice. The legislative process has been conducted with incompetence. These modest amendments will make some improvements but it will be one of the many Bills that will go through the House. We are very poor at legislating.

We should look at the history. During the 13 years of the Labour Government, 75 Bills went through all their stages and were never put into practice. A permanent secretary has that figure. We have this disease. If we see a problem, what do we do? Dogs bark, children cry, politicians legislate. This is a piece of utterly futile legislation. It does not deal with the problem. It misses 97% of the problem but it takes a spiteful side-swipe at bodies that are blameless such as charities and trade unions. The Government are trying to save corporate lobbyists, who are doing the greatest damage, from the bureaucracy, and they have hit out at people who are doing no damage whatever. They are reducing bureaucracy for one and increasing needlessly bureaucracy for the other. This is an awful Bill.

[Mr Lansley]

As has been demonstrated, the effect of new clause 7 and the other amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) would be to bring into the register of lobbyists not just consultant lobbyists but all those who are in-house lobbyists. She knows that the approach we have taken is not to seek to create a register of everyone who engages in lobbying, which would be a very long list, but to ensure that the details of the meetings of the key decision makers—Ministers and permanent secretaries—are published and by extension we understand who is lobbying whom as far as the key decision makers are concerned. She rather shot her own fox by talking about the big six energy firms. The reason that earlier this week The Independent was able to run the story about the number of times that Ministers have met representatives of the big six energy firms is that we as a Government for the first time have published details of Ministers’ diaries. Putting the names of the big six energy firms in a register of lobbyists adds no information: we know who they are; we know on whose behalf they are lobbying; and we now know—as a result of this Government, not the previous Government—when they are meeting the key decision makers. That is clear. In this Bill we are extending transparency and addressing the key failing, and we are doing so not through having a large list of the kind the Opposition amendments would create.

New clause 7 proposes exceptions to the definition of those who are treated as consultant lobbyists. It may be of comfort to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) and the Opposition that there are some sensible exclusions from their concept of lobbying, but all those sensible exclusions are already provided for in the Bill. Some of the proposed exclusions are less sensible, however. In their explanation for amendment 70, the Opposition say that they seek to remove the reasonable requirement that consultant lobbyists must be VAT-registered, which is aimed at protecting small businesses engaged in consultant lobbying, and to insert in its place a requirement that the lobbyist be a

“sole trader or company, or employee of such a person”.

The amendment therefore excludes charities, partnerships and any other type of body a lobbyist might be. The Opposition would therefore reduce the effectiveness of the register in relation to consultant lobbyists.

The Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee said that we took a long time in responding to its report. That was because it was arguing for this large-scale regulatory structure for lobbying. We looked carefully over a substantial period of time at whether satisfactory definitions could be achieved, and they cannot. We would end up with very large-scale registers that tell us very little that is new.

Opposition amendments 73 to 76 and 83 would alter the definition in clause 2 with the intention of extending the scope of the register to those who lobby each of the many categories of people, including special advisers, senior civil servants, Members of either House of Parliament, parliamentary staff and non-departmental public bodies.

Amendment 97, tabled by members of the Select Committee, offered a more limited expansion of the scope, aimed at including special advisers, the senior civil service and, in the case of amendment 98, parliamentarians. Amendment 116, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), would extend the scope to special advisers.

The register is designed to complement the existing Government transparency regime whereby Ministers and permanent secretaries proactively publish details of their meetings with external organisations. It is intended to focus on communications with the key decisions makers in Government, not on the large-scale surrounds of people who are intermediaries. There is a question as to the value of increasing the scope of the ministerial transparency regime. Is there really value in collecting and publishing data on every meeting of every one of almost 5,000 senior civil servants?

Amendment 71 would add the term “electronic” to the concept of written communications. I can assure the House that such communications—including a fax, an e-mail, a text message, and even a personal tweet or BlackBerry Messenger conversation—are already currently captured by the definition of communications.

Turning to European legislation, amendment 72 would not be effective in the terms in which it is drafted. We do not make European legislation, but lobbying in relation to it or lobbying the policy of the Government in relation to it would be captured.

There is one Government amendment in this group: amendment 30. It provides that a person does not fall within the scope of the definition of consultant lobbyist if they carry out a mainly non-lobbying business and any consultant lobbying communication they make is incidental to those activities. Paragraph 3(2) of schedule 1 defines non-lobbying activities as any activities other than the making of communications about policy, legislation or contracts and tenders and so forth to any Executive, including the UK Government, the devolved Administrations, UK local government, any national Government, and any institution of the EU. This amendment will clarify that the reference to the lobbying of the Northern Ireland Executive in paragraph 3 includes the lobbying both of Ministers and their Departments. When the time comes, I shall wish to move that amendment on behalf of the Government, but I now give the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central a moment to respond.

[Chi Onwurah]

Given this Government’s clear lack of understanding of lobbying activity, the new clause will not improve the Bill substantially and so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

22:00

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

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

Schedule 1

Carrying on the business of consultant lobbying

Amendments made: 28, page 51, line 6, leave out paragraph 1.

Amendment 29, page 51, line 11, leave out paragraph 2.

Amendment 30, page 51, line 35, at beginning insert

‘the First Minister, the deputy First Minister, the Northern Ireland Ministers and’.—(Mr. Lansley.)

Schedule 2

The Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists

Amendment made: 31, page 55, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—

‘( ) The payments that may be made under arrangements under sub-paragraph (1)(a) include payments to the staff in addition to, or instead of, payments to the person with whom the arrangements are made.’.—(Mr Lansley.)

Clause 4

The register

Amendments made: 17, page 3, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert—

‘() for each quarter in which the registered person has been entered in the register, the person’s client information (see section5(3)) or the statement under section5(5), and’.

Amendment 18, page 3, line 19, leave out ‘relevant pre-registration period’ and insert ‘pre-registration quarter’.

Amendment 19, page 3, line 22, leave out ‘relevant pre-registration period’ and insert ‘pre-registration quarter’.

Amendment 20, page 3, line 22, leave out ‘preceding’ and insert ‘ending on’.—(Mr Lansley.)

Clause 5

Notification of client information and changes

Amendments made: 21, page 3, line 44, leave out ‘any person’ and insert ‘the person or persons’.

Amendment 22, page 3, line 46, leave out ‘any person’ and insert ‘the person or persons’.—(Mr Lansley.)

Clause 6

Duty to update register

Amendment made: 23, page 4, line 15, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

‘( ) The Registrar must update the register to include any information or change which is notified in an information return.’.—(Mr Lansley.)

Clause 7

Duty to publish register

Amendment made: 24, page 4, line 34, leave out ‘and’ and insert—

‘( ) The Registrar’.—(Mr Lansley.)

Clause 12

Offences

Amendments made: 25, page 6, line 27, after ‘a’ insert ‘registered’.

Amendment 26, page 7, line 10, leave out ‘in any other case’ and insert ‘on summary conviction in England and Wales, or on conviction on indictment,’.— (Mr Lansley.)

Clause 25

Interpretation

Amendment made: 27, page 12, line 8, leave out from ‘means’ to end of line 10 and insert ‘—

(a) the First-tier Tribunal, or

(b) in any case where it is determined by or under Tribunal Procedure Rules that the appeal is to be heard by the Upper Tribunal, that Tribunal.’. —(Mr Lansley.)

Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

Business without Debate

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Bodies

That the draft Public Bodies (Abolition of Victims’ Advisory Panel) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 25 April 2013, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.— (Anne Milton.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Representation of the People

That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 9 July, be approved.—(Anne Milton.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Social Security

That the draft Jobseeker’s Allowance (Domestic Violence) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 8 July, be approved.—(Anne Milton.)

Question agreed to.

Burma

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

22:01

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, may I start by thanking you, on behalf of my colleagues the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for granting us this debate, which seeks to place on the record details of our recent Speaker’s delegation visit to Burma? I want to set out the background to the visit, what we saw on the visit and points of action to influence Government policy on Burma. I am sure that we can, between us, cover the events of what was a remarkable experience.

Mr Speaker, you have been most gracious in inviting me to accompany you. Of course, I also have to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), because her not being available to make the visit enabled me to take her place. Following your invitation to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to speak to both Houses, you made it clear that, on behalf of Parliament, you wanted to leave a lasting legacy of help and support to Burma, particularly as you have had a long-standing interest in Burma. You said that you did not just want to have a visit and leave, but you wanted to fulfil your promise to Daw Suu to help in a practical way. At this stage, I want to thank the embassy in Burma and all its staff, your office and others in the House service who were involved in setting up the visit, organising and accompanying us to the meetings.

Mr Speaker, you said on many occasions at our meetings that we were not in Burma to tell the Burmese how to run their country, but that we were there to show them how we do our work here and how they can perhaps learn from us and adapt it for their use. So what did we see? May I pay tribute to you, again, Mr Speaker, for holding together and being the focus of the 24 meetings we had over eight days, and acknowledge your courageous speech at Yangon university, which may be a topic for a Speaker’s lecture?

We all appeared on our trip with the book by Benedict Rogers “Burma: a Nation at the Crossroads”, which was launched at the Speaker’s House. We note from the book that progress has been made. Despite the elections in 1990, the results of which have not been recognized, Daw Suu now sits in the Burmese Parliament, along with many other MPs and also the generals. At the Parliament in Nay Pyi Taw, we met both Speakers of the upper and lower Houses, the President, Minsters from the presidential office and committee chairs. The delegation managed to raise the issue of the release of political prisoners and I know that you, Mr Speaker, have already sent a list to the President’s office. The President had already agreed that the United Nations could set up an office for the human rights commissioner, but he was no clearer about when that would take place. I am pleased that the embassy now has a human rights post.

It seems to me that we can have influence on two levels: the political level and service level. Daw Suu said that she wants active parliamentarians and to give all MPs the tools to be effective MPs. We can help and are helping to set up a library. I explained that our Library provides research facilities for all Members on an independent and confidential basis. The right hon. Member for Gordon led the session on how Select Committees work, and as all the delegation had served on Select Committees we could show MPs that we can work together for the good of the country.

The non-governmental organisations we met told us that arbitrary arrests and detention had worsened over the past few months, which was something we also heard from members of the “88 Generation” who are still being arrested, having to pay fines and having their cases regularly adjourned. Getting permits to allow humanitarian aid is difficult, particularly in Kachin state. We also heard that the rice federation regulates itself and is headed by someone close to the Government. A major census was under way that would provide useful information in 2014, such as how many girls were getting equal education, or an education at all. An MP from Kachin state told me that displaced people could not return to their villages as there were landmines; we have the technology to help them move out of those camps.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving the House a chance to recognise the contribution that has been made. At the release of the Nobel prize laureate, there was a perception that democracy had returned. The House, Mr Speaker, the hon. Lady and her colleagues and many other Members have contributed to trying to help that move forward. Unfortunately, in Kachin province we have seen the persecution of the Christian minority and other groups. Human rights deprivations are rampant. Burma is now in the top 10 countries in records of human rights abuse. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Minister and our Government need to play a more effective role in stopping that happening and giving freedom to the people of Kachin province?

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and absolutely agree with him. That is a still a big issue, which forms part of my 10-point plan. It is also a key point, as I was about to move on to the ethnic and religious differences.

Such differences are enshrined in everyday use: ethnic regions are states and Burmese areas are divisions. I am sure you will agree, Mr Speaker, that one of the many highlights were our meetings with Rakhine and Rohingya representatives and representatives of the different faiths.

What of aid? When we give aid we give the gift of life, and Britain should be proud of its aid-giving programme. We saw the malaria clinic from which within 15 minutes they can find and treat a person who might have malaria. That is important for migrant workers because they tap rubber between 10 pm and 2 am when the mosquito is active. There was the HIV clinic, and the school we visited where we saw lively children singing and learning. There was a legal advice centre staffed with mainly women lawyers. We need to provide them with some of our legislation and books on administrative law.

What are my points of action? Many other countries are offering help. We know that the Foreign Minister from Poland has already hosted people from Burma to work on the United States Institute of Peace’s strategic economic needs and security exercise—SENSE—programme, which simulates government; and so has the Indian Parliament.

Here are my 10 suggestions. First, one person should co-ordinate or keep track of what work Britain is doing, based in either the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the Department for International Development. Secondly, the work on setting up the library and research facilities for MPs should have a time limit.

Thirdly, there should perhaps be an induction course like the one we had for new Members in 2010. We already have the blueprint, so that could be done now. We could also offer work with the Select Committee structure. I do not know whether you recall, Mr Speaker, but one person asked, “How do we clone these officials?”

Fourthly, will the FCO or DFID work with the Burmese Government to ensure that humanitarian aid workers do not have to keep applying for a permit for different areas? The international organisations should be able to negotiate that. We also heard that Médecins sans Frontières doctors cannot work alongside Burmese doctors—why not?

Fifthly, there needs to be constitutional reform before the elections in 2015, not least to lower the age of MPs. Although age is quite rightly revered, many young people we met were ready to serve and want to be MPs. Importantly, Daw Suu should not be excluded from taking part in the presidential elections, but she currently is.

Sixthly, there should be regular discussions on the release of political prisoners. Can the Minister say what has become of those on Mr Speaker’s list? But might we also look to others who, you will recall, Mr Speaker, we heard may have committed serious crimes? Perhaps an international lawyer could review those cases.

Seventhly, progress must be made on setting up the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Eighthly, on the ethnic issue, there should be a new Panglong conference—along the lines of the Northern Ireland Good Friday agreement.

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

I commend the hon. Lady for the visit. It was a shame that I could not make it myself. Particularly on the “to do” list, what about responding to the Prime Minister, who in a letter to me on 4 September, said:

“We”—

the Government—

“will monitor progress on Burma taking a zero tolerance approach to those who fuel ethnic hatred”?

Given that last week, on 29 September, there were significant outbreaks of violence, again against the Muslims in Thandwe, Rakhine state, and although there was control and order, the following day, as I understand, over 60 homes were destroyed and at least five people, including a 94-year-old Muslim woman, were believed to be killed, how can we in this country help to bring about that zero-tolerance approach to those issues of ethnic hatred?

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who was sorely missed on the visit. I know he had another engagement, but perhaps he will visit another time. I agree with him. Part of my 10-point action plan should, I hope, address that issue. We need to keep monitoring because things are not changing as fast as we would like.

Let me return to my point No. 8—the ethnic issue and the Panglong conference. Mr Speaker, you will recall the number of times we said we had sorted things out in Northern Ireland. We know that people who were involved in Northern Ireland, who can help, are active in Burma. We need to get people into a room and draw up a schedule and heads of agreement. Perhaps someone like Mary Robinson could play the role of a George Mitchell character. She could chair such a conference.

The Rohingya said they want their right to live there to be recognised. They say they have the papers and a judgment from their Supreme Court. Representatives of the different faith groups, some of the great religions of the world, sat with us together in a room. They need to be encouraged to continue their joint work. There are many international inter-faith foundations that can take on this work, to keep putting out joint statements that they will not be divided on religious grounds.

Ninthly, civil society groups, which came together so notably during Cyclone Nargis, should be supported. Currently, they have to register as organisations; otherwise, they are deemed to be illegal. Could the FCO or DFID look at ways of supporting these organisations without going through the Government?

Tenthly, and probably most importantly, the rule of law needs to be firmly established, with an end to arbitrary arrests. People need to know the case against them and to have a fair hearing before an impartial court.

Those would, I hope, be our way of ensuring that the Government look at—

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

I am aware that the hon. Lady is painting a broad-brush picture, covering all the different ethnic groups, but there is a large Rohingya community in my constituency. Can the hon. Lady offer them any hope in terms of the persecution that they are facing?

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. The only comfort I can give him and them is that there are people, in this country and in the international community, who are aware and are watching what is happening. We have to monitor any movement that the Government in Burma make; they cannot talk about trade without also looking at human rights. Hopefully, that issue will also be part of the Panglong conference.

In conclusion, Burma knows that it is at a unique place in its history. Having met the Burmese people, I can see why Daw Suu could not leave them to suffer, and although there is progress, people are still being displaced and there are conflicts. However, there needs to be an irreversible move to democracy and the rule of law, so that the Burmese diaspora feel they can return to their country, and those who live there, eager to serve their country, can do so and live together in peace.

22:13

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) on securing the debate, and on the excellent 10 points that she has put forward, with which I wholly agree. I echo her thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for inviting us to be part of your delegation to Burma. It was a great privilege for us.

Our visit highlighted to us that while a great deal of progress has been made in Burma—or Myanmar, as we were told we should now consider calling it—over the past two years, there is still a long way to go before there will be full democratic involvement of Myanmar’s ethnic and religious minorities. Fundamentally, that requires nationwide and meaningful dialogue with them.

I was tremendously encouraged by the meetings that we had with members of civil society, young people and minority ethnic and religious groups, and their determination to be a part of building a wholly peaceful Burma and to ensure that their country progresses from a fledgling to a more mature democratic state. The young people we met included 20 or so youth peace activists, some from a committee for working peace progress formed only six weeks earlier. Others were representatives from the Mon youth progressive organisation, journalists, a teacher, students, the Mon human rights organisation and the Mon youth education group.

I was most impressed by these young people’s perceptive and articulate response when asked what they wanted for their country. They had quite a list—ethnic equality, a genuine democracy, clarity of the rule of law to promote peace, a clear framework and timetable for a working plan towards peace across the nation, respect for human rights, self-determination, equality across the genders, strong federal Governments, meaningful engagement with civil society, that MPs should be more available to meet and be accountable to their constituents, and a Government who truly represent all the people, including all ethnic and religious groups. All this was from young people who have lived virtually all their lives under military rule. It gave me enormous encouragement that with such actively engaged minds and hearts, there is real hope for democratic progress in Myanmar.

I was also tremendously impressed by the meeting we had with young former prisoners of conscience, the “88 Generation”. What struck me was their lack of bitterness and their dedication to a country where so many of them have suffered so much, some imprisoned for years simply for speaking out politically under the former regime, yet they are still determined to use all their energy and limited resources to help bring about a freer society.

[Mr Burrowes]

Can my hon. Friend give me encouragement that the entrenched attitudes in relation to ethnic division have not been passed on to the younger generation? For example, even in some non-governmental organisations, sadly, there is an entrenched view of Rohingya people. The double discrimination of not being Muslim and not being Rohingya has, sadly, had an effect on some children, making them afraid even to attend school. Has there been a reaction to that among young people who represent hope in the future?

[Fiona Bruce]

I can indeed encourage my hon. Friend. The young people whom we met wanted to engage. They wanted to have a dialogue with other ethnic and religious groups and they were looking to the Government to take forward such a dialogue.

The former prisoners of conscience requested, among other things, that the Government address human rights violations in prisons, which are still continuing. I was pleased that during our meeting, when we raised concerns about recent mistreatment of prisoners at Myitkyina prison, the Minister in the President’s office, U Soe Thane, agreed to look into that. I hope it is now being urgently addressed.

Further requests from the former prisoners were for the urgent review of cases of those who are still in prison and whose only offence appears to have been to criticise the previous regime. If Burma is to demonstrate to the rest of the world that it is genuinely moving forward in its respect for freedom of speech, conscience and belief, this is essential. The former prisoners expressed concerns that the media are not wholly independent or free. A recent press law, they told us, limits rather than extends press freedom and was not preceded by promised dialogue between press industry representatives before being implemented.

Another former prisoner spoke of unfair legal procedures, often involving those accused having to go to court many times, and the overall impression that I had was that although there is change, a fundamental review of the legal sector, its practices and procedures is needed. We were told, too, of the need for the constitution to be amended so that it clearly bans the use of torture. Other issues raised with us included the fact that although new laws are passed, there is a lack of capacity to monitor their implementation, so that in some areas old laws are still being used. Individuals whom we met had been sentenced or told us about friends who had been sentenced within the past year for organising protests or allegedly inspiring people to riot, such as one young student who distributed CDs near a mosque.

Having said that, I was enormously encouraged by the visit to the free legal advice centre, which has been referred to, in the fourth largest city in Burma in Mon state. The 10 or so young trainee lawyers had three impressive objectives: to establish a steering group for a legal aid system; to provide legal advice and assistance to the poorest, including court representation; and to raise awareness that every citizen in the country should have legal rights under the law. Those aspiring young professionals were smart, visionary and personable, and at the same time they were realistic about the journey that they and their fellow countrymen have to make towards a new Burma. Meeting them and the other young people I have quoted gave me real hope that they could achieve that.

In closing, I have a few questions for the Minister. With regard to the need for a meaningful peace and a process of political dialogue that includes all relevant parties, what steps can our Government take to press for that, and what plans has DFID to increase humanitarian assistance for those who have been internally displaced or subjected to human rights violations? I ask him to consider the necessity of DFID ensuring that international efforts are co-ordinated. Finally, what is his assessment of the number of political prisoners still in jail? What can be done to ensure that they are released by the end of the year and that there are no more prisoners of conscience, political prisoners or unjustly imprisoned people in Burma?

22:21

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for inviting me to take part in the delegation and for leading it so ably. I congratulate the hon. Members for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on bringing these matters to the House’s attention. The International Development Committee, which I have the honour of chairing, will be producing a report on Burma, and I hope that we will have an opportunity to elaborate on some of these findings and debate them more fully in the House. At this stage, I think that it is important that we hear from the Minister.

22:21

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) for allowing me time to try to answer some of the questions. I thank the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for securing the debate following what to all intents and purposes was clearly a very successful trip to Burma—we still call it Burma—along with you, Mr Speaker, and other Members of the House. The situation in Burma is rightly of great interest to many Members, so this is another opportunity for the Government to set out our approach.

We have a strong record of support for the Burmese people. Our bilateral relationship with the Burmese Government is more recent, but we are deepening and strengthening it as a platform for influencing and shaping the reform process. President Thein Sein came here in July, the first official visit to the UK by a Burmese President. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and separately my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I, used the visit to set out our aspirations for the relationship. We will be an open, constructive and critical partner of Burma, realistic about the scale of the transformation and the challenges that that entails and honest where we have concerns.

At the latest meeting of Friends of Burma—it was called Friends of Myanmar, to be fair—chaired by the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, at the UN General Assembly in New York just two weeks ago, I made a number of points. I reiterated the United Kingdom’s calls for the Burmese Government to honour their commitment to establish an Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. I also stressed the need for the Government to act to address the lack of citizenship for the Rohingya community and the incitement of inter-communal violence affecting Muslim communities in Rakhine, which I have visited, and other parts of Burma. It should be noted that it was the first such meeting attended by a Burmese Minister, which in itself is an encouraging step.

There are signs that the ambitions of the Burmese people for greater democracy are slowly being met. In June the Foreign Office hosted members of the “88 Generation” movement, and they were delighted to meet fellow Members of this House, some of whom are among us this evening, to discuss their thoughts for the future. In August I welcomed the fact that the people of Burma were able to commemorate freely the bravery and sacrifices of those who campaigned and marched for democracy during the student uprisings of 1988.

Earlier today President Thein Sein took another small step towards fulfilling the commitment he gave during his visit to London to free all political prisoners by the end of the year. We welcomed the announcement that over 50 political prisoners are to be released. We will continue to press for the release of all political prisoners. As I said in New York, releasing political prisoners is one thing, but we do not expect the jails to be filled up with new political prisoners. Releases of longer-standing political prisoners are welcome, but ongoing detentions of political activists remain a cause of concern. We will continue to lobby on specific cases, and to press for the repeal of repressive legislation.

There are indications that the ethnic conflict that has blighted Burma since independence could end. Recent fighting in Shan and Kachin emphasises the need for continued concern, and the Kachin Independence Organisation remains in constructive dialogue with the Burmese Government. We are providing £13.5 million of humanitarian aid to Kachin this year, the largest bilateral contribution of any donor. We welcome the clear commitment the Government have made towards political dialogue. As the hon. Member for Walsall South said, UK experts have shared lessons from our experiences in Northern Ireland, and we will continue to offer our support to all sides.

Our aid continues to form a vital part of our engagement. By 2015, the Department for International Development will have delivered over £180 million, providing health care, tackling extreme poverty and assisting those affected by conflict. I heard clearly what the hon. Member for Walsall South said about better co-ordinating the efforts of some of these agencies.

We are helping the Government and others improve transparency and create a responsible business environment, we are strengthening the work of Parliament and civil society and we are helping Burma's efforts with ethnic reconciliation and the peace process.

As the right hon. and hon. Members who accompanied you, Mr Speaker, on a visit to Burma in July will have seen, the Government and this Parliament are delivering significant and valued support to Burma's Parliament. This support has been requested by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and Lower House Speaker Shwe Mann, reflecting the world renowned reputation and expertise of this Parliament. Through an exchange of visits, which we plan to continue, we are helping Burmese parliamentarians to develop a culture of holding the Executive to account; sharing the extensive knowledge of the Libraries so that the Burmese parliamentary staff can produce high quality research and draft better legislation; and allowing the Burmese Public Accounts Committee to examine the best practices of its British counterpart in monitoring public expenditure.

Burma's Parliament has also formed a committee to review the constitution. The work of this committee is fundamental to achieving Burma's eventual democratisation. During the President's visit to the UK, the Prime Minister welcomed the prospect of free and fair elections in 2015, and emphasised the importance of completing necessary changes to the constitution. I send this message again clearly and loudly now.

Recent events demonstrate only too clearly that the situation in Rakhine remains volatile. We called immediately for action to restore security and the rule of law in response to the violence last week, and we welcome both the President's visit to the scene and the arrests of suspected perpetrators. We have pledged £4.4 million to further the humanitarian effort. During my visit last year, I called for more co-ordinated action by the UN and the Burmese Government to ensure that assistance reaches those among the displaced who need it most. We continue to monitor the situation carefully. Continued action and strong political leadership are needed to resolve the citizenship status of the Rohingya community, and underlying sources of tension.

The Government share the concerns echoed by many Members regarding sexual violence against women in Burma. This is an important issue to address, as the President acknowledged during his visit here. I pressed the Burmese Foreign Minister to endorse the Foreign Secretary's preventing sexual violence initiative—signed by 119 other countries—and protocol at the UN General Assembly. We will continue lobbying to strengthen accountability systems and eliminate impunity for rape in Burma.

The British Government are committed to a stable, prosperous, more democratic Burma, where the human rights of all its peoples—of any religion and any ethnicity—are upheld, and where diversity is valued as a strength. We should not forget how far Burma was from this goal only two years ago. Continued progress will require determination, commitment and energy from the Burmese President and his Government. We will seek to deepen our engagement, offering support where it is requested and continuing to press where changes still need to be made.

It is not only the Burmese President and his Government who need to show determination, commitment and energy; it is parliamentarians in this House—in both Houses—who have expressed solidarity with the people of Burma and who want to see a better future for them. I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on taking your group to Burma. I hope we will have many more exchanges and visits on both sides in order that we can export some of our best practice to the Burmese and show them that a fair and proper democratic society where people of all races, ethnicities and religions are respected is the way forward for a country in the 21st century.

Question put and agreed to.

22:30

House adjourned.

Ministerial Corrections

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Ministerial Corrections

Tuesday 8 October 2013

Serco

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Sheerman]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department currently spends on contracts with Serco; and how much was spent in each year since 2008.

[Official Report, 4 July 2013, Vol. 565, c. 781-82W.]

Letter of correction from Dr Andrew Murrison:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) on 4 July 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Dr Murrison]

Expenditure on Ministry of Defence (MOD) contracts with Serco is shown in the following table:

[Dr Murrison]

Expenditure on Ministry of Defence (MOD) contracts with Serco is shown in the following table:

Developing Countries: Asylum

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Jim Sheridan]

To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 11 June 2013, Official Report, column 280W, on Syria, what assessment she has made of the ability of UNRWA to provide for young disabled refugees.

[Official Report, 5 September 2013, Vol. 567, c. 461W.]

Letter of correction from Justine Greening:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) on 5 September 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Justine Greening]

The UK is funding the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) to support vulnerable people in Palestine, including disabled people affected by the crisis in Syria. This crisis in Syria has placed a huge strain on an already overstretched UNRWA. They are operating in extremely difficult and dangerous conditions and the security situation remains unstable.

The correct answer should have been:

[Justine Greening]

The UK is funding the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) to support vulnerable Palestinians, including disabled people affected by the crisis in Syria. This crisis in Syria has placed a huge strain on an already overstretched UNRWA. They are operating in extremely difficult and dangerous conditions and the security situation remains unstable.

NHS: Negligence

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Andrew Bridgen]

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the money set aside by the NHS to compensate patients for clinical negligence claims will be paid to lawyers representing patients.

[Official Report, 5 September 2013, Vol. 567, c. 469-70W.]

Letter of correction from Daniel Poulter:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) on 5 September 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Dr Poulter]

As at 31 March 2013 the National Health Service Litigation Authority has made provision for claimant solicitors' costs of £1.22 billion. This is against a total provision of £5.8 billion relating to all reported but unresolved clinical negligence claims, equating to a proportion of about 21% of the provision.

It should be emphasised that these sums do not represent a single year's costs, but a provision in the account for costs that may be paid out spread over a number of subsequent years.

The correct answer should have been:

[Dr Poulter]

As at 31 March 2013 the National Health Service Litigation Authority has made provision for claimant solicitors' costs of £607.8 million. This is against a total provision of £5.8 billion relating to all reported but unresolved clinical negligence claims, equating to a proportion of about 10.4% of the provision.

It should be emphasised that these sums do not represent a single year's costs, but a provision in the account for costs that may be paid out spread over a number of subsequent years.

Petitions

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Petitions

Tuesday 8 October 2013

Certain Care Proceedings in Birmingham

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Petitions

The Petition of a mother living in Birmingham, Yardley

Declares that the mother was betrayed by her barrister Andrew Neaves in care proceedings in Birmingham.

He allowed the judge to conclude that she accepted the need for a care order when she clearly did not.

Also, in cross examining his own client he asked and she responded:

Q. I think in these proceedings you have already made a number of statements, which we see in the bundle and also on your behalf a response to the threshold has been made, which resulted in an agreed threshold document. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And is what you have said in the course of your statements to this Court true and accurate?

A. Yes.

Q. I am not going to take you in detail to your statement. What I am going to ask you about are matters in particular of more recent moment, but before I do I want to ask you first of all about the threshold document that has been agreed in this case. Do you accept that the threshold document contains agreed information before the Court, which illustrates that in the past your parenting has not been good enough?

A. Yes.

Following this District Judge Asokan concluded in her judgment of 26th September 2012 paragraph 21 “All the parties agreed that the threshold criteria pursuant to s.31 of the Children Act 1989 has been met. I am therefore, empowered to make an order in this instance. “

The mother, however, did not agree that the threshold criteria had been met merely that the facts in the threshold criteria were true. The mother takes the view that the threshold criteria do not meet the threshold of “significant harm” as referred to in the Children Act 1989. The threshold criteria referred to accidents that happened to the children, an attempt by a child to open the door of a clothes dryer, an attempt by the young children to leave the house when a visiting Social Worker left the front door open, having a Staffordshire Bull Terrier dog that sat on a child’s torso and having inadequate stair gates.

The mother appealed the decision and HHJ Hindley refused permission to appeal. This had the effect of preventing the case and the malpractice of Mr Neaves from being considered by the court of appeal and was refused on the basis of jurisdiction by the court of appeal on 26th September 2013 reference [2013] EQCA Civ 1158. Furthermore the appeal was considered to be out of time because of a delay in obtaining a judgement. HHJ Hindley argued that because the mother had a barrister at the hearing in court of first instance that it was possible to appeal without the judgement. However, given that the mother's argument is that her barrister undermined her case it would be quite surprising if the barrister had assisted her in putting that argument to an appellate court.

The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons establishes an inquiry into her case and the general difficulty faced by parents getting their cases considered by the appellate system particularly when victims of malpractice by legal advisors and whether the Access to Justice Act 1999 should be changed to ensure that all cases can be considered at least on paper by the Court of Appeal.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by John Hemming.]

[P001224]

Jamie Still Campaign

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Petitions

The Petition of a resident of the UK,

Declares that the Petitioner believes that the sentences for drink driving need to be tougher in the UK; in one case the brother of Rebecca Still was knocked down and killed by a drunk driver whilst he was on the pavement with his friends; further that the Petitioner believes that the driver did not lose his licence until eight months later and did not go to prison until nine months later; further that the driver received four years in prison but may only serve two years. The Petitioner would like zero tolerance for drink drivers so that they lose their license earlier and so that sentences are longer.

The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend legislation so as to be tougher on drink driving.

And the Petitioner remains, etc.—[Presented by Greg Mulholland, Official Report, 3 July 2013; Vol. 565, c. 1027.]

[P001192]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Justice:

The maximum penalty available for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs is 14 years imprisonment. The courts are also obliged to disqualify the offender from driving for at least two years and to order an extended retest. Within that limit, sentences in any individual case are for the court to decide, taking into account any aggravating or mitigating factors and any sentencing guidelines.

Sentencing guidelines are developed independently of Government by the Sentencing Council. In February, the Justice Secretary wrote to the Sentencing Council, to ask them to review the sentencing guideline for death by driving offences. They have responded positively: the Council have recently published their new workplan, which sets out their intention to hold a public consultation on motoring offences causing death or injury in Autumn 2014.

Driving bans come into force immediately they are imposed at point of sentence and the court informs the DVLA so that the enforcement takes place. Since disqualification from driving is a sentence it would not be appropriate to ban a defendant from driving before they are convicted, however where appropriate the courts can impose a bail condition that the individual should not drive a motor vehicle. If there is a delay in sentencing after conviction, the court also has a power to impose an interim disqualification on a defendant, where it is lawful to do so. Guidance on this was recently issued by the Crown Prosecution Service:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad _driving/#a11

Westminster Hall

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 8 October 2013

[Jim Dobbin in the Chair]

UK-US Bilateral Relations

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Mr Swayne.)

09:30

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Dobbin, to be here under your chairmanship. My previous debate was on High Speed 2 and ancient woodlands, and was a little controversial; I hope that this one will be more of a love-in. Its title is “UK-US Bilateral Relations”, but the context is: “Whither goest the special relationship between the UK and the US?” Having said that, I share the view held by a friend in the US Department of State, Daniel McNicholas, that the special relationship is a given, and that it is pointless to worry about its ebbs and flows over days and weeks. I do not feel guilty about mentioning Daniel McNicholas, because back in the days when I was in opposition and he served in the US embassy in London, he and I used to meet up. A few months after I had spoken to him about various issues concerning the Conservative party in opposition, I got an urgent phone call from him to say that everything I had told him had appeared in WikiLeaks. Daniel McNicholas, you have been named.

I want to name someone else: may I say what a pleasure it is that the US ambassador is in the Chamber for this debate? I believe that it is the first time that the ambassador has visited the United Kingdom Parliament.

In recent weeks, the special relationship has been put under scrutiny following the House of Commons vote on action in Syria. The Sun ran the dramatic headline, “Death Notice: The Special Relationship”. At the time, commentators on both sides of the Atlantic saw the vote as a turning point with regard to the United Kingdom’s place in the world. Some even saw Secretary Kerry’s remarks about France being the United States’ oldest ally—technically, it is—as a public kick in the teeth from the Obama Administration, but it is not. Let us be clear: the special relationship is special because of the one fact that there is no other international relationship like it in the world.

Some people in the UK may panic at anything that can be even remotely taken as a slight from the Americans. A few weeks ago, it was Secretary of State Kerry’s remarks about France. Before that, it was President Obama’s populist remarks about BP and the spill in the gulf of Mexico. Some years ago, it was Gordon Brown’s bungled meeting with President Obama in a New York kitchen—let me say to my friend, the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), that that is the only party political point I will make today. Before that, it was Tony Blair’s so-called poodle-like behaviour—I did not think it was poodle-like—towards the Bush Administration.

Some people in our media revel, whenever a press conference is called, in analysing the language used, dissecting every comma, and looking for even the remotest possibility that we are no longer America’s golden ally. It is all nonsense, of course. American officials know the facts, and the British should be a bit braver in accepting them. As someone once said, “It’s the economy, stupid”, so let us follow the money: British businesses employ around 1 million people in the United States, and American companies employ around 1 million people in the UK, making our two countries by far each other’s largest foreign job supporters. The United Kingdom and the United States have almost $1 trillion invested in each other’s economies. British-American trade was worth $214 billion in 2012. That is the biggest bilateral trade relationship between any two countries on the planet.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing the issue of the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States to the House for consideration. The Minister will be aware that in Northern Ireland, that relationship is worth £1.06 billion in investment commitments, with 7,700 new jobs having been secured by Invest Northern Ireland from US companies. That represents one third of all inward investment secured by Invest Northern Ireland. The US is the largest export market for Northern Ireland manufacturing companies after the Republic of Ireland, with more than $750 million of export business secured by Northern Ireland companies in the market in 2011-12. Its importance to the United Kingdom is great, but I suggest that its importance for Northern Ireland is even greater.

[Michael Fabricant]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which reinforces my point. Having worked with the BBC in Northern Ireland many years ago, I well understand his points. At state level, New York trades more with the United Kingdom than with any other US state. New York and the UK are inextricably bound together. If we believe that that is important for our economy, the Americans know how important it is for theirs, too. Let us not forget that the United States is the world’s largest economy, even after the economic crisis, and that British business is its biggest investor. UK investment in the US is 116 times greater than China’s investment in the US, 90 times greater than India’s, and 88 times greater than Brazil’s. We are almost back to 2008 levels, having suffered a global economic crisis, and we have overtaken Germany to become the US’s fifth largest trading partner.

If a special relationship were based on trade alone, the relationship between the UK and the US would be more than special, given those figures, but we know that the relationship enjoyed by our two countries is about more than just trade. Something pushes that trade. The figures I quoted should be shouted from the rooftops. We are not some minor mid-Atlantic island, as President Putin’s spokesman said, that the US flatters occasionally; we are its biggest investor and it is our biggest investor. That has happened not by accident, but because we are friends, because business and entrepreneurial endeavour thrive in our shared culture, and because we use a shared language, have a shared history, and use a shared common law. Those are not bygone assets of a long-forgotten empire or age, but real assets that we share, and which our people use to their advantage every second of every day.

Throughout the US, local radio stations and national public radio rebroadcast live BBC news for US listeners. The BBC’s news is considered to be as reliable, if not more reliable, than that of some domestic news broadcasters. Where else in the world would a nation routinely rebroadcast live news, which cannot be edited, from a so-called foreign power? Only the US does that with the BBC news.

Even the US national anthem owes much to Britain—perhaps more to Britain than to the US. That is not just because the words were written by an American, Francis Scott Key, as he witnessed, from the deck of a Royal Navy ship, the British bombardment of Baltimore—we all know that—but because the very tune of the “Star-Spangled Banner” was, in fact, a bawdy and popular London drinking song written by a Brit, John Stafford Smith, from Gloucester, and I mean Gloucester, England, not Gloucester, Massachusetts.

Here in the UK Parliament, we have tiles made by Minton in Stoke-on-Trent, and the US Congress has identical tiles. I was told that 20 or 30 years ago, when the tiles in the US Congress needed to be replaced, it contacted Minton. The people there said, “The order is not big enough for us to set up a manufacturing plant for the special manufacturing needed for the tiles,” so the Serjeants at Arms of both the House of Representatives and the Senate in the US Congress contacted the Serjeant at Arms in the House of Commons and Black Rod, as we archaically call him, in the House of Lords, and said, “Can we place a joint order for the tiles?” That was duly done. Of course, we must not forget that the US Congress and the new Palace of Westminster, as it is officially known, were built roughly at the same time, although in rather different styles.

As I say, the relationship is not only about history; there is the travel between the two countries. The routes between London Heathrow and John F. Kennedy international airport and Newark, serving New York, are the busiest air links between any two cities in the world, with close to 3 million people a year travelling between the two.

The alliance, however, goes way beyond being just financial and cultural: it extends to the protection of British and American citizens. The United Kingdom and the United States are the closest of allies militarily. Where else in the world would a country allow another to test its nuclear weapons on its territory? I am not talking about the UK allowing the United States to do so, but about the United States allowing Britain to test its Trident missiles in the Nevada desert.

British and American troops have fought side by side in almost every theatre for the past century, for the same cause and in the same spirit. British territory welcomes American servicemen as though they are our own—not as foreign soldiers, but as kindred spirits. When foot and mouth disease prevented the Royal Marine Corps performing exercises in the United Kingdom, the US Marine Corps invited its counterparts to train in Virginia. Those regular visits continue, and I am told that the Post Exchange is a darn sight cheaper than the NAAFI. Our network of intelligence sharing, military co-operation and joint diplomacy in the United Nations and elsewhere never ceases.

Perhaps the vote on Syria was surprising for those who question whether the special relationship is right, but the vote demonstrated, actually, just how close we are, and that we do not often take different decisions, because we have similar goals and a similar global view and aspirations. In the end, what did President Obama do? He followed in the footsteps of David Cameron and referred the matter to the US Congress. Despite the US having the constitution that Britain did in the 18th century, in which the President is Head of State, with what we would call the royal prerogative—the right to wage war—he, too, went to Congress seeking a vote, and he delayed it when he saw that Congress might well echo the will of Parliament across the ocean.

In conclusion, at every level of co-operation, the relationship that the United Kingdom shares with the United States is unprecedented between two countries. President Obama remarked, on a visit to Britain, that the relationship is the “essential” one, and do you know something? He is right. A million jobs on both sides of the Atlantic depend on it. The special relationship is economically, socially and historically beyond single events.

What I have aimed to do today is demonstrate that our two countries are as interlinked and as co-dependent as any the world has ever seen. Both countries benefit from that, and we should aim to build on that. The Prime Minister has shown his dedication to pushing for an EU-US free trade deal as soon as possible. That would increase trade by at least a further $100 billion, and even the US Congress has speculated on the many benefits to the United States if the UK were to enter the North American Free Trade Agreement—even if it meant that the UK would have to leave the EU. Sometimes, when people talk about these things, they think it is just madness on the British side. Actually, I do not think it is madness at all; I think it is a view of the future.

As a prop, Mr Dobbin, I raise this weighty document, which was published by the US Treasury in 2000, outlining the benefits to NAFTA if the United Kingdom were to join, and the effect on the UK if it meant that the UK would have to leave the EU.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Has the United States not clearly indicated that its primary interest in trade negotiations—rightly so, given that it represents some 40% to 45% of world gross domestic product in aggregate—is the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, or TTIP? The US has indicated that it wants that to be a partnership with the EU as a whole, rather than having 28 separate negotiations. Does that not show the real direction that trade talks will take?

[Michael Fabricant]

Indeed, as long as the UK is part of the EU. Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman says, it is much easier to negotiate with one body than with many different bodies. Nevertheless, it is a fact that this document was produced by the US Treasury. I might even add to his argument by saying that the US is very keen for us to remain in the European Union. However, that is partly because, as some US diplomats have said privately, they think that the United Kingdom is the only sane voice in the EU on some issues. I rather suspect that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), may have a view on that.

I profoundly believe that Britain’s place in the world is as an outward-looking global trading nation, doing what it does best: being open to the world and building alliances with those who believe in freedom and the advancement of its people. Our alliance with the United States has done that for centuries, and it will continue to do so, for the benefit of the United States, the United Kingdom, and, I believe, the peace and prosperity of the world.

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

rose—

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call Julian Lewis, may I ask you, Michael, to repeat the title of the document for the record?

[Michael Fabricant]

I am very happy to do so. It is “The Impact on the US Economy of Including the United Kingdom in a Free Trade Arrangement with the United States, Canada, and Mexico”. It is Publication 3339 of August 2000, from the United States International Trade Commission, an arm of the US Treasury.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

I just wanted to make that clear for the record. I call Julian Lewis.

09:47

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

It is a great pleasure to contribute to the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin, and it is an even greater pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). He has been in the House longer than I have, so over my entire parliamentary career, I have heard him make many contributions—albeit that when he served as a Whip, he was silent for a while. He has now come back into the fold and has more than made up for that silence today. I can truly say that he has just made probably the best speech I have heard him make, although it is highly probable that he will exceed even that in the future.

However, I wish to concentrate my remarks—this will come as no surprise to those hon. Members who know me—on a certain aspect of the relationship with the United States that my hon. Friend touched on: the military and intelligence relationship. As he rightly said, that is of supreme mutual interest, and it has paid enormous dividends to both sides over at least the past century.

Only last night, I watched the rather splendid American film, “Argo”, which picked up a number of academy awards. It is about the amazing rescue, courtesy of the CIA, on the one hand, and the Canadians, on the other, of half a dozen American diplomats who had escaped being taken hostage in 1980 at the time of the Iranian revolution.

[Michael Fabricant]

My hon. Friend may be interested to know that “Argo” was shown in the refectory of the US embassy recently, and people had the opportunity, in London, in a teleconference, to interview people involved with the real event—I wish I had been invited!

[Dr Lewis]

That neatly anticipates the point that I wanted to make, because it shows up one of the slight weaknesses that tend to crop up from time to time in the Hollywood view of the Anglo-American relationship. Quite unnecessarily, quite gratuitously, in the course of the film’s dialogue, there is a throwaway line, “Well, this country turned them away, that country turned them away, and the Brits turned them away.” At the time of the academy awards, I remember that they interviewed the British diplomats who had, at huge risk to themselves, taken the six escapees in and transported them hazardously to the Canadian ambassador’s residence. That enabled the whole story, which was eventually unpacked in this hugely adventurous tale, to transpire.

I do not know why Hollywood sometimes does that sort of thing. It is not the first time that it has done it. Something similar happened a few years ago when there was a rather splendid film called “U-571” about the American seizure of an Enigma machine from a U-boat in the course of the battle of the Atlantic. It was perfectly true that that had happened in 1944 with an American operation, but it had happened twice previously through the good offices of the Royal Navy. I had particular reason to know that, because my esteemed constituent Lieutenant-Commander David Balme was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for descending into the depths of U-110 on the first occasion on which such a seizure was made. When a bit of a fuss was made in the media, the film company backed down. It took him on as an adviser and put in a tribute at the end of the film, pointing out that there had been two earlier seizures.

One must not extrapolate too much from that, because of course the Hollywood view of the Anglo-American relationship should not be relied on any more than, shall we say, the more partisan, chattering-class, luvvie views of politics in certain sections of British society should be relied on. The truth is that the United States and the United Kingdom are at their best when the chips are down. Like people in all sorts of good, valuable and, indeed, invaluable relationships, they bicker and disagree, but when it really matters, they are always there for each other.

[Mr Spellar]

rose—

[Dr Lewis]

I mentioned that I would say a word or two about the intelligence relationship, and I will after giving way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Spellar]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman also wanted to quote Winston Churchill’s apposite phrase that the United States would always do the right thing, having exhausted all the other possibilities.

[Dr Lewis]

Yes indeed, and that puts me in mind, of course, of another thing that the two countries have in common, which was also encapsulated by Winston Churchill when he said that

“democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others”.

I see something common there because the United States is a great democracy and the United Kingdom is a great democracy and, as I said, when we get to what really matters, we can always count on each other.

The intelligence relationship no doubt goes back a good deal further than the first world war, but the period that I know something about is the 20th century, and of course in the first world war we had a classic example of the work of the intelligence services in this country with the discovery of something called the Zimmermann telegram. This was a revelation of a conspiracy in which the Germans had offered, if I remember correctly, the Mexicans some great tranche of US territory if they would co-operate with them in hostilities against the United States. It was the discovery by the British intelligence services of that correspondence that finally showed the Americans where their interests lay and helped to precipitate their entry into the first world war, from which time the outcome of the conflict could no longer be in doubt, because arguably—I would say that it is probably beyond argument—it was the entry of the United States that forced the Germans to embark on their last-ditch attempt in March 1918 to break the stalemate on the western front, and that led to the sequence of events, including the battle of Amiens later in the year, that ultimately led to the allied victory.

Similarly, with regard to the military relationship in the second world war, it is well known that the Americans helped us with lend-lease. The “Destroyers for Bases” deal is also well known. These were all methods of helping the British war effort while the United States itself was still not a belligerent. Less well known is the “Shoot at Sight” policy whereby the Americans undertook, if there were any interference on the high seas by Hitler’s U-boats, to engage them militarily if they sought to attack convoys going from the United States to the United Kingdom.

In other words, the Americans did, given the limitations of their constitutional system, everything that they possibly could do to help Britain in its hour of need until such time as the political situation in the United States—because it was no easy decision for them—facilitated the entry of the United States into the war; and of course to that, the contribution of the Japanese in their treacherous attack at Pearl Harbor was decisive. Again, once America had entered the conflict, the outcome could not be in doubt, even though many months—indeed, several years—of desperate conflict had to ensue before victory was obtained.

Scrolling forward rapidly into the post-war years, we see the occasions on which Britain backed the American initiative—unusually, for once, with the support of the United Nations, because the Russians at that time were not participating in the Security Council—in the Korean war; but there have been hiccups as well, and this is germane to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield made about not reading too much into the vote on Syria and the divergence of policy between the two countries. If people forget everything else in my contribution, I hope that they will seek to remember this one point. Even among the closest of allies, there may be genuine disagreements from time to time. The Americans genuinely disagreed with British action and French action in Suez in 1956. Harold Wilson genuinely disagreed with the Americans, and most people think that history has vindicated him in not joining with the Americans to participate in the conduct of the Vietnam war.

As my hon. Friend eloquently pointed out, there was a genuine disagreement in this country with the proposal to take military action against the Assad regime a few weeks ago. So far, although it is far too early to tell, if the objective of our Government and the American Government was, as stated, to stop chemical weapons attacks, as things are unfolding, we are in a better position at the moment to stop chemical weapons attacks than anyone might have dreamed possible. So at the moment, it looks as though the system has worked.

As my hon. Friend rightly stated, it was fascinating and entirely praiseworthy that having seen what the British Government had done in putting the matter to Parliament, and knowing that there was just as much disquiet in American public opinion as there was in British public opinion, President Obama decided to do the same thing by putting the matter to Congress. That is where it would have lain, but for the—what shall we say?—fortunate slip of the tongue by Secretary of State Kerry when he said, “Well, of course, if Assad doesn’t wish to be attacked, he could always offer to give up his chemical arsenal.” Never have words made off the cuff and in such an offhand fashion borne such fruit. Perhaps our diplomats and Foreign Ministers should throw away the prepared script a little more often in the future.

[Mr Spellar]

I just wonder whether Hansard will put the words “off the cuff” and “offhand” in quotes or inverted commas to convey the sense of what the hon. Gentleman was saying—what he was trying to get across.

[Dr Lewis]

I am sure that Hansard will be equal to the occasion. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman meant that Hansard would convey the good sense of my somewhat convoluted prose. Sometimes it is better to be right than simply to be tidy.

During the Falklands conflict, we saw the constructive tension in the relationship between the UK and the US at its most interesting. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick was wholly hostile to the British position over the Falkland Islands, while Secretary of Defence Caspar Weinberger was very sympathetic. In the end, the Weinberger view prevailed with President Reagan. It is now widely acknowledged that the covert assistance that the Americans supplied to the British, particularly in the field of intelligence, was of great value to the country and to our campaign, notwithstanding the competing attractions and incentives that the United States experienced at that difficult time, which might have encouraged them not to assist us.

Although my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield has done the House a service by securing the debate, the House has not done him a service in that, unusually for a Tuesday, it will sit only at 2.30 pm, so many people who would otherwise have contributed to the debate are sadly not here. In other circumstances, I am sure that there would have been many more participants. The best laid plans always suffer the occasional hiccup, however.

[Michael Fabricant]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Several people have told me that they would have liked to take part in the debate, but they are still travelling from their constituencies, and I am pleased that that has been put on the record.

[Dr Lewis]

We will have to do the best we can in the extra time available. I am sure that the Front Benchers will rise to the occasion and give us so many good reasons for the support, pursuit, development and continuation of the Anglo-American relationship that the time will simply fly by.

I turn, finally, to the Trident missile system. As my hon. and right hon. colleagues know, the Trident missile bodies in the UK nuclear deterrent force are supplied by the Americans. We and the Americans have a common pool of such missile bodies, although the British, under the terms of international treaties, manufacture the warheads ourselves. The design of the successor submarines that will carry the next generation of the British strategic nuclear deterrent is at an advanced stage, and it is interesting to learn that co-operation in the matter is so close that there will be an identical common missile compartment in American ballistic missile submarines and future British ballistic missile submarines.

It is occasionally suggested that certain officials in the American Administration are not enthusiastic supporters of Britain’s continuing to have a strategic minimum nuclear deterrent. Such individuals, who are seldom named—I have seen one or two names occasionally bandied about—are very much in the minority, however. Overwhelmingly, our American allies see the benefit of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, assigned as it is to duties in NATO but ultimately under the entire control of the British Government. It is beyond dispute that the Americans welcome the existence of that force and do everything they can to facilitate it and to ensure that it is replaced as each generation reaches the end of its life.

I began by saying that the relationship between the UK and the US occasionally has scratchy, ungrateful or divergent moments. As I have said, however, when things really matter, we know that we can always count on each other. I believe that we have done the US a favour over Syria. Time will tell whether I am right, but I suspect that it will not be too long before the American Administration agree that things have worked out for the better. For many years, the Americans have done us a favour by making it possible for us to maintain an ultimate minimum strategic deterrent as a final insurance policy to ensure that our country can never be blackmailed by people armed with nuclear weapons. The benefits for both sides are beyond question. Long may the relationship flourish, long may it continue and long may it survive attempts to undermine it by people who wish neither country much good.

10:06

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I had not intended to speak, but I was greatly encouraged by the comments of the hon. Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), and I felt that I should at least make a contribution. I want to refer to my constituency and to the special relationship that we have with the United States of America by being part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which makes us part of the debate.

When President Obama came to Northern Ireland for the G8 conference, I took note of some of his comments. The G8 conference was a showpiece for Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom. President Obama was proud to pinpoint his roots in the Republic of Ireland via his eighth cousin, and I believe that Northern Ireland has an important role to play as well. At the Waterfront hall in Belfast, President Obama spoke the following inspirational words, which emphasised the feeling of relationship between Northern Ireland and the United States of America:

“So our histories are bound by blood and belief, by culture and by commerce. And our futures are equally, inextricably linked.”

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

Is it not the case that the majority of American presidents who claim descent from Irishmen are, in fact, descended from Ulstermen?

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister must have read my notes. That is absolutely true: 17 of the 44 presidents of the United States of America can trace their ancestry to Northern Ireland, and four presidents who have Ulster Scots ancestry are still living. I am proud to be able to reiterate that fact.

As an Ulster Scot, I am proud of my ancestry and history. The hon. Member for Lichfield referred to culture, and I would like to touch on that point. I have visited the United States several times on holiday, but this year I visited in a different capacity, namely to speak at the Milwaukee Irish Fest. What is an Ulster Scot doing at Irish Fest? The event brings together different cultures and traditions, and Ulster Scots is very much part of that. I had the opportunity to advance the Unionist viewpoint and the Ulster Scots viewpoint.

When we look through the whole history of the United States, we in that wee province of ours within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can make that proud ancestral claim to 17 of the 44 presidents. Through the history of our relationship with the United States, we can claim many things, such as that some US musical interests largely came from Northern Ireland. The ancestors of Elvis Presley were Ulster Scots, so we as Ulster Scots can claim part of the musical cultural history in the United States. The NASCAR—National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing—car championships that we can sometimes watch on television was started by another Ulster Scot, although it probably began at a certain whisky-running time, which might be why the cars were so fast. Ulster Scots therefore have that ancestry and historical contact with the United States.

Some of the greatest US writers can also claim to be Ulster Scots and therefore part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as can be shown by their ancestry and history. The Ulster Scots—or the Scots-Irish, as they are often known in America—had generals in the armies of both sides in the American civil war. Ulster Scots, who are very much a fighting breed, contributed greatly to the United States through their pioneering traits, such as exploring and setting up cities and towns across the US. The relationship is therefore very strong.

The hon. Member for New Forest East commented that there was a difference in strategy on Syria, but that there was no difference on the need to do something. It is on record that I voted against going to war, because I felt that people were not ready for it and no longer had any appetite for it, but also that the best approach was what we are now doing. As the hon. Member for Lichfield said, it is interesting that what the Prime Minister decided to do is what the United States Government and the United Nations are doing. It is important that, in a way, we have arrived at the right place, although perhaps by taking a wee bit longer to get there.

As I said earlier, trade links with Northern Ireland and the United States have produced some 7,700 jobs for Northern Ireland in the past 10 years and are worth $750 million to our economy, so Northern Ireland’s industrial dependence and economic relationship with the United States is very important.

Other Members have mentioned the special relationship from having fought wars together. I never fail to put on the record my thanks to the United States of America, and its Government and people, for its contribution as, dare I say, the world’s policeman, taking its stand on many issues. On many occasions—indeed, on almost every occasion—the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has stood alongside it in those battles, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the past couple of years, I have had opportunities to meet some American soldiers, and I always thank them, as well as our British soldiers, for what they do and have done all over the world, with their sacrifices in terms of life and energy, including by those physically and mentally injured and those traumatised by what they have seen. We thank the United States of America and its Government for taking such a stand and fighting on those issues.

John Kerry, the Secretary of State, has been referred to, but I think it is important to conclude with one of his comments:

“At its heart, the UK/US special relationship is an alliance of values of freedom and maintaining international peace and security, of making sure that we live in a rules-based world.”

He has therefore clearly put the special relationship on the record. He has also said that the

“US has no better partner than UK”.

We, too, should say that and put it on the record. It has been a pleasure to speak in the debate and to put on the record our thanks for the special relationship. We in Northern Ireland are very pleased to be part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and to have that special relationship with the United States.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Not to be left out of the debate, I want to say that I, too, have some American cousins who live in Los Angeles.

10:14

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I am not sure whether we are supposed to declare our relatives living in Los Angeles, let alone those living in Toronto, Sydney and so on, which tells a story in itself.

May I welcome the Minister if not to the Department, then to this portfolio? I cast no reflection on him when I say how much we will miss the previous Minister with responsibility for dealing with the United States, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). He impressed colleagues throughout the House and in the wider world with his diligent attention to his portfolio, and with how he engaged with Members of Parliament to ensure that we were kept updated on current developments and to facilitate contact with Foreign Office officials to enable us to have well-informed debates in this House and the wider public domain. I do not intrude on the affairs of the reshuffle, but I think that his contribution will be greatly missed in this House.

[Mr Swire]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting that comment on the record. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) did an excellent job in the Foreign Office in relation to many parts of the world. For the record, I will reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) on behalf of the Government, but the United States has not been added to my rather wide portfolio. It will be handled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), but, given that he was appointed only last night, it was thought better that an almost vintage Foreign Office Minister—of just over a year’s standing—should handle this debate in his stead.

[Mr Spellar]

I thank the Minister. From my knowledge of the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), I think that he will be in the mould of Ministers who see that there is a British national interest running across party lines and, indeed, across Parliaments.

I know that we are not supposed to mention people in the Gallery, Mr Dobbin, but if the American ambassador is listening to the debate, I am sure that he will very much welcome the bipartisan support for the long-term depth, and the understanding of the importance, of the relationship to both our countries.

I declare an interest as the joint-treasurer of the British-American Parliamentary Group, which is one of the few groups to be established, in effect, as a statutory body in Parliament. It does an enormous amount of work to foster Anglo-American understanding. Indeed, only last month, we had an extremely good conference, in Winchester, which is pretty close to the constituency of the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). We had good exchanges with Senators led by the estimable and formidable Senator Leahy, and that debate showed that there is a huge degree of common understanding and interest; if there is not necessarily common agreement on all the issues, there is much shared ground.

When the debate was chosen, I was a little uncertain what direction it would take. I am sure that colleagues would agree that, with its being introduced by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), that was perfectly understandable. May I, however, congratulate him not only on securing the debate, but on the main thrust of his argument?

I was interested in how the hon. Gentleman introduced the Syria vote. Some ill-informed and ill-intentioned media comment has sought to take partisan advantage, which has sometimes been a feature of our debates, and to try to undermine the relationship with the US. That has come from various strands, as we all know: although there is broad agreement on and widespread appreciation of the relationship’s values, there are hostile strands in both parties. There is what I describe as the post-imperial League of Empire Loyalists tendency—it is now less strong in the Conservative party, but it still exists—who really resent the change in the balance of forces, although that change is inevitable, given the size and strength of the United States. In some cases, there is also an elitist snobbishness towards the United States, which, by the way, appears on the left of the political spectrum as well. There are also those who still hanker after the times when they supported the losing side in the cold war.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

May I put it on the record that even at the time of the most anti-American phase of the Labour party, the right hon. Gentleman, the shadow Minister, never signed up to that point of view?

[Mr Spellar]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. However, people often talk about a party taking one position or another, but, in reality, there is always a balance of opinion within a party. The difference is that the balance shifts. The Labour party did not overwhelmingly go from being unilateralist to multilateralist. The balance shifted from being 55:45 one way to 55:45 the other way, so there were always many colleagues on both sides of the argument still holding those views. Indeed, as we saw recently in the debate on Trident, there was a strong level of agreement between the two serious parties in this Parliament on the importance of maintaining a nuclear deterrent at the minimum level necessary. Furthermore, as he rightly stressed, there was an understanding of the importance of our transatlantic relationship in ensuring the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of that deterrent.

[Dr Lewis]

I welcome the suggestion by the shadow defence team, which I hope will remain its position under its new head, that given that even the Liberal Democrats now claim to want to have two replacement Trident submarines, we should get on with making that decision irreversible as soon as possible so that Trident does not become a political football in coalition negotiations after the next election, as, regrettably, it was after the last one.

[Mr Spellar]

That is a matter for the hon. Gentleman to discuss with his own party. He is right to allude to the fact that the Liberal Democrats want a deterrent as long as it is not one that actually works.

All those views that I have just described are the flotsam and jetsam of this debate, because the deep tides in British public and political opinion run strongly in the direction of the relationship between our countries. The hon. Member for Lichfield rightly stressed the real strength and depth of that relationship.

It is important that, in such difficult times, we focus on not just current issues and interests, but values, culture and language that have bound us over generations. Of course such a discussion will focus to some extent on our joint military actions, especially in two world wars, and the vital role played by our shared intelligence capabilities, which are crucial to the security of this country, especially in a world where all of us face threats from international and internal terrorism. We should also focus on the way in which we have drawn on each other on constitutional issues, our legal framework, common law and political issues. Sometimes such issues start in one state in the United States or in the UK and then become part of a common dialogue, driven even more now by the advent of the internet, which allows people readily to access such arguments. Furthermore, both of our countries have, separately and in international forums, campaigned round the world for freedom of the seas, free trade, free speech and free communications.

The hon. Gentleman stressed the enormous depth of our financial relationship and of the joint investments in each of our countries, which, interestingly, are followed only in the UK’s case by the joint relationship with Australia and the substantial investment there. Australia is a deep ally of both countries, and, as the hon. Member for the New Forest East said, it has always been there for us, and we, I hope, have always been there for them.

[Mr Swire]

And a member of the Commonwealth.

[Mr Spellar]

Yes. Even in today’s newspaper, we read about Britain’s cultural export of television programmes. Some £450 million is coming into this country, which is probably balanced, and rightly so, by quite a lot going in the other direction, from TV shows being taken by the United States. There is no need to recite and revisit all the statistics that were quoted by the hon. Member for Lichfield, as we can all see them in everyday business. Again, such trade is not a recent phenomenon. Look at the firms that are seen to be long-standing British companies. Vauxhall, for example, which is actually expanding its production in Ellesmere Port and bringing in new models, has been under the ownership of General Motors for nearly a century now. It is a significant long-term interest, not just a recent phenomenon.

Of course that does not mean that there is always complete concurrence of views or interests between the UK and the US. Geography determines history and influences politics. Sometimes, though, individuals and groups on both sides of the Atlantic seek to exaggerate such differences, but those differences have been there all the way through the relationship. Read the masterly work of Alan Bullock on the life of Ernest Bevin and his period as Foreign Secretary. Huge amounts have been done between our countries, such as the Marshall plan and the foundation of NATO. The Marshall plan, which might have been a casual remark by a US Secretary of State and then picked up very effectively by the British Foreign Secretary, transformed the economic outlook for Europe and highlighted graphically the whole difference of approach between the United States and the Soviet Union in their views on how Europe could develop at the end of the cold war. It was an argument that the Anglo-American alliance clearly won. In those discussions, there were some significant differences and real arguments. The fact that one is a long-term ally and friend does not mean that one does not fight one’s corner. Indeed it is a derogation of duty not to fight for one’s own interest, but it should be done within the right framework and context. Such a stance can be seen in a number of international forums, such as in the permanent five of the United Nations, where we work enormously effectively together, the G8, the G20 and NATO. We are seeing it in the discussions that are taking place over the transatlantic trade and investment partnership and also in the discussions on the trade in services agreement.

There will be areas in which domestic interest lobbies will want to push a particular point of view. In some cases, they will need to be fought for strongly and in other cases there will need to be trade-offs. None the less, they indicate strongly the main thrust, which is to try to bring about the reduction of trade barriers across the world, the increase in world trade and the growth that arises from the ability of companies and individuals to exploit their talents, innovations and improvements to sell in a wider market. That is an enormously important role. There is the question of whether those trade negotiations will, to some extent, undermine the World Trade Organisation. There is a wider agreement that, if agreement cannot be brought to a conclusion, as was the case after the Doha rounds, it would be extremely welcome if there could be this development in freeing up world trade, taking into account the interests and views of other countries—a development in which the roles of the United Kingdom and the United States are not only consistent but working well together.

There are some—the hon. Member for Lichfield veered towards this, or tiptoed towards it—who will try to pose this issue as a dichotomy; they will say that Britain must either be allied with the United States or be part of the EU. In Winston Churchill’s words, we must either look to “Europe” or to “the open sea”. Of course, it was quite interesting that in that quote Churchill said:

“If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea”.

Notice, as always with Churchill, the careful use of words: “If Britain must choose”. However, this is not a choice that we have to make, because it has never been the view of the US that it should just have a bilateral relationship with Britain to the exclusion of its relationships with Europe. Right the way through—indeed, it goes back to the Bevin discussions—there has always been an encouragement from the US for Britain to be involved in and to have a beneficial effect on debates in Europe. Also, at the time of the Marshall plan, when the future of Europe was in the balance, it was absolutely vital that Britain was part of that European economic revival and not standing outside Europe while the future of Europe fell to the Soviet Union to decide.

[Dr Lewis]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to that period in the immediate post-war years, and I do not think that the harshest Eurosceptic would dispute the fact that Britain needed to be involved then. However, surely that period also shows that it is possible to be heavily involved in shaping the future of Europe without being a member of a European Union.

[Mr Spellar]

Actually, at the time that those discussions were taking place, there was not a European Union; there was not even a European Coal and Steel Community. When President Obama launched the transatlantic trade and investment partnership talks—unfortunately, the latest discussion this week had to be postponed because of events in Washington—he made it clear that the likely time scale for securing a trade agreement would not be possible with a multiplicity of individual countries. Therefore, in bringing together the two major trading areas of the world, it is not in the interests of the United States for one of them to be broken up and divided.

Interestingly enough, that is the view not only of the United States but of Japan, another major trading partner of ours and a massive investor in this country. The Japanese also see our engagement in Europe as part of their investment in the UK; they use the UK as their base within Europe. Also, earlier I mentioned Australian business, and the Japanese view is exactly the view of the Australian business community too. Therefore, the attempt to create a sharp dichotomy between the two and to make it a binary choice between them—either involvement with the United States or with Europe—is not only a false choice but a choice that is not welcomed by our partners.

[Michael Fabricant]

Just for clarity, I want to make it clear that I have never said, nor do I think that others think, that there is mutual exclusivity. I was referring to the document produced by the United States International Trade Commission, which investigated whether it would be beneficial for the North American Free Trade Agreement if the UK was a member. It took the view that the UK could be a member only if we were to leave the EU. We may or may not have a referendum on this issue in 2017; I hope that we will. But the UK is a global trading nation, and that includes trading with Europe as well as with the United States and Australia. The US and the EU are not mutually exclusive. And while we are bandying around Churchill quotes, I will just throw this one in. He said that the UK is in Europe “not of it”.

[Mr Spellar]

I am not sure that that exactly—

[Michael Fabricant]

But it is a good quote.

[Mr Spellar]

As I was saying, I am not sure whether that quote undermines my argument or even contradicts it. However, I am sure that if the Government Whip—the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne)—was still here, he would be very pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman is committed to 2017 rather than to 2014. I am sure that a note has been taken for him.

Finally, I want to look a little more widely, because, as I have alluded to before, some consider it fashionable to blame America for much of the world’s ills. I counsel them to beware of what they wish for. It was very well summed up by President Obama in his address to the UN, in which he said:

“The danger for the world is not an America that is too eager to immerse itself in the affairs of other countries or to take on every problem in the region as its own. The danger for the world is that the United States, after a decade of war, rightly concerned about issues back home, aware of the hostility that our engagement in the region has engendered throughout the Muslim world, may disengage, creating a vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill.”

I believe that our relationship with the US helps to secure, facilitate and support that US engagement with the rest of the world, which is in the interests of Britain, Europe and the wider world.

10:36

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) on securing this debate on our bilateral relationship with the United States. It is an excellent topic, and one that is particularly relevant to me, as I have just returned from New York, where the world gathered the week before last for the UN General Assembly.

Mr Dobbin, I know that it is not customary to draw attention to those who may be in the Chamber’s Public Gallery, but I hope that you will indulge me and allow me to welcome His Excellency Matthew Barzun, if he is present, to the House of Commons; I understand that it is the first time he has been here. As my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), have pointed out, this is a morning debate, held on the day on which the House is returning from a lengthy recess for the party conferences, and the main Chamber does not sit until this afternoon, hence the poor attendance at this debate. I just say to the American ambassador, if he is attending this debate or listening to it in any way, that that is no reflection of parliamentarians’ interest in the US; nor is it an indication of complacency about the relationship. It is purely a question of timing and logistics. My hon. Friends were absolutely right to say that if the debate had taken place this afternoon, the chairs in Westminster Hall would have been filled, with Members making points that ranged far more widely than those that we have covered this morning.

Attendance or non-attendance by colleagues notwithstanding, it is true to say that the US remains our single most important bilateral ally. As we have heard this morning, we work as essential and valued partners in taking forward our shared objectives on a vast range of issues around the world. The relationship is crucial to our national security, our prosperity and our defence capability. It is a relationship from which the UK continues to benefit. We have heard historical allusions to the pre-war, first-world-war and post-war periods—my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East can always be relied on to educate and illuminate—and to Bevin. This alliance has been built up over a time stretching way beyond those periods, over generations.

There are few areas of activity in our national lives where we are not beneficially influenced by each other. Our histories are intertwined, and time and again, we have worked together in facing some of the world’s greatest challenges. We have stood side by side over the years, in good times and bad. Our diplomats and intelligence agencies are working together; our soldiers are serving together; our scientists are collaborating; and our businesses are trading together. The values of democracy, the rule of law and free markets have shaped our approach, and we continue to defend those values and advance our shared interests.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has previously characterised the relationship between the US and the UK as “solid but not slavish”. At its heart, the US-UK relationship is based on extensive historical, cultural and people-to-people links through our common language, our shared spirit of innovation and creativity and our popular culture and sport. Indeed, we have even heard about the increased exchange of television programmes. We have sent them “Downton Abbey” and, personally, I think we benefit from “Homeland”, but that is just my view. For followers of parliamentary proceedings I recommend the American version of “House of Cards” with Kevin Spacey, which I saw on a plane the other day; it is absolutely fantastic. The UK and US share much popular culture and sport, and our nations have always had a special affinity, which continues to grow.

An estimated 829,000 British citizens live in the United States, with some 180,000 US citizens living in the UK. More than 3.7 million Britons visited the US last year, and an estimated 2.8 million Americans visited the UK. Those incredible figures underline how ingrained the bond between our two countries is.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on his visit to Washington in May this year, the US-UK relationship is a “partnership without parallel.” During the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Washington in June, the United States Secretary of State, John Kerry, characterised the bond between our countries as

“without question, an essential, if not the essential relationship”.

I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) did not allude to the no doubt Irish antecedence of Secretary Kerry.

Our objectives have always been closely aligned, but as we have heard this morning, there will inevitably be occasions when the UK and the US do not agree. That does not mean that we defer to the US in a slavish, poodle-type way, though that is sometimes the charge. Indeed, the key to our relationship is our ability to maintain frank and open dialogue even when we disagree. That is rare among international partners, and I believe it is valued by both sides.

We work closely with the United States on the full spectrum of our foreign, defence and prosperity priorities. It would be impossible to list all the areas where we are working together, but I will highlight a few of them. On foreign policy, the United States and the United Kingdom have been at the forefront of international efforts to address the crisis in Syria. We are focused on getting the international community to unite to bring all sides together to achieve the political solution that is needed to end the conflict. We worked closely with the United States and others to ensure the passage of the recent groundbreaking Security Council resolution. Both the United Kingdom and the United States are also at the forefront of international efforts to alleviate the human suffering in Syria and the wider region in response to the more than 6 million people who have been displaced.

On the middle east peace process, negotiating a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an urgent foreign policy priority for both the United Kingdom and the United States. We welcome the United States-led efforts to revive the peace process, and particularly the focus that Secretary Kerry has brought to bear on the issues in recent months. We very much welcome his knowledge of and commitment to the area. We have given our full backing to those efforts, including through support for the economic package that will form part of any solution.

More broadly, we continue to work with the United States to play a leading role in international institutions. We co-ordinate positions at every level, including in the United Nations Security Council as members of the P5 group of permanent members, and within the G8, the G20 and NATO. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has recently announced that the United Kingdom will host the NATO summit in 2014—incidentally, a year when the people of Scotland will have a chance to vote on whether they wish to stay part of the United Kingdom, a decision that will have huge implications for the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent and the location thereof. The Scottish people need to be apprised of the implications of that vote, and they need to think very carefully about them when they vote in the referendum.

Earlier this year, we worked closely on the outcomes of our presidency of the G8, which I am glad to say was down on the beautiful shores in Fermanagh. We focused on the “three Ts” agenda—trade, tax and transparency. The United States was particularly supportive of the transparency element, and vocally backed the UK’s proposal in G8 discussions at official and political level. Within the G20, there is also excellent contact between the UK and US sherpa offices.

As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East concentrated the majority of his speech on intelligence and defence matters—subjects on which he has an almost unequalled reputation in this House. As he said, the defence relationship has for decades been one of the foundations of the UK-US partnership. We have fought together in six major campaigns over the past 20 years. Much has been made of Winston Churchill, and I suppose it does not need to be said that if there was ever an embodiment of the special relationship it is he, not least because half of him was most decidedly American. He brought to British politics an American angle and perspective that other politicians at the time certainly lacked, and we were the beneficiaries.

The strategies, policies and plans of the United Kingdom and the United States are well aligned. UK and US forces are now more interoperable than ever, and we have worked effectively together to find solutions to the challenges that we face in our operational environments. We are focused on sustaining that close bilateral defence relationship as we plan the draw-down in Afghanistan.

The threats we face today require a much broader security relationship. Through our unique and indispensible relationship in the fields of intelligence, cyber and counter-terrorism, we work together to protect the people of our countries and their prosperity. The counter-terrorism relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States is vital to the protection of UK interests at home and overseas from the threats posed by al-Qaeda and allied terrorist groups. The United States remains our most important partner in that field.

On prosperity, I am grateful for the fact that the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) has established an all-party group on European Union-United States trade and investment. He led a Back-Bench debate on the importance of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership back in July. Simply, the US is our primary partner on prosperity; we have heard various figures bandied around this morning. Our close collaboration in the wake of the financial crisis has been important in supporting the progress we have made since 2010 to address the deficit and debt and to support economic recovery, jobs and growth. As we have heard, the United States remains the largest investor in the UK, and the UK is the US’s No. 1 investment destination in Europe.

The relationship will be further strengthened as the EU and the US embark on the largest and most significant free-trade deal in history—the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. A comprehensive deal could be worth up to £10 billion to the UK economy and will reinvigorate the global free-trade agenda. A deal that boosts the economies of both the EU and the US, as our biggest trading network, is strongly in our interests. As announced by the Deputy Prime Minister when he was in Washington on 24 September, a recent study shows that every US state, including New York, would benefit from EU-US free-trade agreements, and that is not to be dismissed lightly.

The hon. Member for Shannon—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Strangford talked about US investment in Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon]

I am happy to be the Member for Strangford, and I have no wish to be the Member for Shannon in the Republic of Ireland.

[Mr Swire]

Indeed. We were having a cross-border discussion earlier, so I got confused between Strangford, Shannon and the hon. Gentleman’s name. He knows me well and I know him well, as I served as the Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office for two and a half years.

I am glad to say that I understand that His Excellency the American ambassador has already visited Northern Ireland. We very much welcome the interest shown in the Northern Ireland peace process by successive American Presidents alongside British Prime Ministers. Equally, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister not long ago had a successful trip to the United States to attract inward investment. That relationship is incredibly important, too.

Achieving all those objectives in and with the United States is important. We have a high-performing network of posts across the United States. As well as the embassy in Washington, we have nine consulates-general, one consulate and a UK Government office in Seattle.

[Mr Spellar]

I want to reinforce what the Minister said about the excellent work performed by our representatives in not only Washington but other parts of the US, which, although less visited, are enormously important to our economic and political relationship.

[Mr Swire]

The shadow Minister is entirely correct. Too often when we think of countries, we think of the capital and a few other cities, but the United States is absolutely huge. British businesses do business right across the United States, and I was attempting to illustrate that our footprint is well extended to reflect those interests.

Recently, I saw for myself the work of our incredibly dynamic consul general in New York, Danny Lopez. That included the promotion of British menswear at Bloomingdale’s the week before last, which was themed around the GREAT campaign. I also met the brilliant finalists from the GREAT tech awards. My brief says they were brilliant, and they were: they spoke a language completely unknown to me, although my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, who is tremendously technical, would have understood everything they were talking about. However, I understood absolutely nothing, and I felt extremely old talking to them. The finalists were all from incredibly dynamic start-up companies. Five innovative US companies have won prizes, including a visit to the UK and custom support to help them establish themselves in Tech City, in London. One UK tech company was recognised for the impact it has had since establishing a US presence.

There was some discussion when the GREAT brand was introduced, because Northern Ireland was left off the posters, but I am glad to say that the majority now refer to Great Britain and Northern Ireland. GREAT continues to be an incredibly good marketing brand, showcasing the best of what is on offer from the UK, and it continues to have a strong identity across the world, particularly in the United States. Our embassies and high commissions around the world are still doing a lot of work to support the campaign.

I was not sure that we would fill the time allotted for this debate, and we might have had to look to our American cousins for a refresher on how to extend debates. I would not use the word “filibuster” to describe what happened in Washington the other day, because I was told it was not a filibuster, although it was certainly what I understood to be one. Unfortunately, the days of filibustering are over in this place, as we have all been drilled into speaking for limited amounts of time, and our terrible fixed hours do not allow us to recount our life stories, or talk about our favourite foods and bands and our travel itineraries, to extend debates.

I would not, however, call this a debate, because that suggests that there is some disagreement, confrontation or contrary view. I hope everyone would agree that we have been as one this morning in recognising the enduring importance of our American friends and allies, and in recognising that the relationship has to be balanced, rather than being one of slavish obedience, because we need to respect each other’s differences, as I believe we do. At the end of the day, ours is the most enduring relationship, although it may not be the United States’ oldest relationship, which may well be with France. France is a great country, but it is not, I believe, as important to the United States as the United Kingdom is.

In conclusion, I want to take right hon. and hon. Members back to May 2011. Next door in Westminster Hall, during his state visit to London—not Paris—President Obama addressed Members of Parliament and Peers. He described the US-UK relationship as

“one of the oldest, one of the strongest alliances the world has ever known.”

I believe unequivocally that that is still the case, and this Government will continue to ensure—with the support of the Opposition, I am sure—that the relationship remains strong, close and frank, so that both our countries and their peoples continue to benefit from our shared partnership.

10:54

Sitting suspended.

Bow Match Women’s Strike

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin, and to welcome the colleagues who are here to support the debate. I am delighted at the opportunity to talk about and commemorate the strike and consequent achievements of the match women of the Bow Bryant & May factory in July 1888, 125 years ago. I grew up with their story, living, as I did, in a working-class home within walking distance of the factory in east London.

In my research in preparation for the debate, and in thinking about why we should mark that defining event in the history of the women’s and trade union movements, I was interested to note a recent publication by Kate Adie, the former BBC chief news correspondent, “Fighting on the Home Front”. It is a challenge to what has been conventional and acceptable in the recording of women’s roles in wartime, and it represents Ms Adie’s determination that women should not be written out of the history of the first world war. She records that the munitions industry depended on nearly 1 million women workers, and that others toiled as welders, locomotive engine cleaners, policewomen and taxi drivers, and in many other roles traditionally reserved for men. Those women and the jobs they did were visible then, but they are invisible now. Their stories have faded from the chronicles and histories of that most terrible of wars, the centenary of the start of which will be marked next year. My purpose in seeking today’s debate is to help to ensure that the role of the match women will not be similarly overlooked when we recount the history of the fight for women’s rights, the struggle to establish trade unions, and the story of the communities in east London.

I want first to deal with a matter of language. Much of the telling of events at Bryant & May’s factory has referred to match “girls” and has presented a sentimentalised vision of young, helpless souls, dependent on the protection of others—who are, of course, older, wiser and “better” men, as, in the main, are the historians who tell their stories. So today let us tell it as it was. Those workers were women with a fight on their hands to determine their own fate. Yes, some were young; all were working-class; many were, like my family, of Irish extraction; but they were women, not girls, and that is how we should see them and talk about them.

Secondly, I want to talk about leadership. Many versions of the match women’s story attribute leadership of the strike to Annie Besant, whose name is inextricably linked to it. Indeed, the memorial plaque on the former Bryant & May factory—now converted to housing known as the Bow quarter—confidently

“commemorates the role of social pioneer and feminist Annie Besant in leading the demands for better pay and conditions”.

Annie Besant was a controversial character and a writer, journalist and social activist in a variety of causes including women’s rights and secularism. It is true that her journalism and political activity played a pivotal role in the tale of the match women and the events that they precipitated. However, to present her role as one of leadership of the strike is to fall into the trap of seeing history solely from the perspective of the middle-class storyteller, and it frankly does not reflect the reality of the events as they unfolded. The women went against the advice of Annie Besant, who felt that they should not strike.

I am most grateful to Louise Raw, whose outstanding work first published in 2009 documents in fine detail the strike and the events leading up to it. In “Striking a Light: the Bryant & May Matchwomen and their Place in History”, she meticulously describes the life and times of the women who worked at the match factory, and the events that led 1,400 women to walk out on strike in July 1888 and stay on strike for more than two weeks, until their demands were met. Ms Raw shows not only that Annie Besant was not the strike leader, but that she favoured a boycott by match purchasers rather than direct action. It was the women themselves who were in charge and who determined that a strike was necessary. Ms Raw’s work demonstrates clearly that the women were the leaders of the strike, and her research in the Bryant & May archive suggests that the names of the strike leaders were Alice Francis, Kate Slater, Mary Driscoll, Jane Wakeling and Eliza Martin.

At the time of the strike, Bryant & May was a household name. It had become the largest British employer of match workers. The factory was the largest employer of female casual labour in the east end. Bryant & May had established a powerful monopoly, taking over rival factories, so that by 1888 it could pay its workers less than it had 12 years earlier. It claimed to be paying 10 to 12 shillings a week to “steady” workers in 1876, but in 1888 the strike register showed women earning just 2 shillings a week, or about £12 in today’s money.

Before considering the strike itself I will remind the House of the inhumane and dangerous working conditions prevalent at the time, which were experienced in extreme form by the women working for Bryant & May. The women worked with white phosphorus, which was known to be extremely toxic and the cause of phosphorus necrosis or “phossy jaw”. It caused the development of abscesses filled with stinking pus in the lower jaw, gums and cheeks with affected tissue fluorescing with a whitish-green glow. White phosphorus was banned in Finland in 1872 and in Denmark in 1874. It was still in use in Britain until it was banned following the Berne convention of 1906, despite the existence of a safer alternative—red phosphorus.

One of the key but relatively small demands of the match women, which the management would not sanction, was that they should not be required to eat their food in the factory, in rooms made toxic by the white phosphorus fumes. However, the injury caused to health through the dangerous conditions of the factory was compounded by the insult of the management’s behaviour towards the workers. Low pay, very long hours, dangerous machinery, arbitrary fines and even physical abuse were commonplace. Hearing the grim news of the conditions, Annie Besant investigated and published a story about them in her weekly newspaper The Link, headlined “White Slavery in London”, prompting Bryant & May to threaten her with libel. The company instigated a witch hunt among the work force and tried to pressure workers to reveal who had spoken to Besant. It bullied them, depriving them of work and wages. It was the sacking of one of the workers who the company believed had spoken to Annie Besant that provoked the women and led to a mass walkout, with 1,400 women on strike.

Bryant & May had not expected that. It immediately offered to reinstate the women it had fired, but it was too late. By the morning of 3 July, the workers had formed a picket line, which continued for two weeks, along with mass meetings, marches in the east end, a lobby of Parliament, pressure from shareholders and much coverage in the local and national press. Bryant & May was finally under pressure.

Let us remember that the decision to strike would not have been taken lightly, as a strike must have been extraordinarily difficult to sustain. The women and their families would have experienced considerable hardship. Without their pittance wages or any savings on which to fall back for rent and food, they would have been destitute. Contemporary observers record that exceptionally high levels of mutual support among the women kept the strike going.

The company was forced to settle the dispute. Arbitrary fines were abolished, a grievance process was established for working disputes and a separate room was made available where the women could eat their meals away from phosphorus fumes. The Star newspaper reported:

“The victory of the girls…is complete. It was won without preparation—without organisation—without funds. It is a turning point in the history of our industrial development”,

and truly it was. Crucially, the women were allowed to form a trade union so that future disputes, if any, might be laid officially in front of the firm: the Union of Women Match Workers, the largest union of women and girls in the country, with Annie Besant as secretary.

Unarguably, those match women did something amazing: they brought to account a great power of industry, established greater control over their working lives and made a huge contribution to the development of the organised labour movement and the Labour party. Yet their proper place in the beginning of the labour movement seems to have been ceded to the great dock strike of 1889, which took place just down the road. Why is that? Is it because they were girls, women, majority Irish, unskilled or working class?

It was not always thus. At the time of the great dock strike, its leader, John Burns, urged a mass meeting of tens of thousands of strikers to

“stand shoulder to shoulder. Remember the match women who won their fight and formed a union”.

The women’s victory was a touchstone—a landmark in the history of the labour movement—and it should be recognised as such in our conversations, our considerations and our curriculum. We should give thought to the relevance of the match women’s achievements to industrial relations and community organisation today.

Let us take a little time to reflect on the role of women in the modern trade union movement in this country. The Government’s labour force survey tells us that in 2012, 6.5 million workers were trade union members, up by 59,000 from 2011, and that 55% of trade union members are women, forming a clear majority of the country’s trade union membership. Women employees are more likely to be in a union—29% of women, compared with 23% of men, a trend seen in each of the last 11 years of the survey.

Women are as pivotal to the modern trade union movement as they were in the fight for rights in the 1880s. The year 2013 marks the first time that two women have led the TUC at the same time: Frances O’Grady as general secretary and Lesley Mercer as president. I commend them, as I commend the TUC for its role in co-ordinating the trade unions and promoting the work that they do collectively to protect the interests of workers and the communities in which they live.

There are modern parallels to the match women’s organisation and mutual support against oppressive behaviour by employers. In the contract cleaning sector, porters, cleaners and domestic staff went on strike in 2012 at Swindon’s Great Western hospital over allegations of bullying and harassment by their employer, Carillion, followed by allegations that non-white employees had been asked by their white managers to hand over gifts, including jewellery, in order to get time off work. Strike action, supported by the GMB, was successful in exposing such practices and ensuring that Carillion, a massive outsourcing company, took its workers’ concerns seriously. The spirit of the match women was alive and well on the Swindon picket lines as the workers cooked and brought food for each other, showing mutual support and solidarity in the face of alleged dubious employment practices.

For me, the story involves deep personal memories. My late mother was a working-class woman from a very poor family in east London, within walking distance of the Bryant & May factory in Bow. Her education was disrupted by the second world war, and she left school at 14. When I was seven, she went to work stacking sugar at the Tate & Lyle sugar refinery at Silvertown. She joined the union in her first days there as a matter of course; it was what workers did to protect themselves and each other. There was never any doubt about it. She was the daughter of a man who had had to stand on cobblestones begging for work day after day, week after week and month after month. She understood what trade unions did to protect workers.

Later in her working life, my mother became a shop steward and fought hard for the rights of her sisters and fellow workers. I am told that she is remembered by Tate’s management for her audacity and strength of purpose. It was she who told me of the inspiration of the Bow match women. She used their story in her own way to make the point that leadership in working communities comes from within, which is as true now as it was then.

I hope that I have helped in some small way to preserve the place that those women’s story should have in our collective history. I pay tribute to the bravery of the women who fought so bravely and so well 125 years ago. We owe them so much.

11:17

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) on her excellent and moving speech. I am feeling emotional after her final words. This is an important debate on the history of women in the trade union movement and politics more generally. My hon. Friend’s case for greater recognition of such trailblazers by the Government was extremely well argued.

The story of the match girls and women played a formative part in the development of my political beliefs and eventual political engagement, both as a trade unionist and later as a politician. At school, during my history O-level, I remember learning about the terrible conditions endured by the young women of the Bryant & May match factory in Bow, some of whom were a lot younger than I was at the time. Those conditions involved 14-hour days and harsh fines for missed work days, and there were the terrible health implications of working with white phosphorus, which led to phossy jaw and blindness, as we heard from my hon. Friend.

While learning about those extraordinary women and girls and relating their struggle to my own experience as a working-class girl living and working in north-east England, I began to understand and appreciate the necessity for collective action and a strong trade union movement. I felt that it was a case of “There but for the grace of God go I”, and I appreciated what they and others had achieved for people like me. I was poor, but I could still get a good education and a good job with safe working conditions. My first job was in the office at a Tyneside glass factory, so the comparison is not so far-fetched.

I agree with my hon. Friend that we should recognise the significant help of Fabian socialists such as Annie Besant. Ultimately, however, as my hon. Friend said, that event in our labour history was one of ordinary working-class women collectively organising and acting to change their pay and working conditions. History is written by the victors, so working-class women have been written out of it regularly, but this was a momentous victory, although it is still not featured as a significant moment in our industrial and political history. The match women and girls simply do not receive the recognition that they deserve.

The late 19th century was a period of fervent political action by workers: there was the rebirth of the trade union movement that we know today, following the actions of the Tolpuddle martyrs; the beginnings of the women’s suffrage movement; and the formation of the British Labour party. Yet the match women of the east end of London are regularly overlooked in the history of the period, and their significance is ignored. Trade unions were not decriminalised in Britain until 1871, after decades of repression by the political and industrial elites, but it was the match women and their collective action in Bow that encouraged other workers in the east end and the wider country to collectivise and to create trade unions.

Working-class women standing up to powerful factory owners during a period when women were largely excluded from public life, and reigniting an appetite for collective action and trade unionism, is such a significant and extraordinary feat that we should certainly recognise it. Henry Snell, a supporter of the match girls and former MP for Woolwich, said:

“The number affected was quite small, but the matchgirls’ strike had an influence upon the minds of the workers which entitles it to be regarded as one of the most important events in the history of labour organisation in any country”.

It certainly had a huge influence on me, and is definitely one of the reasons why I am standing here today. As we all know, it is important to understand and recognise our history so that it does not repeat itself, and the story of the match girls is a part of that tradition. It is a story that reverberates with us today, both here and abroad.

We hear regular jokes and stories, some emanating from Government, about health and safety regulations “gone mad”, or the need to cut the “red tape” put in place to improve and protect the working conditions of British workers, but that prompts the question: where would we be without that much-maligned red tape, the vast majority of which has been so hard fought for over the past 100 years? The answer can be seen in developing countries such as Bangladesh, where, earlier this year, we saw thousands of women and men dragged, dead and injured, from the rubble of a collapsed factory used by well-known high street retailers. A report commissioned by the Bangladesh Government found that there had been more than 400 violations of work practices and safety standards. It is not too much of a stretch to say that, were it not for the trade union movement in this country, the health and safety of British workers would be similarly ignored.

Factory life in Britain during the industrial revolution was arduous and back-breaking, but for the men and women working in the coal mines of the north-east, the cotton mills of Yorkshire, or the matchstick factories of Bow, trade unions and collective action gave them a voice when previously they had been voiceless, and that voice won them better working conditions and a fairer share of the wealth that they were creating. Whether workers and trade unions in Britain who continue to fight to improve and maintain those conditions in this country, or those abroad who are struggling to improve conditions, everyone can glean inspiration from the match women and girls, who taught us about the positive impact that collective action, a little tenacity and a lot of bravery can have. I for one honour their memory, and thank them for being my inspiration. It is only right that the Government should also recognise their contribution, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

11:24

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Mr Dobbin. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) on securing the debate and on setting out with great passion the facts about the match women’s strike. She also set the record straight on a number of issues. Furthermore, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on her personal account of how important the match women’s strike was for the trade union movement, not only in this country, but because of its wider ramifications abroad.

Most of my time is spent grappling with present-day issues in my constituency, and focusing on the future for that area. Occasionally, however, we are reminded of how key moments in our history can shine a bright light on the present and on the future. Pausing to think about the past does not mean that we are living in it; it helps us to understand where we come from, as well as the road ahead.

How did I become interested in a strike that happened in east London 125 years ago, involving mostly women, many of whom were from the Irish immigrant community? Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, I am not a native of the east end of London. Originally, I am from the north-west, and I represent a constituency in east Yorkshire—all up north—but in 1985 I came to east London to study at Queen Mary and Westfield college in Mile End, at the other end of Bow road from the Bryant & May factory site. In addition, I served as a Poplar councillor, for Lansbury ward, its name another echo of the proud Labour history of the east end of London.

Earlier this year, I had the great pleasure of reading historian Louise Raw’s book on the match women, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham has already mentioned. Louise spent 15 years studying the events of the 1880s and their historical significance. Her book, “Striking a Light”, sets the record straight on what really happened, what it led to and why the strike is so relevant today. I was also honoured to attend the first match women’s festival, on 6 July this year.

The match women’s strike has never been given the prominence that it deserves. Their self-organisation has been overlooked and their bravery has never been properly recognised, but if it had not been for them winning their strike in 1888, it is possible that many of us here today, especially the Labour women MPs, would not be Members of Parliament and speaking in the House of Commons.

In 1888, the match women had few rights at work and even weaker rights as citizens—the right to vote was still 30 years away for the first women, and parliamentary democracy as a means of improving the lot of working people was at a far less advanced stage. As women, the match women were frowned on for working at all, even though doing so was a matter of survival. I understand that there was even a sense of shame about working for Bryant & May, which is ironic and poignant, considering how proud of those workers many of us are today. The material poverty and exploitation experienced in everyday life by the match women was truly shocking. Bryant & May in the late 19th century was a prime example of what today would be called a flexible labour market, taken to its ultimate extreme. Today, I am sure that Bryant & May would be misusing zero-hours contracts to the hilt, and the concept of a living wage would be utterly alien to it.

As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham said, Fabian journalist Annie Besant, whom I like to describe as the Polly Toynbee of her day, supported a consumer boycott of Bryant & May, not a strike. As has been asked in this debate, how therefore can she be said to have led the strike? Annie Besant, however, did write in The Link on 23 June 1888 some of the most moving words about the match women—words that led to the strike, if only by accident:

“But who cares for the fate of these white wage slaves? Born in slums, driven to work while still children, undersized because under-fed, oppressed because helpless, flung aside as soon as worked out, who cares if they die or go on to the streets provided only that Bryant & May shareholders get their 23 per cent and Mr. Theodore Bryant can erect statutes and buy parks?”

The words written by one of the match women in response to management bullying, which my hon. Friend mentioned, received by Annie Besant on 4 July 1888, were similarly moving:

“Dear Lady they have been trying to get the poor girls to say that it is all lies that has been printed and trying to make us sign papers that it is all lies; dear Lady nobody knows what it is we have put up with and we will not sign them. We thank you very much for the kindness you have shown to us. My dear Lady we hope you will not get into any trouble on our behalf as what you have spoken is quite true.”

A number of Lib Dem MPs signed my recent early-day motion 337 about the match women. I wondered at the time whether any of them had studied their own party’s history, considering how badly the match women were treated in the years leading up to the 1888 strike at the hands of a company owned and run by prominent supporters of the Liberal party. Those Liberals imposed low and falling pay, dangerous working conditions, covered up the horrendous phossy jaw disease, and had a draconian system of fines. Their bullying led to the 1888 strike, after they tried to force workers to denounce Annie Besant’s article. Those were the employers who docked 1 shilling from the pay of the match women to fund the statue of Liberal Prime Minister William Gladstone that still stands today in Bow road.

This episode is heavy with irony. The director running Bryant & May when the statue was commissioned by Theodore Bryant was one Wilberforce Bryant, who took over from his Quaker father. As a Hull MP, I am proud of Hull’s William Wilberforce and his anti-slavery campaign. The irony of this worst of employers carrying the name Wilberforce is not lost on me.

It is even more ironic that the poverty pay of the match women was docked to put up a statute in tribute to William Gladstone. After all, the Gladstones could easily have financed the statue from the £93,526 compensation that they received for losing their 2,039 slaves when slavery was abolished. Annie Besant’s famous “White slavery in London” article in The Link reported that the match women, given half a day’s unpaid holiday to attend the unveiling, threw blood on the statue, protesting, “We paid for it!” If people go down Bow road this morning, they will see that the hands of that statute are still red—a great tradition that has been kept up.

These events go some way to explaining the political climate in which the Labour party was created a little more than a decade later, and why the Liberal party could not and would not stand up for ordinary people, especially women. During the suffragette campaign of 100 years ago, the Liberal Government introduced the “cat and mouse” Act to force-feed suffragette political prisoners, including Emily Wilding Davison. I cannot help but notice that the Liberal Democrats still seem to have a problem with women. There are still no women Lib Dems in the coalition Cabinet, and there are more male Lib Dem MPs with knighthoods and similar titles than Lib Dem women MPs.

The victory of the match women inspired the growth of trade union recruitment among the lowest paid unskilled workers, many of them women, who had been ignored by trade union leaders throughout the 19th century. Until then, unions were largely only interested in organising skilled male workers, who were regarded as more respectable. At the recent match women’s festival, I was delighted that Frances O’Grady, the first woman general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, spoke—someone who represents a positive image of trade unions now, just as the match women did in 1888.

As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham mentioned, by inspiring the 1889 dock strike by male dock workers from the same east end households, streets and communities, the match women changed trade union history. Of course, this was acknowledged by dockers’ leaders at the time, such as John Burns, but then faded from history textbooks until Louise Raw’s recent research. This new unionism led to historic political developments, too, as growing working class alienation from the Liberal establishment set the scene for the creation of the Labour party in 1900. Anyone who understands Labour’s origins is better equipped to answer the current slur about our being the welfare party, because we are the party of work.

Many men and women who have had such an influence on our history have great monuments to them. Winston Churchill stands outside the Palace of Westminster; Emmeline Pankhurst stands next to the House of Lords; and William Wilberforce looks down from a column 90 feet high in Hull. The match women are marked only by an inaccurate blue plaque outside the Bow Quarter in Fairfield road, at the Bryant & May site. Worse still, round the corner on Bow road stands that statue to the Liberal politician admired by their employer and paid for by docking the match women’s pay. Perhaps the Minister for blue plaques, who is here today, will consider what else he can do to ensure that there is an appropriate plaque and appropriate recognition of the role played by these women.

Anyone studying the achievements of the Labour party, such as our national health service, rightly thinks of Nye Bevan and Clement Attlee, but they should also remember those 1,400 brave match women in Bow, especially those at the forefront of organising that strike campaign: Alice Francis, Kate Slater, Mary Driscoll, Jane Wakeling and Eliza Martin. For the Labour party, this is where it all began: with the founding mothers of the party.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

To demonstrate gender balance, I call Nic Dakin.

11:35

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) on setting out the case for these women workers so well and for placing it in context, then and now. My hon. Friend said that this was a story that she grew up with. My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) reminded us that she was taught this story in O-level history lessons. I, too, first met this story doing O-level history in rural Leicestershire. A young woman teacher taught us for just one period a week about the social history of struggle and endeavour across the ages, and the one bit that I really remember is the match girls’ strike. It was taught as the match girls’ strike, and there was a romanticism to it. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham told us the story through the eyes of the people struggling at the time, thanks to the excellent work of Louise Raw, in “Striking a Light”, and others.

It is interesting that the way we view history changes over time. None the less, that story made an impact on me, as a 14-year-old, because it related to my experiences of visiting my aunties and my father, working in the densely populated boot and shoe factories in the village of Sileby, where they all worked and strived to earn the money to bring us all up—me and my cousins—in our family. The story of struggle and endeavour in the 1880s struck a chord in respect of the working conditions of the 1960s.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) reminded us that often we hear pleas for flexible working, but that that can, at its worst, be as it was at Bryant & May in the 1880s. Currently, there are zero-hour contracts and the minimum wage, for example. We have come a long way, but there is still further to go. Visiting factories—steelworks and distribution centres—in my constituency, I see a different working environment enjoyed by workers today, compared with workers of yesteryear.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, have memories to do with the match girls issue, although I will not go into them.

I agree with my hon. Friend that working standards and health and safety in this country have improved, but we have outsourced our manufacturing, through globalisation, to people in Vietnam, Indonesia, China, India and Bangladesh, for example, which my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) mentioned. Women and men are working in appalling conditions, often in authoritarian countries that claim to be communist but actually do not allow free, independent trade unionism.

[Nic Dakin]

I thank my hon. Friend for his reminder that, as we make progress in the United Kingdom, some of these difficulties are exported to other parts of the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West reminded us about the recent tragic circumstances in the garment industry in Bangladesh, which had an immediate influence and an impact on the morale and feelings of people in my constituency, which has a large Bangladeshi population. We live in a global world and we need to show leadership and take action, as my hon. Friend has indicated, to get better living and working conditions for everybody.

It is worth looking at how the newspapers reported the case at the time; it is a reminder of how what is written in the press is sometimes not altogether accurate. In an interview with Bartholomew Bryant in The Star newspaper in July 1888, he was asked,

“What is the cause of the strike?”

He responded,

“Why, a girl was dismissed yesterday; it had nothing to do with Mrs Besant. She refused to follow the instructions of the foreman, and as she was irregular anyway, she was dismissed.”

He was then asked,

“Is it not very unusual that all the girls should strike because of one?”

He replied,

“Yes, but I've no doubt they have been influenced by the twaddle of one.”

The Times of June 1888 had a slightly different perspective:

“The pity is that the matchgirls have not been suffered to take their own course but have been egged on to strike by irresponsible advisers. No effort has been spared by those pests of the modern industrialized world to bring this quarrel to a head.”

Ms Raw’s work, “Striking a Light”, shows how wrong such judgments were, and we are reminded that the press does not always report things accurately. Sadly, that even relates to some of the things we read today.

It is important to recognise the role that the match women played in establishing better health and safety and trade union rights. They achieved so much in so little time, but left such a large legacy. I am sure the Minister will recognise that when he speaks today.

11:42

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) on securing the debate and remembering the match girls’ strike. What the ladies went through and what the strike represented are still pertinent. The issues that affected people then are still relevant in today’s workplace; very many people still suffer bad terms and conditions and work in appalling conditions.

In July, the Daily Mirror had an excellent headline. It claimed that the repercussions of what happened 125 years ago changed workers’ rights across the world. The significance of those young women’s bravery and determination goes far beyond the shores of this country. Their actions echoed across the world, so it is right that they are being honoured and that we are paying tribute to them.

In July this year, the Government passed legislation to abolish a lot of health and safety laws, which was an appalling thing to do. We have already heard about the phosphorus and the health issues that arose, and we still have hazardous workplaces. Abolishing health and safety laws so that employers can have an easy ride is deplorable. The Government’s vilification of the trade unions continues. Again, that is deplorable. Government Members talk about trade unions as though they are ogres fighting for themselves and getting millions of pounds in salaries. I am proud of the Labour party’s historical link with the trade union movement. When I get letters from various trade unions on issues in Parliament, I am proud to represent their views.

For example, I had letters and e-mails about the suggested change in Sunday working hours. What is wrong with a trade union writing to tell us that that is not good, because Sunday is sometimes the only day that their members have a chance to rest and their families to spend time together? There is nothing sinister or murky in such an approach. We have had letters about pay and pensions and employment rights. There is nothing wrong in their writing to us about things that people still need. Pay inequality still massively exists and we still have health and safety issues. With the advent of zero-hours contracts—more and more are being used—workers have no rights whatever. If trade unions write to Labour or other Members of Parliament to ask for provisions to be changed, Members do not need to feel ashamed of raising the issues. There is nothing wrong with trade unions arguing for rights.

If the Government really believe that they govern on behalf of the whole country, they should fight for the trade union movement. Instead of repeatedly condemning, ridiculing and demonising it, they should recognise the fact that the trade union movement is a force for good. It represents millions of people: the people who wash our plates, clean the houses and the streets, and provide the food on our tables. They are the hard-working people who are members of trade unions and we should be proud to represent them. They should not be portrayed —as the Government do, aided by the right-wing media—as bogeymen and an evil influence in this country. They are not; they are a force for good. A democratic society needs them. The Labour party is proud of its historical links with the trade union movement. The party started from that movement, and we will continue to have that wonderful relationship.

I am very proud to mention in Parliament and elsewhere the issues that the trade unions write to me about. All they are asking for is better terms and conditions for their members, who are often paid the minimum wage and have to work long hours. The unions often represent the poorest and most disadvantaged people in our society. We should all be proud of representing them and proud to raise the work of the trade union movement. The Government’s continual removal of workers’ rights and health and safety legislation is doing a disservice. It shows that they are concerned with only one group of people in this country, which is not the poor ordinary working people.

11:48

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I begin with a personal reflection, which I find quite difficult? In 2007, my late daughter played the character Louie in “The Matchgirls” play that was put on by a community association. She had to have stitched to her head a piece of cloth to give the impression of an 11-year-old girl whose hair had fallen out because of the work that she was doing in the Bryant & May factory. I have always been struck by that image and the passion in the performance that was put on by those young people. That image has come back to me during this debate. I did not want to refer to it, but I feel I have to.

[Lyn Brown]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mike Gapes]

No, I want to carry on. Anyone who has an image of what that factory was like, whether from photographs or from their imagination from reading the stories, will know about the working conditions of women not just in the Bryant & May factories, but throughout the Victorian era during the industrial revolution. Anyone who reads Friedrich Engels’s work about the conditions of workers in Manchester—it was published not when it was written in 1844, but about 40 years later—will know about the conditions of millions of people in this country who built our great cities and our industrial revolution, which made us the workshop of the world, as was demonstrated in the great exhibition of 1851. Britain grew economically and prospered on the backs of those giants—the men and women who built the industrial revolution—but they did not benefit from it. Their work was casual, erratic and not permanent. They did not have pensions or benefit from health and safety legislation and there was no sick pay. They were on what are now called zero-hours contracts, but in most cases they had no contracts. They were dismissed at will, abused, exploited, sexually harassed and treated appallingly by some more senior workers and their employers.

If we are honest—this is topical—we face today a race to the bottom. The ideology of the Government, including the Liberal Democrats who are in up to their necks, is based on a view that we must compete globally by reducing working conditions in this country so that we can be more competitive with our European neighbours, and that Europe must reduce working and living standards to be competitive with the Asian economies that are rapidly industrialising and taking on manufacturing for the world.

Yesterday, I watched an interesting programme on television about the largest container vessel ever built. It is so large that things must be removed so that it is not too high in the water and can go under bridges. It cannot dock in many places. It comes from China fully laden and goes back three quarters empty because we are exporting only our waste products and some specialised equipment, and I am talking not just about Britain. The programme highlighted our massive trade deficit of billions of pounds every month. We import from countries where men, women and children are exploited. In China today and many of its cities the treatment of workers is comparable with the treatment that men and women in this country experienced in the 19th century.

When we talk about health and safety, and the protection of workers, it is important to take a global perspective. I am an internationalist and a socialist, and I believe in internationalist and universalist values. It is time that we left the parochial debate about the situation in this country and raised issues relating to the rights and duties of global companies that do not pay tax in this country and manufacture goods in other countries. They work cleverly so that certain large global corporations have far more power and influence than individual states, even the most powerful states.

I will not digress, but that is why we need international co-operation and a strong European Union that can defend the European social model, stand up against the global multinationals, and work within the International Labour Organisation, the World Trade Organisation and the treaties that we signed with Korea, the United States and other parts of the world for trade and international co-operation. That should be not a race to the bottom, which is the agenda of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, but a race to protect and raise the living standards of people in the countries that we trade with around the world. That is an argument not for protectionism, but for modern, effective regulation and globalisation. In this century, we cannot live on the basis of total deregulation and a race to the bottom. The values of the women in Bryant & May’s factory 125 years ago are exactly the same that we should argue for today to protect the women in factories in China and elsewhere who are working in conditions that are comparable with what those women were working in.

We have talked about trade unionism in Britain. Trade Unions do not organise enough people in this country. Millions of women work as cleaners and carers in low-paid, casual jobs. On the radio this morning, a lady said that if there is a traffic jam she cannot do her job when she visits the elderly people she cares for because she runs late with resulting pressure. That applies particularly in the care industry. We can do something about that in this country because contractualisation, privatisation, deregulation and zero-hours contracts are a race to the bottom. We must do better, and we must all recognise that that will involve a change in our attitude to the lowest paid people in our country.

We have a national minimum wage. It was a great achievement of the last Labour Government, but it is not high enough. It is impossible to live on the minimum wage in London. We need a London living wage and we need it to be enforced. Let people be prosecuted for failing to pay the minimum wage. Let the Daily Mail and the Daily Express show pictures of those who are guilty of not standing up for British values of fairness, justice and fair pay for men and women. That is what we need in this country today, not the poison that comes from our tabloid press.

11:58

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure, Mr Dobbin, to serve under your chairmanship this morning. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who gave us the opportunity to hold what has been an excellent debate. The contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), and the passionate and beautiful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) were fantastic. They have shown why oral history matters and how looking back illuminates the past and the present.

[Mrs Anne Main in the Chair]

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham began with a thorough exposition of the history, and was absolutely right to say that this was an extremely important episode in the history of women and the trade union movement in this country. It is easy to think that 125 years ago is a long time, but it is not so long ago. My father took some nice film of me when I was a little baby with my great grandmother, who was an exact contemporary of the women who worked in the Bryant & May factory. She was sent to work at the age of nine, and she worked in a Nottingham lace factory. It really is not so long ago that people were working in those horrendous conditions in this country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South is right that the subject was written about very clearly by Engels, and in fact, the Nottingham lace factories are described very well in volume I of “Das Kapital”. I was absolutely delighted when I came across that, because I knew the truth from my family history. My tutor was also delighted that he had set a text that resonated so strongly with his student—the irony was that he was Andrew Glyn from the Glyn banking family.

What could the Government do to recognise the strike? We have heard that we could have a revision of the blue plaque in the east end, and perhaps the Minister will say something about that. Perhaps we could have something in the curriculum. Another cultural artefact that many of us would like to be covered in the curriculum and that recognises women’s contributions to the trade union movement is the excellent film, “Made in Dagenham”. All these feisty women come from the east end—it is absolutely clear that the heart of radical feminism is down in the east end.

In the north-east, as everybody knows, we have a big Durham miners’ gala, and this year, one of the primary schools in Spennymoor made a banner to go alongside the banners carried by the former miners. The banner referred to all the progress in the Factory Acts and in children’s legislation. Enabling children to understand those important episodes in British history really makes a significant difference. I hope that the Minister will say something about the conversations he will have with his colleagues in the Department for Education about the curriculum, because that would be another way in which the Government could recognise the match workers’ strike of 125 years ago.

A further thing that the Minister could do in recognition is take a different stance on the conditions of workers in the south. As several of my hon. Friends have mentioned, the horrific collapse of the garment factory in Dhaka, in Bangladesh, is not something about which we can say, “We are not connected. We are not responsible.” We are completely connected and bound up with what is going on in other parts of the world. As a matter of fact, one thing that the European Union has done is to put conditions on Bangladesh that it has to meet if it is to maintain its duty-free access to our clothing markets. One of the conditions is that there should be better trade union recognition rights. The International Labour Organisation is currently working on that to raise standards in Bangladesh, so that is another thing that the Minister could take on. He may say, “Well, that is a matter for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills; it is not my responsibility,” but let me bring him to his Department and to another area where labour conditions are on the agenda.

The World cup will be held in Qatar, and as the Minister knows, there is a huge scandal about the workers who will die in the construction of the football stadia there. It would be great if we could hear today what his Department will do about that. What representations has it made to FIFA on labour conditions in Qatar? This is another episode in which we can address the issue squarely. We can ask whether it is acceptable for the World cup to be in Qatar and, if it is to be there, what standards have to be maintained, or we can pretend that it has nothing to do with us. We can turn and walk away.

The Minister is not only the Minister for blue plaques, but the Minister for mobile phones. I do not know whether he has seen the documentary, “Blood in the Mobile”, but we all have these little mobile phones. We all tweet, text and have them in our hands all the time, but many minerals that are used in mobile phones come from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The mining of those minerals is fuelling the conflict in the Congo, and, of course, the labour conditions are terrible. What transparency is the Minister demanding from mobile phone companies? What will he do to raise standards in the new technology sector? Of course, it is great that we have new technology—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. I understand that this has been a wide-ranging debate, but it may well be ranging rather too far from the Minister’s brief for him to be able to give the answers today. I would be grateful if you could get slightly further back towards the topic.

[Helen Goodman]

I was trying to give examples of the sorts of things that the Minister could do to demonstrate to us that he has truly taken on board the lessons and understood the importance of the strike in Bow. I was looking for things that were in the bailiwick of his Department, and indeed, in his bailiwick.

I went to see the people who made that documentary last week, and while I was there, I saw the ship to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South referred. He is absolutely right: instead of addressing the issues, Ministers are engaging in a race to the bottom. That is why the struggles of the women whom we are talking about—for free trade unions, for better health and safety, for better maternity rights, and all those things—are absolutely relevant, because in this country today, it is women’s unemployment that has gone up the most. We now have 1 million women unemployed in this country. We have a massive gender pay gap. In the private sector, the gap between men’s and women’s pay is 14%, and in the public sector it is 25%. However, if there is one thing I would like the Minister to do to recognise this strike—one thing that I think would make a massive difference and bring us bang up to date—it would be to ensure that the Government do not go ahead with the 70% cut to funding for the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Without the proper resources, we cannot enable women to defend their rights at work as they should be able to.

I would like to end as I began: by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. This has been an excellent, quite extraordinary, debate. I am grateful to her for bringing the issue to the attention of the House, and I am pleased that I have personally been able to contribute. The lessons of the strike are extremely important, and I salute the women of Bow.

12:07

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I was preparing to stand up and thank Mr Dobbin for chairing the debate excellently, but I noticed that a change had taken place while I was in thrall to the speech by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). It was a seamless transfer, but I thank you and Mr Dobbin for your excellent co-chairmanship of this passionate and important debate.

I thank the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) for securing the debate and for expounding on the match girls’ strike in such detail. I also pay tribute to the excellent speeches that we heard from the hon. Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), for Ilford South (Mike Gapes)—I noted the mention of his late daughter, Rebecca, and I found his speech to be particularly moving in that regard—and, of course, from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, who expounded in her usual, passionate fashion.

It is also important to note, Mrs Main—I am not sure whether you were in the room—the brief presence of the new shadow Education Secretary, who entered the Chamber, stood, and gazed around him—it seemed to be a laying-on of hands on this debate by him. I would like to take this moment to congratulate him on his appointment and to note the perspicacious tweet that was put out yesterday, saying that when the Labour party

“is ready to be led by a man called Tristram”,

it is ready for government.

[Lyn Brown]

I thank the Minister, certainly for the beginning of his speech, which, as always, is entertaining. No one was more delighted than I was when I saw that the new shadow Secretary of State for Education had been elevated to such a position, but then I realised that he would no longer be able to speak in this morning’s debate, in which he had promised me a good 20 minutes. It was for that reason, I believe, that he popped in—to ensure that I was not without friends.

[Mr Vaizey]

I very much hope that the shadow Education Secretary will publish the speech that he was due to make. There is no reason, in my view, why he could not have spoken in the debate, but that would be a matter for the parliamentary authorities. I remember speaking with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition and chose to lead a Westminster Hall debate. I hope, therefore, that we will have an opportunity to read the hon. Gentleman’s words of wisdom, because he is a most excellent historian, as of course is Louise Raw, who I think may be in the Chamber watching this debate and to whose excellent book there has been much reference.

Of course, the match girls’ strike was a seminal moment in trade union history and the history of industrial disputes. It was a cause célèbre at the time. It was supported by celebrities on the left. The strike fund was donated to by the Fabian Society and by luminaries such as George Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb and Graham Wallas. It was also supported by the Richard Dawkins of his day, Charles Bradlaugh, the overtly atheist Member of Parliament, who fought so hard for his atheist beliefs—if I can put it that way—that he was imprisoned in the cell in the Houses of Parliament when he tried, time and again, to affirm rather than to take the oath. Of course, he was an avowed trade unionist and an avowed anti-socialist, but I do not think that those two beliefs are necessarily connected. It is interesting that in the same year in which he supported the match girls’ strike, he achieved his own victory by securing the passing of the Oaths Act 1888, which allows some Members of Parliament to affirm the oath if they so choose.

The hon. Member for Ilford South referred to the performance of “The Match Girls”. Of course, the match girls’ strike was commemorated in a musical produced by Bill Owen and Tony Russell in 1966. I am sad to hear that it has not been put on since. I hope that all hon. Members will unite in sending a message to the musical theatre community that “The Match Girls” perhaps could be performed again. Perhaps there could be one gala performance to raise money for our hard-pressed trade unions, which we have heard about, this year to coincide with the 125th anniversary.

A number of points were raised about what I should do as a Minister. I have really come to this debate wearing my heritage hat rather than my health and safety hat, my equal pay hat or any of the many other hats that I might wear at a particular moment, so let me just deal with the heritage aspect. Certainly if there is the problem of an inaccurate blue plaque commemorating the match girls’ strike, that should be remedied as swiftly as possible. I am very happy to contact English Heritage if indeed it is one of its plaques. I am not sure that it is, but I am certainly happy to discuss with English Heritage in what ways the strike could be commemorated. Of course, English Heritage runs the blue plaque scheme independently of Government—it would be wrong of politicians to dictate which of their particular heroes should be commemorated in a blue plaque—but certainly this is a matter that I could bring to its attention.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland talked about ensuring that the match girls’ strike is properly portrayed in the school curriculum. As she knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is trying to simplify the curriculum, but he is trying to do so to give teachers more freedom to teach in the ways they see fit. Certainly, teaching about the match girls’ strike in schools is not banned. Any school and, in particular, local schools—schools in the area in which the strike took place—should feel free to educate their pupils on this important event.

[Lyn Brown]

I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous with his time. I am not one to malign the Secretary of State for Education, but during one discourse he was holding forth about the nature of history and I believe that he may have inadvertently got a reference to the match women’s strike wrong himself by mentioning Annie Besant as the leader of the strike. The Minister, when he is having lunch with the right hon. Gentleman at some point, might want to point that out to him to rectify any future possible transgressions.

[Mr Vaizey]

I hope that the hon. Lady will supply me with the appropriate quote so that I can make that point to my right hon. Friend. He is obviously extremely busy, because he is trying to put forward very important reforms to our education system to help, funnily enough, the very poorest in our society, which is his passion. The fact that too many children are written off at a very young age and told that they cannot achieve is what he wants to change. It may not be possible for me to have a meeting with him, but certainly I might write to him and perhaps the official history of the match girls’ strike, written by Louise Raw, could be made available to him. He is an assiduous reader. Even in a digital age, if someone stops my right hon. Friend in the street—as I am sure you know, Mrs Main—they will find at least 10 and possibly 20 books in his satchel. He is also a keen historian, although perhaps not in the same league as his new shadow.

Let me talk more generally about some of the issues to do with heritage, because this is a timely debate in terms of what the Government want to do to recognise heritage. I have been given a list of some of the small grants that have been made to relevant projects by the Heritage Lottery Fund. Interestingly, we increased the share of the national lottery money going to the Heritage Lottery Fund from 16% to 20%, so there is now substantially more funding available for these schemes. Last year, almost £10,000 was given to Maximal Learning for a seven-month project to explore the history of the Bryant & May building in Bow, east London. We have also got a huge sum—up to £28 million—for projects to commemorate the first world war. We have recently given some money to the Charles Dickens museum, the author’s former Bloomsbury home, as well.

Most importantly of all, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced earlier this month the creation of an anniversaries fund. That is a fund of £10 million, to which people who wish to commemorate a significant anniversary can apply. That is something that is very close to my heart and that I have long wanted to see come about. Obviously, I was thinking about some of the big anniversaries that are coming up, such as the celebration of the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, but there is a general point that is relevant to this commemoration in Parliament of the match girls’ strike, which is that, as part of our society and as part of community cohesion, it is important that as many people as possible know our history and know the significance of great events. That includes Magna Carta. It includes the match girls’ strike. These are events that have shaped our history and continue to have a resonance.

Perhaps it is too late for a group to apply to the Heritage Lottery Fund for funding to commemorate the match girls’ strike, but it may be possible to find a suitable anniversary further down the line to which that would apply. Obviously, the anniversaries fund should certainly not exclude anything that commemorates the important industrial and labour history of our nation.

Let me move on to the subject of health and safety. There were impassioned speeches from Opposition Members about the importance of maintaining heath and safety legislation. Again, this subject is close to my heart. I was struck when I went round the Olympic village before the opening of the Olympics and was told that it was the first such stadium to be built without a single fatality. I certainly do not and nor, I hasten to add, do any of my fellow Ministers come from the school that sees health and safety as a burden and that does not understand the importance of health and safety in keeping people safe. However, it is important that we review regulations and that we strike a balance between the need to protect people at work and the need not to burden business unduly.

We have conducted some key reviews. Professor Löfstedt carried out an independent review, and of course Lord Young of Graffham carried out his own review. They found that there was an over-implementation of health and safety regulation, driven by a fear of the civil law—a fear of lawyers, who can see an opportunity presenting itself. There was an opportunity to simplify health and safety legislation, and by doing so we can improve health and safety. We are, for example, introducing a register of occupational safety and health specialists, which will mean that small employers no longer have to waste time searching for the right person; they will be able to consult the register to find a specialist. A teacher now has to fill out only one form when they organise a school trip, so the process is much easier. We hope that that will encourage more schools to take school trips. We have also made it easier to make a personal injury claim through a simplified three-stage process.

Although it sounds contradictory, the simplification of health and safety legislation can improve health and safety by encouraging small businesses to apply health and safety law. We have also made it absolutely clear that we will not stint on health and safety inspections of dangerous occupations or workplaces. We will name and shame those who breach health and safety law, and we will make them pay for follow-up inspections if they are found to be in breach of the law.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is also the Minister for Women and Equalities, and equality in the workplace was mentioned with some vigour.

[Helen Goodman]

The Minister mentioned, rightly, the excellent health and safety record in the Olympic stadium. Has his Department made—and if not, does it intend to make—representations to FIFA and to Qatar about the health and safety standards surrounding construction for the World cup?

[Mr Vaizey]

I thank the hon. Lady for presenting me with the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), whom the Prime Minister yesterday appointed Minister for Sport. With your indulgence, Mrs Main, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson) for his extraordinary service in that role—service that, if we include his time as Opposition spokesman, spans almost a decade. He will be a sad loss to the Department. Our new Minister for Sport will read what the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has said and will respond appropriately regarding the Government’s position.

I return to the question of equality in the workplace. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland referred to “Made in Dagenham”, a film about equal pay by the brilliant British producer Stephen Woolley, which I would commend to anyone. The soundtrack to the film was sung by Sandie Shaw, who was a Dagenham Ford clerk but has moved on to greater things and is now my constituent. [Laughter.] It does not get any better than that. The hon. Lady mentioned that a period of more than a century did not seem like a long time, and it is interesting to note that 80 years after the match girls’ strike, it was still perfectly legal to pay a woman less than a man for doing the same work. The Equal Pay Act 1970 was introduced to tackle that discrepancy, but such inequalities still exist. Women now make up half of the work force in Britain, but they are under-represented in senior positions. If we want to harness the country’s full potential, we must remedy that imbalance and waste of talent. That is why the Government are committed to making Britain fairer.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

On that point, does the Minister agree with the statements made in the past few days by Ministers from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about the lack of transparency in pay structures? Does he agree that we need to do far more to tackle the problem, and that we should consider, for example, mandatory equal pay audits and mandatory publication of information about pay scales so that we can see where people are still not being paid equally?

[Mr Vaizey]

I have not read those statements in detail; I have only read about them in the newspapers, and I hesitate to stray on to another Department’s policy area by expressing an opinion about whether new regulations should be introduced concerning transparency and mandatory reporting. As the hon. Lady knows, the Consumer Affairs Minister, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), is passionately committed to tackling the problem, which is why she spoke so vociferously about it. That goes to the heart of the point that I was making. The Government are committed to making Britain fairer and tackling the barriers to equal opportunities that hold so many people back.

We have launched a voluntary initiative on gender equality transparency called “Think, Act, Report”, which asks private sector and voluntary sector employers to make workplaces fairer for women through greater transparency on pay and other workplace issues. More than 120 leading businesses have signed up, and the initiative covers nearly 2 million employees, which is 16% of the targeted work force. We are also using a voluntary approach to increase the number of women on boards. Women now account for almost one in five of FTSE 100 board directorships, which is a significant increase from 12.5% in February 2011. Only six FTSE 100 companies still have all-male boards.

We want to strengthen the economy, so we are supporting more businesses to start up and employ more people. That is why we have set up the Work programme, announced 24 new enterprise zones and introduced the regional growth fund. The Government have created 1.4 million jobs in the private sector during the past three years. We have established the Women’s Business Council, which published its recommendations in June. We responded to the recommendations by welcoming them and announcing a series of actions. We have announced funding of £1.6 million over the next three years to support rural women’s enterprise, the introduction of 15,000 new mentors to support those setting up and growing their businesses—including 5,000 specifically targeted to women—and a new scheme that will make £2 million available in small grants of up to £500 to those who wish to set up new child care businesses.

The debate has been important and memorable, and it has commemorated an important event in our history. The quality of the speeches from Opposition Members demonstrates that that event raises many important issues on which people feel passionately—equal pay, employment rights and health and safety—and teaches us that events in our history still resonate today.

[Lyn Brown]

Before the Minister sits down, will he undertake to ensure that in the first world war commemorations that begin next year, women will not be hidden from that history and that herstory will be told as well?

[Mr Vaizey]

I was about to say that I hesitated to give any undertaking, but the hon. Lady has raised an important point. I am not responsible for running the first world war celebrations—the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport takes the lead on that, along with the new Minister for Sport—but I feel strongly that we must ensure that the role of women in the first world war is suitably recognised throughout the four years of our first world war commemorations. I conclude on a positive note by agreeing with the hon. Lady and thanking her for calling this important debate.

School Governors and School Improvement

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Westminster Hall

12:29

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship—not for the first time, Mrs Main. It has always proved a success, and I expect it will do so today. It is great to see that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools survived yesterday’s activities, as we would expect. I am wondering where the reshuffled Opposition education team are. They will now be led by an historian, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), which will certainly be interesting.

I want to talk about the importance of governors and governance, and to say that I enormously appreciate all that governors do. It is a tribute to our national life that 200,000 people are able and willing to serve as governors on our school and college governing bodies, and we should all thank them enormously. I have been a governor of several schools and colleges, so I know about the stresses and strains, the sometimes unsocial hours and the sense of accountability and responsibility that they normally feel: I have been there and done that.

I am pleased that there is an appetite for debate about school governors and governance. I was particularly glad that the Select Committee on Education, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), agreed to hold an inquiry on school governance. That inquiry exposed some interesting issues that I want to discuss, although I will not do so in a detailed or completely comprehensive way. The inquiry certainly raised a few interesting issues, and the Government have responded. They were sometimes in agreement with the Committee, and sometimes less so, but they always considered what we said, which is a tribute to the Select Committee process.

The context of this debate is straightforward, in that we are experiencing and will continue to experience a changing structure of education, because more and more academies are coming on stream and there is more competition. Of course, the arrival of free schools will be a key factor in accountability as regards the role of governors and school governance.

Another key issue that informs the debate is the need to focus on performance and outcomes. Never before has the education system been in a situation where performance and outcomes are so pivotal to the debate, which is quite right, because it is absolutely essential to give every child a proper chance and a fair opportunity to perform as best he or she can. Nothing less than that will do.

The changing role of local authorities is another factor, on which we will touch throughout this debate. That factor should be recognised, because schools often used to have the local authority to help them along or to deal with issues, but schools are now more autonomous, and with that autonomy comes more responsibility.

There are also challenges, including the issue of children who are not necessarily best dealt with or given the best chances in their schools. That was brought out extraordinarily well by the chief inspector of schools and colleges, Sir Michael Wilshaw, in his report, “Unseen children”. We cannot allow that to happen. As people interested in education, we must drive forward the highest standards across our whole country, not just where something happens to be relevant to an individual MP. We must ensure that delivery is good all over.

That point is reinforced by the chief inspector’s focus on leadership and management in schools. I will not talk about individual schools—that would be inappropriate—but I will say that where we have good leadership and management in schools, we have a good chance of having schools that are good and have high standards of teaching and learning. That is what we should talk about in the context of school governors and governance.

I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Education Committee, first for agreeing to do a report on school governance and secondly for contributing to that report, because we had some lively debates—quite rightly. The report was important as another way of keeping the question of school governance and governors on the agenda, which we must do. As I have said, the structure of education is evolving, and one question that we must tease out is how we deal with accountability, in which school governors of course have a role to play.

In the Select Committee, we discussed in detail some issues that are relevant to this debate—for example, the size of school governing bodies. It is generally accepted that smaller committees sometimes achieve more than larger ones, partly because they are more dynamic and tend to rely more on individuals with specific gifts. We should therefore try to streamline governing bodies into smaller ones, so that they can be more dynamic, flexible and innovative. The Government agree, but it is important to make it absolutely clear why smaller governing bodies will improve performance and, to underpin that, the Government must be strong in making sure that governing bodies get that message.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

My hon. Friend, like the Government, seems intrinsically to believe that smaller governing bodies are necessarily more effective. Will he share with the House the evidence to back that up?

[Neil Carmichael]

I can do so, because the Education Committee looked into that issue, and if people read the report, they will see that answers to many of the questions I asked yield such evidence. We need to look at that evidence when we consider questions like the one asked by my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Committee. That dynamic can be seen at work not just in school governing bodies, but often on company boards and in other organisations. It works, and it should be considered.

The role of business is very important. That arises in relation to the question of why we do not have the best interface between business and education, which is a general problem. For example, it is certainly a worry that only 28% of A-levels are in STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—when the business community is seeking a bigger pool of STEM-educated children and students.

Another issue is why more businessmen are not on school governing bodies, increasing that interface and bringing in leadership and management expertise. The Government have recognised that the Select Committee is right on that count, and we must ensure that we start to break down some of the barriers. The Government are right, and I hope that they will persist with the idea of creating a legal requirement to give people time off for service on a governing body.

I will finish by raising several points. The first is that we must strengthen the mechanism for imposing interim executive boards—IEBs—when schools are identified as failing. I believe that if an Ofsted inspection finds that a school is in serious trouble, there may well be a case for having an IEB, and the Select Committee suggested that Ofsted should be able to use its powers to impose one. The Government have said that there are other ways of solving the problems. If a school is in a federation or some other structure, they might get some assistance. None the less, we need to send a signal that setting up an IEB might just be the right option. It will not be right in every case or in every situation—for example, when a primary school is allied to another school—but it is certainly right for a secondary school that is failing in an obvious way.

There needs to be a pool of governors on those IEBs. Too many areas of the country do not have a sufficiently large pool of good people to be on IEBs. We need to redouble our efforts to find and properly train people. One structure that could solve that problem is the National College for Teaching and Leadership.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I support much of what he is saying, but I recommend that he looks at other models that promote collaboration between governing bodies. The experience from Darlington shows that a school can be turned around quickly by encouraging better collaboration, even when, as in Darlington, almost all the schools are academies.

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank the hon. Lady for her helpful intervention. That was one of my points. She is absolutely right, and I thank her for her support.

I want to touch on sub-regional structures, academy chains and other such structures that one might expect to find when schools collaborate. Collaboration certainly does make a difference. I suggest that some formal federal structure might be the answer in many situations. Mutual help, by which I mean learning best practice from others, getting support when there is a problem and being able to reach out for expert help, is really important. I accept the point that has just been made. I would even go further and say that the Government might want to consider making sub-regional structures more formal where that is appropriate. A horizontal or vertical structure, or a combination of both, is a good way of ensuring that the best leadership is available to schools. That applies to rural areas where there is a variety of smaller schools, or to a secondary school with a number of feeder schools.

Another point relates to the question of skills versus stakeholders. The Select Committee talked about that in some detail. It was right to do so, not least because I encouraged it to take on the issue. It has always concerned me that if schools are boxed in with certain stakeholders on their governing bodies, they might not be able to reach out for the appropriate skills. I have never been completely satisfied that all stakeholders are accountable to the body that appointed them or that they represent, so calling them stakeholders is, in some cases, an exaggeration. The Government need to focus on getting the right skills, and all barriers to that should be removed, which means that there should be considerably less focus on stakeholders and more focus on skills. I call on the Government to consider that point.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making some powerful points. I expected as much, given his strong personal experience of both a further education college and a secondary school in Stroud. On the point he was making, does he agree that governors in constituencies such as Stroud and Gloucester are by definition volunteers and community-minded, and that given the right experience, training and help they can play an invaluable role in the success of a school? What more does he think the Government can do to help on the training side?

[Neil Carmichael]

My hon. Friend, whose constituency neighbours mine, is absolutely right. Of course we need to encourage people to become governors. We do not want to frighten them off, and good training is critical. The Education Committee has made some powerful recommendations on training, which the Government have largely accepted. The National Governors Association has constantly talked about the importance of training. I want also to highlight the work of the all-party group on education governance and leadership, which has produced 20 questions that feature in a number of reports, including those of the Wellcome Trust and our Select Committee. Those 20 questions include a reminder that we should focus on the training of governors. We must ensure that those training packages are up to scratch and relevant to the challenges of governance now, and not to what we think it was. The Government are right to talk about setting up memorandums describing what academies turn into and how governors should respond.

[Jenny Chapman]

rose—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. This is a 30-minute debate, and the hon. Gentleman who called the debate has graciously allowed another colleague to speak for a minute or two. The Minister also needs to make a full reply. I therefore ask for any interventions to be brief.

[Jenny Chapman]

I am grateful for your guidance, Mrs Main. I shall be brief. In my experience, local authorities have always put on a great deal of training, but it was not well attended and its quality was questionable. How can we ensure that the quality of training is improved now that schools are far more independent?

[Neil Carmichael]

I have already mentioned the National College of Leadership and Training, and that is one way forward, but there are other organisations that are independent of local authorities that should be doing the training.

Finally, we all rely on good school governors and on volunteers to be school governors. The question of payment has been discussed by the Education Committee. There is a possibility of paying chairs of governing bodies because of their exalted status and their great responsibilities. That should remain on the table to encourage a kind of progression of governorship—from governor to chair. That might be part of the answer to the question of federations, structures, academy chains and so on.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

I call Mr Graham Stuart, who has two minutes.

12:48

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

My contribution might come in at under two minutes, Mrs Main. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, to follow my distinguished colleague on the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), and to see the Minister in his place and other colleagues in the Chamber. The Government recently produced their response to our inquiry and report. In the brief time I have, I want to focus on the opportunities for getting greater business involvement with school governing bodies. The CBI has offered to work with the Government, and the Government have taken that up, and are looking to work with other business organisations. We have a real problem with careers advice and guidance in schools. We know that we need to ensure that careers understanding is embedded across the curriculum. What better way to do that than by having governors from business bringing their understanding of local and national business to the governing body? There is a real opportunity for business organisations to stand behind those individual governors, and to provide them with resources, tools and a template to ensure that their school provides a curriculum and an experience that provides young people with the skills—soft as well as academic—that they need. There is a tremendous opportunity to strengthen our governing bodies and better to align our education system with the world of work that follows.

12:49

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) on securing a debate on this very important topic; on the work that he has done in founding and chairing the all-party group on education governance and leadership; and, of course, on the contribution that he and his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), who is the Chairman of the Education Committee, have made to the Select Committee’s report on this issue, which came out earlier this year and which we, as a Department, have looked at very closely indeed.

Our Department believes that school governance has a vital role to play in driving up school standards and pupil performance, and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud himself mentioned—we recognise the dedication of the hundreds of thousands of volunteers who serve as school governors and who are passionate about supporting and improving their schools. The success of our education system relies upon the expertise and hard work of those governors, and we need more skilled governors to help schools to improve, particularly in many of the disadvantaged areas where school performance is, at most, inadequate.

Every school needs a high-performing governing body that understands its responsibilities and that focuses on its core strategic functions; that is made up of people with the relevant skills and experience; that operates efficiently and effectively through appropriate structures and procedures; and that strives for continuous improvement, in order to perform to its full potential.

We need governing bodies that think innovatively and strategically to create robust governance arrangements, including across groups of schools, which is a point my hon. Friend mentioned in his contribution. It is this Government’s ambition that that is true of all governing bodies in terms of their quality standards, and I will say more about each of the key critical areas that we expect governing bodies to be able to address.

To begin, let me consider the core functions of governing bodies. In our view, high-quality governance is characterised by a relentless focus on three core strategic functions: first, setting the vision of the school; secondly, holding the head teacher and senior managers of the school to account for their educational performance; and thirdly, ensuring—of course—that the school’s money is well and properly spent.

Those functions reflect the criteria that Ofsted inspectors use when considering the effectiveness of governing bodies. All governing bodies, in both maintained schools and academies, should focus on these functions, leaving the senior leadership team responsible and accountable for the day-to-day management of the school. They should stay focused on these big issues and other specific statutory duties, and avoid being distracted by the myriad other things that might compete for their attention.

We believe that governing bodies are best placed to determine how to carry out their strategic functions, and their approach needs to reflect their own specific local circumstances and should be guided by Government only when that is genuinely necessary. That is why we have already reduced prescription and cut back on some of the unnecessary regulations that exist. Our ambition is that all governing bodies are made up of people who have the necessary skills and competencies to carry out effectively the demanding strategic functions that I have just outlined.

As my colleague in the Department, the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for schools, Lord Nash, has said on previous occasions, in our view it is right that governors should be volunteers but they cannot afford to be amateurs in an area that is so critically important. We need to professionalise the quality of school governance, so that sitting on a board of governors is seen as being akin to the strategic responsibility of sitting on the board of a company or of a charity.

The best governing bodies identify explicitly the skills and competencies they need, and regularly audit the skills of their current members. They actively seek to recruit new governors and to invest in the professional development of their existing members, to address any gaps that might exist. Because governing bodies are best placed to determine the types of skills and people they need, we have given them more flexibility to decide for themselves the number and mix of governors that they need. Maintained school governing bodies can opt to reconstitute under new regulations, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud will know we introduced last year. Those new regulations allow the governing bodies to be smaller and more skills-focused, which is something I think my hon. Friend supports and which he has raised with my colleague, Lord Nash, on previous occasions.

We have also updated our model documentation, to give academies themselves much greater freedom in how they constitute their governing bodies. While our priority is to give governing bodies the freedom to decide their size for themselves, our view is that governing bodies should be no bigger than they need to be to secure all the crucial skills necessary for effective governance. In our view, it is not helpful to have anyone on a governing body who is in a passive or inactive role. In general, we think that smaller governing bodies are likely to be more dynamic and effective, as shown by the success of many of the tightly focused interim executive boards and by the testimony of many academy sponsors who need to reform the unwieldy governance in the schools they inherit. However, I will also accept the challenge put by the Chairman of the Education Committee, and the view taken by the Committee in its report, when I acknowledge that ultimately it is the quality of these individuals, rather than counting heads, that is particularly important.

In line with the core functions that I have outlined, governing bodies should not necessarily see themselves as the primary vehicle for ensuring meaningful engagement with parents and other stakeholders. It is vital that the governance of the school is informed by the views of parents, and for that to be done well it requires dedicated and appropriate arrangements. So, while there are still rules that governing bodies need to follow on how they are constituted, the emphasis should be on recruiting governors for the skills that they can individually contribute. After all, all governors—no matter what constituency they are drawn from—are there, once they are around the table, to govern in the interests of pupils and not primarily to play a representative role.

People from the world of work can bring a particular range of transferrable and relevant skills, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned in his contribution. That is why we plan to work more closely with the CBI and other business partners to engage more businesses in actively promoting governance to their employees. Forging links with business can be of huge value to schools, but the strategic nature of school governance also means that employees develop key skills that are often of benefit to them and indeed to their own employers.

The Government already fund the School Governor’s One Stop Shop to offer a free service to schools and local authorities, in order to help them to find new and highly skilled governors. The number of governors that SGOSS has recruited has risen year-on-year to nearly 1,600 volunteers in the financial year to date, compared with 1,400 for the same period last year. I hope that my hon. Friends will promote the work of SGOSS to local authorities and schools in their constituencies.

Governing groups of schools can be highly effective, and it can also bring many benefits. In particular, it can help to drive up standards by enabling governing bodies to compare and contrast across schools, thereby creating more robust accountability. It can also enable highly skilled governing bodies to have an impact in more schools. We in the Department encourage governing bodies to put aside any issues of territorialism, and to consider—where it is appropriate—forming a single governing body across a federation of schools. Alternatively they can, of course, consider a multi-academy trust or an umbrella trust, which benefit from the greater freedoms of academy status.

Before I talk about what happens when there are issues or problems, I need to address the importance of governing bodies striving for continuous improvement, and the ways that we are helping them to improve. To achieve the very best for the children in their school, every governing body needs to reflect regularly on its effectiveness and performance, and governing bodies should not be shy of paying for high-quality training and development to help improve their skills and effectiveness. There are many options, including the expanding offer from the National College for Teaching and Leadership. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud will know, the NCTL has also developed the national leaders of governance programme to provide free peer mentoring support for chairs. We are looking to develop the number of NLGs, with another 150 being selected this year.

I now come to the crucial role of Ofsted. It is a sad fact that in too many schools governance is still weak and does not create enough robust local accountability for standards in schools. When Ofsted identifies underperformance, we share the view expressed by both its chief inspector and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud that there is a need for urgent and timely action.

In each particular case, there will be various considerations in determining the appropriate response, which will not always be the need for an interim executive board; for example, some governing bodies may themselves decide to seek a sponsored-academy solution. For that reason, we do not envisage this sort of recommendation being made in the inspection report before the various contextual factors have been taken into account. However, good, clear reporting by Ofsted on the weaknesses in governance will help to inform decisions on what action would be appropriate.

This Government recognise and celebrate the role of governors, and we are committed to improving the quality of governance in the ways that my hon. Friend has indicated today.

Women’s Pensions

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Westminster Hall

13:00

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I was delighted to be granted this debate, which is extremely relevant and important to many thousands of households across the country, including in my constituency of Inverclyde. I also thank the Minister for his time today.

In these uncertain times, when it can be difficult to find a good employer, and a good employee pension is even more difficult to find, many could be forgiven, as in the past, for counting on their state pension—an agreement they believe will deliver on their regular contributions. “Thank goodness,” they might think, trusting that all those deductions from their pay over the years will finally secure a reasoned and equal pension in retirement. They could never have foreseen or taken into account the Government’s recent pension reforms, which many believe to be unfair. I am, of course, talking about the reforms to the state pension age, and particularly how those reforms have disproportionately affected women born in the early 1950s.

The Government’s intention was to introduce a single-tier state pension from April 2017, but as the Minister will be aware, in this year’s Budget that date was brought forward to April 2016. I accept that that is good news for thousands of women, but it still excludes the group on which I am focusing. I believe we all welcome the single-tier pension, but there is one major injustice that can be identified within that new system. Implementing the single-tier pension on 6 April 2016 means that there is a group of women born between 6 April 1951 and 5 April 1953 who will not be eligible for the single-tier pension, even though a man born on the same day will qualify, because the pension age will be unequal on implementation day in April 2016.

The Government’s changes to the state pension have consistently hit hard-working women, and now the single-tier pension will let down 700,000 women across the UK. That is simply not good enough, and it is unacceptable to that group of women. For the single-tier pension to be successful and to achieve its designated goal of equality, it should treat women and men of the same age equally. When the Government’s White Paper was originally published, my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) was quick to spot the issue. He identified that, as a result of the 2017 implementation date, 429,000 women will not receive the flat-rate state pension, even though a man of the same age will.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter to the House, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern, as I suspect that he and many others do, that some ladies will have to work to the age of 72, or possibly 73, thereby holding back a job from an 18-year-old, who will be put on jobseeker’s allowance? Is there not a better way of balancing the issue?

[Mr McKenzie]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The age to which such women are being asked to work will affect not only them but younger generations who are looking for jobs. I will expand on how working longer affects longevity, and how the argument about longevity does not apply to all of those women.

It is important to note that 80,000 women born in the early 1950s have already had their state pension arrangements changed by the Pensions Act 2011. Surely the Government cannot continue to claim that the new Pensions Bill is fair. What is the Government’s justification for making a change that is unfair and unjust for hundreds of thousands of hard-working women across the UK?

In my constituency alone more than 600 women born on or after 6 April 1951 and before 6 April 1953 will be deprived of, on average, £884 a year, which I think we can agree is not an insignificant sum to lose out on in these tough financial times. Those women are rightly angry at what they see as the dual adverse impact of an increase in their pension age and their non-eligibility for the single-tier pension. I have met many of the affected women in my constituency, and they have expressed their dismay and disgust at the policy. Possibly the phrase that best describes the fate of those women is “So near, yet so far away.” How would the Minister and his Government colleagues feel if, after planning for their retirement date and making what savings and plans they could, they were told they had to work for longer and would be excluded from the new single-tier pension scheme? I suspect they would agree that it is simply not fair.

These women, most of whom left school at 15, have been paying into the system year after year after year. They have made the necessary savings and plans for their retirement, and above all they have spent a lifetime working hard, paying taxes, keeping a home, caring for their families and, naturally, looking forward to their retirement. With all of that, they hoped and expected to receive their state pension at the age they had come to expect. Those women will now be forced to wait longer to retire, and they will miss out on the new £144 a week single-tier pension for the rest of their lives; indeed, they will now receive about £127 a week. Once again, does the Minister find that fair?

Although the coalition Government are fond of quoting a figure of some £4 billion as the overall cost of including these women, the Department for Work and Pensions published an estimate showing that the true cost is closer to £220 million. In his evidence to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, the Minister agreed that those women will be financially worse off than a man of the same age. He also stated that 90% of those women would fare better because women live longer. It is a weak point for the Government to claim that those women may recoup the money they lose out on because women live longer. Life expectancy differs vastly across the country. Life expectancy from boundary to boundary in my constituency varies hugely—by as much as 10 years—which means the policy is extremely unfair and unequal for the women I represent.

Women born in Inverclyde in the 1950s have worked in some of the toughest industries our country has ever seen. Mills, sugar refineries and shipyards are extremely heavy industries that have had a huge impact on the health of women in my constituency, resulting in a much shorter life expectancy than in other parts of the UK. Even late in their employment life many worked in the electronics industries, which are perceived by some to be less demanding and hazardous than the industries of the past. The electronics industries, however, still exact a health toll on my constituents and reduce the longevity of the women who transferred their skills from the mills, sugar refineries and shipyards to the sunrise electronics industries of the 1980s and 1990s. Those women might have worked alongside chemicals, for example, that we have now discovered eat holes in the ozone layer and are thus banned from use even in aerosols. We are yet to acknowledge, accept or see the effects on their health.

The industries of the ’80s have yet to produce their health casualties, but the evidence thus far paints a bleak future for many hard-working women in my constituency. We need only ask the women who are fighting past employers for recognition of responsibility for cancer clusters to know that, for many, catching up on their pensions will not be an option. If that level of inequality in working conditions and life expectancy exists within a community the size of Inverclyde, it beggars belief to imagine the differences facing larger communities throughout the United Kingdom.

Let me tell Members about Mrs Angela Hurrell, who lives in my constituency. Angela was born on 26 March 1953. Her retirement plans have changed drastically, as she will not reach pensionable age until 6 March 2016—four weeks before the introduction of the single-tier pension. Angela will now work until she is 62 years and 11 months old, and she will receive the old pension figure of approximately £127 a week. She will be £884 a year worse off than a woman born just 10 days later. For her, it is truly a case of so near, yet so far away.

Let me also highlight the case of Angela’s friend, Mrs Maureen Hamill, who is also a constituent. Maureen is a hard-working self-employed local business woman. She was born on 27 March 1953, and her retirement plans, like Angela’s, have changed drastically. Maureen is on her feet all day and works long hours. She does not have the luxury of reducing her working hours, which means that if she is unable to work, her business closes. Despite all that, Maureen will also be excluded from the single-tier pension. Again, she seems to have been born too early, to be retiring too late and to be £884 a year worse off. We can see a pattern forming: so near, yet so far away. I hope the Minister will agree that that does not sound like the fairer system his Government promised.

Angela and Maureen are no different from the hundreds of thousands of other women from across the country whom I could have mentioned. As with many women close to retirement age, every pound is important to them in these difficult financial times. They are but two examples of ordinary, hard-working women in my constituency who deserve to be treated fairly. They simply ask to receive the same improved pension a man the same age will receive.

The inclusion of the women I have talked about would allow the Government to fulfil one of their goals: a universal new state pension built on fairness and equality. I accept they have improved the Pensions Bill, but if the parameters have been changed once to include thousands of women, why can they not be changed again, so that we can end the inequality for the women I have talked about? I urge the Minister and the Government to think about the examples of Angela and Maureen and about the 700,000 women across the UK who share their circumstances. I hope the Government will reconsider. Let it not be so near, yet so far away for these 700,000 women.

13:12

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

Good afternoon, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) on securing the debate. He took part in the Second Reading debate on the Pensions Bill.

I want to start by addressing some of the factual errors in what the hon. Gentleman said. I believe that he was speaking in good faith, but some of the central arguments he advanced were factually wrong, and it is important to get the facts on the record. He talked of the 700,000 women who were born between 6 April 1951 and 5 April 1953, and I am pretty sure he said that the Government had put their pension age up; in fact, he probably said it several times. However, this Government have not put their pension age up at all—that is a statement of fact. The Pensions Act 1995 began the process of equalising the pension ages of men and women at 65 over the decade from 2010 to 2020. The increase in pension age beyond 60 for these women was therefore legislated for in 1995. It was not a short-notice change, although I accept that some women did not know about it, and not everybody heard about it at the time. Although it was all over the papers at the time, these women were a long way from pension age and probably turned the page when they saw the word “pension”, so I accept that some women did not know about this. However, the idea that these women have had a short-notice change to their pension is completely factually incorrect; they have not, and their pension age was set 18 years ago. It is important to put that on the record.

The Government have indeed changed some pension ages for women who reach pension age after 6 April 2016, and every woman for whom we have increased the state pension age will get the single-tier pension. There are therefore two sets of women: those who will not get the single tier, but whose pension age has not increased beyond that which was legislated for 18 years ago, and those who have had a further increase, but who will get the single tier.

The hon. Gentleman said that we should treat men and women the same, but he will understand that men and women have different state pension ages. Under the previous plans, that would have continued until 2020, and under our plans, it will continue until 2018. If we treated men and women the same in relation to single tier, it would be hard to argue that we should not treat them the same in relation to state pension age. It would be hard to say that men get single tier but have to wait until they are 65, while these women do not get single tier but can get a pension at 63 or earlier. It would be hard to say that these women should have the good bit of the deal—the single tier—but not the bad bit that the men have.

That goes to the nub of the hon. Gentleman’s point about his constituents. I entirely accept that many of them have worked in physically demanding jobs and may therefore have reduced life expectancy. As a result, however, being treated as a woman and getting a pension at 61 is far better than being treated as a man. If, hypothetically, I accepted the hon. Gentleman’s argument, and we said to every one of these 700,000 women, including his constituents, “It’s not fair. You can have men’s rules, not women’s rules,” we would make those women wait up to an extra four years for their pensions. Given everything the hon. Gentleman has said about their likely life expectancy, that would be absolutely perverse. It is dreadful that these women have a reduced life expectancy to the extent that they do, but given that they do, it is far better for them to have the women’s rather than the men’s state pension regime. The comparison with men does not, therefore, help the hon. Gentleman’s case.

The hon. Gentleman compared someone—he gave the example of Angela—who reaches state pension age just before April 2016 with someone who reaches it just after. He came up with a figure of £884, and it took me a while to work out where he got it from. He compares £127, which is the pension of someone such as Angela, with £144, which is the single tier, and he multiplies the difference by 52—I think that is where he gets his number from. However, that is not the right comparison. The reason someone such as Angela gets £127 is that, on average, women get smaller pensions than men, and they have fewer qualifying years and less from the state earnings-related pension scheme. Even if we apply the single-tier rules to someone with Angela’s contribution history, therefore, she would not get £144 on average, because she would get about another £6 a week, not another £17. The hon. Gentleman therefore trebles the difference that the single-tier calculation would make. That is the second thing to say.

The third thing is that there is an issue about people qualifying just before and just after midnight on 5 April 2016. However, in general, the 700,000 women the hon. Gentleman discusses will, on average, draw their pension—yes, it may be £6 a week less—for anything between two and four years longer than a man born on the same day. Indeed, women who reach pension age after April 2016, who he feels are treated favourably relative to the 700,000 he talks about, will have state pension ages of 63, which will soon rise to 64, then to 65 and then to 66 not longer after that. With their slightly younger sisters, I take the point that there is the “minute to midnight, minute after midnight” issue, as there inevitably is with any change, but the next cohort of 700,000 women and the cohort after that will overwhelmingly have to wait many years longer for their pensions. It is therefore quite hard to argue that the 700,000 women the hon. Gentleman is talking about are in some sense uniquely discriminated against, when another 700,000 who are coming down the track will have to wait years longer for their pensions, and when their older sisters had a tougher regime previously. Let me explain what I mean by that.

The 700,000 women the hon. Gentleman is talking about get a full basic state pension for 30 years of contributions or credits, but a woman who reached state pension age just before 6 April 2010 needed 39 years. Constituents who are just a couple of years older than the women he is speaking for might well be aggrieved that their younger sisters, who he feels have had a rough deal, get a pension after 30 years, when they had to do 39 years. He talked about hard-working women in his constituency, but how does the woman who retired on 5 April 2010, after 39 years, feel about the woman who retires on 6 April 2010 and who gets a full pension after 30 years? She might well be very aggrieved.

I happen to think, broadly speaking, that reducing the number of years required was a move in the right direction. We have balanced things up in the single tier. The reduction from 39 years was a good thing, but that was a cliff edge too—much more of a cliff edge than what we are doing in 2016, because that reduction was pure windfall: from 6 April 2010, it was 30 years, not 39, for a full pension, and there was virtually no transition and no difference in state pension age to speak of. If we put the pre-April 2016 women through the new system, on average they get £6 a week more—we think the figure will be about that. However, on average, those 700,000 women are working fewer years than the post-2016 women, because state pension ages have been going up. That seems broadly fair, in my judgment.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the issue of women’s longer working lives, and asked whether that was bad news for the young unemployed. That is an argument that we hear a lot. This country and other countries have tried pensioning off older workers. In the 1980s we had something called the job release scheme, for example, which tried to do that. All that it did was put lots of men in their early 60s on pension, while it did nothing for youth unemployment. On the whole, young unemployed people are not very good substitutes for the recently retired. They do not slot into the vacancies. I appreciate that it could be argued that everyone would move up, but the evidence is that the older worker, on average, is a highly productive, valuable member of the work force. Pensioning off older workers who still make a contribution means that the economy as a whole suffers. The Institute for Fiscal Studies considered schemes for getting rid of older workers and encouraging younger workers in countries across the developed world, and there is no evidence that the younger workers benefit from pensioning off the older ones. If anything, the evidence is that the economy benefits from older workers, and that young people benefit, too.

[Jim Shannon]

I appreciate the Minister’s detailed response, but the idea of someone leaving early and creating a job is that the jobseeker would move into the lower echelons of the job market, and those in the middle rank would move up; it would be a sort of circle.

[Steve Webb]

That is what I meant—I was gesturing, but that will not be in Hansard. It could be argued that the person retires and everyone else moves up a step, and the young unemployed person comes in at the bottom; but what has been lost is the productivity, skills and experience of the older worker. If that worker has not been adding anything to the firm, then fine—get rid of them—but they are. That is the point. On average—not in every case—older workers are, by definition, the most experienced; they are often very productive and less likely to take time off sick than slightly younger people. They contribute a huge amount. The evidence from around the world—not from Government research but from work by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others—is that pensioning them off does not benefit younger workers. There is not a battle between the generations; in many ways they are complementary, because the older, experienced worker can mentor, and use their skills to bring on, younger workers.

[Mr McKenzie]

I thank the Minister for his detailed response, but I cannot help but think that his argument about elderly workers not retiring to release jobs to younger workers implies that employers should hold on to employees as long as possible, even when they are near retirement age and want to retire.

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Gentleman is putting words into my mouth. I am saying that older workers, on average, are very productive. Clearly there comes a point when our productivity declines, as we get much older. We should bear in mind that the 700,000 women who are the subject of the debate are in their early 60s. I think that many of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents would be offended at the suggestion that they are not productive, valuable members of the work force. We do not say that employers should be forced to go on employing them if they want to stop working, but the evidence from the IFS has debunked what has been called the lump of labour fallacy—the idea that there is a lump of labour to be done, and so it is possible to knock out an older worker and slot in a younger one. That neglects the valuable contribution of older workers.

Clearly there is a limit. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the age of 72 or 73, although the statute book takes us only to 68 at the moment, so I am not sure where he got that from.

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I was going to ask the Minister about the lump of labour, which comes down to the argument that there is a fixed amount of labour in the economy. My view is that it is probably much more complicated; will the Minister expand on that a wee bit? Is there a demand issue as well? I take the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about people moving up a rung, but if we assume it is more complicated and stickier than that, there is a demand issue to do with the goods and services that older, wealthier workers are likely to buy.

[Steve Webb]

The very complexity of the issue is the reason for the IFS examining what happens across the developed world. It looked at different sorts of labour markets and different labour supply and demand conditions. Systematically, it found no evidence for the hypothesis that getting rid of older, more experienced, productive workers benefits the young unemployed.

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Steve Webb]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but as this is the debate of the hon. Member for Inverclyde, I will continue to respond to his speech.

The hon. Member for Inverclyde raised the issue of what it would cost to bring the women in, and he suggested some inconsistency in the figures. To make things clear, typically a woman who reaches state pension age will draw a state pension for more than 20 years. There is a profile to the costs, but on average the extra spending would be a couple of hundred million per year; £200 million times 20 is £4 billion, so there is no inconsistency in the numbers. One is an annual figure and one is cumulative. I hope that that clarifies that point.

The hon. Gentleman asked about bringing forward the single tier. Of course, in an ideal world I would do it tomorrow. It is a good reform, and I am grateful for the Opposition’s support for the principle, but there are many things that need to be sorted out before we bring it in. The biggest of those—apart from programming our computers, which I am advised takes a while—is the impact on company pension funds. Having a single pension means there is nothing for people to contract out of. We have two pensions, at least, at the moment. There is a second state pension that big firms’ employees can contract out of. With a single pension, there is nothing to contract out of, so we abolish contracting out.

That means that the biggest pension funds in the land, which are currently contracted out, will contract back into the state pension scheme, and will face an increase in their national insurance costs—because they will lose the rebate—and then will have the option, under our Bill, of re-jigging their company pension scheme to recoup the cost. So, for example, because people will now be getting more from the state, rather than relying on the company scheme, the company might reduce the accrual rate of its scheme, or something like that. To do that, it will need actuarial valuations and will conduct long consultations with its employees.

We are advised by the Confederation of British Industry, the National Association of Pension Funds and others that even doing it in 2016 is tight. They argued at one point that 2017 was tight. Even if it were reasonable to bring the change forward for the reason that the hon. Gentleman has given, I think that 2016 is as soon as we can reasonably do it, not least because the primary legislation, subject to the will of Parliament, will not be through until Easter 2014. Secondary legislation will then be needed on the abolition of contracting out. We will have to consult on that, and it all takes time. I find it frustrating; there is always far more of a lead time on such reforms than one might imagine.

There is one other thing that I want to deal with. It is not a point that the hon. Gentleman made, but it has been made about the group of women in question. People sometimes ask why they cannot just be allowed to choose—perhaps to retire on the current pension, reach single tier, and then choose the better pension, if it would be better. One of the difficulties is that single tier does not cost any more overall. It is not a windfall. We have not found some money down the back of a sofa, which we want to pump into some pensions but not others. It is the same money, but it is being spent better. As a result, there are bits of the system that are less generous, and an example that I can give relates to widows.

Under the current system, when a woman’s husband dies the widow can claim a state pension based on his contributions and, in many cases, get a full basic state pension of £110 a week or so. Under single tier, the claim will be on the basis of someone’s own contributions, so a woman who, for example, opted into single tier because she would get £133 and not £127, but whose husband died the next day, would find she could not claim quite the same combination of widow’s benefits that she could under the old system; or she would not be able to claim the savings credit, whereas her sister, a few years earlier, could, because she was under the old system. I have no idea—I could not advise a woman on 6 April 2016—what it would be best to choose, because I do not know when her husband will die, or whether the savings credit will come into play, not just on the day when she claims but at any point through her whole retirement. We just do not know. If we gave people that choice and they made the wrong one, would we have to opt them back in again? Would we have to advise them? It would create great complexity.

In sum, we believe that the reform is a good, positive one, spending the planned budget in a better way. The women in the age group in question have had no state pension age increase from the Government. What the Government have given them is the triple lock, which means that they will get a bigger pension under our policies than if those of the previous Government had been carried forward.

Question put and agreed to.

13:29

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Written Statements

Tuesday 8 October 2013

Loan to Ireland

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)]

I would like to update the House on the loan to Ireland.

Ireland completed the 10th quarterly review of its International Monetary Fund and European Union programme of financial assistance on 9 May 2013, following which, the utilisation period for the final instalment of the UK bilateral loan began. HM Treasury and Ireland mutually agreed that the utilisation period would conclude on 30 September 2013.

Upon request, the Treasury disbursed the last instalment of £403.37 million on 26 September 2013, with a maturity date of 26 March 2021.

The interest rate charged on the loan is calculated as set out in the loan agreement as the UK’s cost of funds plus a service fee of 18 basis points per annum, creating an effective per annum interest rate on this tranche of the loan of 2.740%. The UK more than covers its cost of funds.

HM Treasury has today provided a further report to Parliament in relation to Irish loans as required under the Loans to Ireland Act 2010. The report relates to the period from 1 April 2013 to 30 September 2013.

A written ministerial statement on the previous statutory report on the loan to Ireland was issued to Parliament on the 25 April 2013, Official Report, column 60WS.

The Treasury will provide a further report to Parliament in relation to the bilateral loan as required under the Loans to Ireland Act 2010 as soon as is practicable following the end of the next reporting period, which ends on 31 March 2014.

The Government believe that it is in our national interest that the Irish economy is successful and its banking system is stable. The Government continue to support Ireland’s efforts to improve its economic situation.

Public Service Pension Reform

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

The interim report of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission (IPSPC) found that current pension structures, combined with fair deal requirements, are a barrier to plurality of public service provision. The Government announced at the spending review 2010 that they would accept the suggestion to review the fair deal policy.

The Government confirmed via a written ministerial statement on 4 July 2012, Official Report, column 53WS, that the overall approach to the fair deal would be retained, but that this would be delivered by offering access to the public service schemes for staff compulsorily transferred out of the public sector. In November 2012 the Government published their response to the consultation which set out their position in more detail.

On publishing the consultation response in November 2012 the Government announced a further consultation to seek views on how the reformed fair deal policy should apply to staff that have already been compulsorily transferred out of the public sector under the old fair deal.

The consultation process has now concluded. When existing contracts are retendered, there will be a presumption that staff covered by the fair deal policy should be offered access to a public service scheme. However, we will provide flexibility for employers to provide a broadly comparable scheme where—but only where—legal requirements are a bar to providing access to a public service scheme. The Government expect that in the vast majority of cases, when a contract is retendered, previously transferred staff will be offered access to a public service pension scheme.

Yesterday I published both the response to the consultation on retendering of existing contracts, and new guidance setting out how the reformed policy will operate. Both documents are available at the link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/further-consultation-on-the-fair-deal-policy.

The Government are grateful to all those who responded to the consultation and assisted with reform. The new approach to fair deal will ensure that staff compulsorily transferred out of the public sector will continue to have access to good quality pensions. It will also achieve better value for money for the taxpayer by reducing the costs and risks to employers associated with the provision of broadly comparable pension schemes, thereby opening public services to greater competition.

I am placing a copy of the consultation response on retendering and the new fair deal guidance in the Libraries of both Houses.

Help to Buy

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

The Government are committed to supporting people who aspire to become homeowners. Since the financial crisis, increased deposit requirements and falling equity values have left many hardworking households unable to get on to the housing ladder or trapped in homes unsuited to their aspirations and needs. This has particularly impacted first-time buyers, who have found it increasingly difficult to purchase their own home.

The Government have today published final scheme rules and a commercial fee for the Help to Buy: mortgage guarantee scheme, which was announced at Budget 2013. The Help to Buy: mortgage guarantee has been designed to increase the availability of high loan to value mortgages to borrowers who are able to afford the monthly repayments but who are unable to save the large deposits required by lenders since the financial crisis.

The publication of the final scheme rules enables lenders to sign up to the scheme three months earlier than planned and start offering mortgages under the scheme. As a result, a number of lenders will begin offering high loan to value mortgages to borrowers. These mortgages will be entered into the scheme in January. In the coming months, the Government expect more lenders to sign up.

The Help to Buy: mortgage guarantee scheme is open to all lenders with permission to enter into regulated mortgage contracts in the UK. The scheme rules set out the eligibility criteria that a lender will need to apply to every loan they wish to place within the scheme. Both new and existing properties are eligible, but in order to be eligible the loan must:

be on a property in the UK;

be on a property with a purchase price of £600,000 or less;

be a residential mortgage, and not buy-to-let;

be a repayment mortgage, not interest only;

be for the buyer’s only property (i.e. it cannot be used for second homes);

not be used as part of a shared equity or ownership scheme;

not be subject to another guarantee (whether provided by the Government or by anyone else).

The scheme rules also contain safeguards to ensure that lending under the scheme is responsible. For each loan, participating lenders will need to demonstrate that the borrower was subject to an affordability test, that the loan will remain affordable if there is a rise in the interest-rate, and that the lender has verified the borrower’s income. For each loan the lender will also need to be able to demonstrate that the borrower was not “credit impaired” (using the definition from the Financial Conduct Authority).

These safeguards on responsible lending are complemented by other features of the scheme which ensure that the taxpayer is protected. If a lender chooses to participate in a given category of lending, they will be required to put all eligible loans that they originate in that category into the scheme. There are nine categories in total, with participation in each LTV band (80-85%, 85-90% and 90-95% LTV) split into three categories depending on whether the lender chooses to participate for loans for new house purchase only, or also for different types of remortgage transaction. This approach, whereby all eligible loans must be put into the scheme, ensures that lenders cannot only use the scheme for their riskiest loans.

The Government have also today published the fee that lenders participating in the scheme in 2014 will pay when purchasing a guarantee. The fee charged to lenders will differ depending on the loan to value of the mortgage. As set out in the scheme outline document published alongside the Budget, the fee has been calculated so that the scheme is self-financing and adheres to European Commission guidance on state aid. The fee therefore contains three elements: administration cost, cost of capital and expected losses. The fee will be reset on an annual basis to take account of any changes in the macro-economic forecast and using data on mortgages already guaranteed under the scheme. Lenders will be given the final fee for the following year three months in advance. The fee levels for 2014, which will be charged as a percentage of the original loan balance, will be:

90 basis points for loans with a loan to value of more than 90% and less than or equal to 95%;

46 basis points for loans with a loan to value of more than 85% and less than or equal to 90%;

28 basis points for loans with a loan to value of at least 80% and less than or equal to 85%.

To ensure the ongoing stability of the UK housing market, the Government have built a role into the scheme for the Financial Policy Committee (FPC). The Chancellor has asked the FPC to work with him every September, starting in 2014, to assess the ongoing impact of the Help to Buy scheme. Following that annual assessment he has proposed that the FPC advise him on whether the key parameters of the scheme—the house price cap and the fee charged to lenders—remain appropriate. At the end of the scheme’s three-year life, if a future Government propose to extend the scheme, the FPC will be asked to give its assessment of the impact of the scheme on financial stability and advise whether it should be continued.

The Government will make available up to £12 billion of guarantees to support the scheme during its three-year life.

Copies of the scheme rules have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

I wish to inform the House of steps that my Department is taking to protect taxpayers’ interests and ensure probity in the spending of public money. As part of the coalition Government’s programme of decentralisation, Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation has been closed and its functions transferred to the local council.

It has come to the Department’s attention that correct procedures were not followed by the corporation, resulting in irregular payments being made during the closure process.

A departmental investigation has identified spending on items including: training for former staff in patchwork, pottery and jewellery-making, the purchase of software and associated training for personal use by a senior executive of the closing body, and payment in lieu of notice when this could have been avoided through timely issuing of notice periods to staff.

The Department considers this to be a serious failing in the chief executive’s responsibilities to safeguard public money, as set out in HM Treasury’s “Managing Public Money”. The Department takes allegations of impropriety very seriously. The Department stripped the chief executive of his designation as accounting officer on 17 October 2012, and commissioned an investigation which has found:

During the winding-up period there had been serious control weaknesses in the corporation leading to irregular payments in lieu of notice because of a failure to issue redundancy notices in good time, and failure to seek and obtain explicit approval for such payments from the Department.

Expenditure on training and the purchase of software incurred in the period from April 2012 to closure was not in accordance with the corporation’s policy and was novel and contentious. Approval should have been sought from the Department to incur this expenditure but this was not done.

The chairman and chief executive set up a company together in May 2012 while still employed by the corporation. The involvement of the chairman and chief executive in the company was not reported in the board’s register of interests and while there were no transactions between the company and the corporation and the company did not trade in the period before the corporation’s closure the failure to disclose the interest was a serious omission.

Ministers regard this as totally unacceptable. The Department is now supporting Thurrock borough council in legal action to recover funds from the former chief executive and director of resources to protect taxpayers’ interests. I hope this sends out a strong signal about our zero tolerance towards wasting public money.

I am placing a copy of the investigation report in the Library of the House.

Conference Recess (Department's Work)

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

I would like to update hon. Members on the main items of business undertaken by my Department since the House rose for conference recess on 13 September.

Supporting shoppers and local shops

We are determined to make the country the best place to start and grow a business. The coalition Government are setting business free from red tape to the tune of over £212 million a year so local traders can generate the kind of enterprise that is vital to our economic growth. Reducing Government interference is improving Britain’s international reputation as a low-regulation, pro-business nation.

We have already stripped back bureaucratic Whitehall planning rules and tackled unpopular parking practices that reduced parking spaces and increased parking charges that hold back the high street. However, there is more to do in order to support local shops and shoppers from disproportionate parking enforcement which forces shoppers to out-of-town superstores or just to shop online.

On 27 September, together with the Secretary of State for Transport, I announced plans to publish details of further reforms, including stopping CCTV being used for on-street parking enforcement and new open data on parking to allow the public to “go compare”. In due course, we will be publishing proposals for consultation on:

updating parking enforcement guidance to support local shops;

tackling wrongly-issued fines;

stopping unacceptable parking fine collection practices;

reviewing unnecessary yellow lines and the scope for residents’ reviews;

reviewing the grace period for parking offences;

clamping down on anti-social driving and encouraging social responsibility;

spreading best practice on supporting town centres and tackling illegal parking; and

analysing the impact of different transport policies on town centre vitality.

On 1 October, my Department outlined changes which will cut red tape which makes it harder for local firms and traders to set up business improvement districts where high streets stretch across council boundaries. Business improvement districts are a tried and tested approach, used in towns and cities across the world, to fund improvements in local trading areas.

The potential for business improvement districts to successfully support town centres growth was outlined by Mary Portas in her review of high streets. There are currently over 150 business improvement districts across the UK working on issues such as town centre safety, improvement of public realm, support for local traders and parking initiatives.

Extending family-friendly tenancies

The private rented market is a vital asset to this country, and plays an important role in providing flexible accommodation for those who do not want to buy, or are saving up for a deposit. Families deserve stability for their children, and all tenants deserve a good and transparent service from their landlords and lettings agents.

On 1 October, I announced a package of measures for longer fixed-term, family-friendly tenancies that will provide tenants with more information to help them request longer tenancies where they want greater stability for their families, avoid hidden fees when renting a home and demand a fair deal from their landlords and letting agents.

A model tenancy agreement, developed with the sector, will clearly set out the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords, and provide the rental market with an industry benchmark for written tenancy agreements.

In addition, a new tenants’ charter will ensure all tenants know what to expect from their tenancy and, if something goes wrong, where to go for help. This will include greater transparency about lettings agents’ fees, helping to stop unreasonable practices and unfair charges.

The charter will work alongside the new compulsory redress schemes for lettings agents, which will be able to investigate agents that have not been clear about fees and, where a complaint is upheld, require compensation is paid to the tenant.

Stopping rip-off repair charges

On 7 October, I announced plans to crack down on councils that sting private leaseholders with huge bills for their share of the “repairs” to the building and communal areas. It is reasonable for those purchasing under right to buy or on the open market to pay their fair share towards maintenance, but they should not be used as a cash cow.

Under the current rules there is no universal mandatory limit to the amount that councils can charge leaseholders for improvement works. While the vast majority of councils have behaved reasonably, Ministers believe a number have abused their position, leaving leaseholders with huge bills which they are unable to pay and feel powerless to resist.

A new consultation paper proposes that councils which get Government funding to help maintain their tenants’ homes should in future only charge leaseholders a maximum of £10,000 over a five-year period for repairs, or £15,000 for those in London.

Backing self-builders

We want to give more people the opportunity to build their own homes and ensure that self-build is not the preserve of the few. The coalition Government have already taken steps to dismantle barriers that hold back self-build projects: limited land availability and reluctance by lenders to provide finance and red tape.

On 17 September, we announced a series of measures to ensure the self-build market is opened up to those on lower incomes. For the first time community self-build and community-led affordable housing projects will be able to apply for a share of £65 million from the affordable homes guarantees programme to build the affordable homes they want in their area.

In addition to this new planning practice guidance has been introduced to ensure councils meet the demand for self-build in their area. This will include compiling a local register of people who want to build their own homes so they can be given first priority when new brownfield sites become available.

New council tax discounts will also be introduced for family annexes, removing an unfair council tax penalty surcharge. Genuine self-builders will be exempted from paying inappropriate section 106 tariffs and the community infrastructure levy, which will cut the cost of self-build by thousands of pounds.

Boosting enterprise and regeneration

Last week, the Prime Minister reinforced his commitment to supporting businesses and ensuring that Britain can continue to attract investment and remain competitive on a world stage. The enterprise zones are part a key of this agenda, and they are already showing progress with over 180 businesses, close to half a billion pounds of private sector investment and nearly 4,000 jobs, and many more in the pipeline.

On 7 October, we announced £100 million of extra funding for enterprise zones to complete infrastructure projects and compete for new businesses. The money will fund projects such as road building and land clearance that will unlock areas previously idle, turning them into prime economic sites that will bring home new businesses and help the local economies grow.

Getting Britain building

The coalition Government’s planning reforms and housing investment is supporting the construction industry to get Britain building the homes the next generation needs, while conserving our countryside.

Figures published on 27 September showed a significant increase in the number of major residential developments being decided upon by councils. In the year ending June 2013, district level planning authorities in England decided 2% more residential decisions and 14% more major residential decisions. This is helping construction firms gain approvals and restart previously stalled developments that have planning permission.

The latest statistics are also backed by figures released in the Home Builders Federation’s latest housing pipeline report that reveal a 49% year-on-year increase in the number of planning approvals for new homes in England in the second quarter of 2013.

Helping communities to shape their future

The Localism Act has given communities unprecedented powers over their lives, neighbourhoods, towns and cities. One year on from their launch, new community rights are being used successfully by communities all across the country; getting involved and taking on local planning issues, providing their own services and protecting treasured local assets. There is now a genuine neighbourhood planning movement occurring with more than 500 communities already using these powers and many hundreds more taking steps to make use of this important new right.

To ensure continued momentum, on 26 September we announced a £7.5 million funding boost enabling councils around the country to claim up to £100,000 a year to help their communities start a neighbourhood plan, with an additional £25,000 for plans that pass a successful examination.

On 19 September, my Department together with the Arts Council England granted five towns across England a share of £400,000 for projects to increase community participation in the arts. These could include getting theatre touring companies to take in those towns, organising for artist residencies locally, making it easier for people to attend or submit works to local arts festivals and making more use of public display spaces.

Improving local government services

Councils have a vital role to play in tackling the deficit left by the last Administration and this Government are clear that councils demonstrating the best in innovation that successfully redesign services will be supported.

The tide of change that began with sharing management teams is now going further to include shared service delivery across council boundaries and many local authorities are charging ahead and leading by example.

As part of the coalition Government’s commitment to high-quality public services my Department confirmed that Bournemouth and Surrey and 16 other winners, to be announced shortly, will share the £9.2 million transformation challenge award. The funding will help them to remain at the cutting edge of service transformation while delivering efficiency savings.

Further support for transformation in the public sector will follow in 2015 with an £100 million award so even more councils can adopt more efficient practices and innovative service deliveries.

On 3 October, my Department announced that 10 leading “enterprising libraries” will receive a share of £450,000 to help local people get started in business. As part of wider action to support local economic growth, enterprising libraries will turn library spaces into incubators for business ideas by provide coaching, advice, meeting spaces, and IT support to people interested in developing a proposal and taking it to the market.

The projects are focused on fostering entrepreneurship by supporting budding business minds in the local community who are interested in becoming self-employed. The funding announced will help more people access the same kind of services across the country.

Offering a fair deal to firefighters

We all hold our brave fire men and women in the highest regard. Despite offering firefighters a fair deal and one of the most generous pension schemes in the public sector, on 24 September the Fire Brigades Union held a four hour strike. All our fire and rescue authorities in England had contingency plans in place and that they proved robust. Should the Fire Brigades Union carry out more industrial action ensuring public safety will continue to be our first priority.

Our fair offer means a firefighter who earns £29,000, and retires after a full career aged 60, will get a £19,000 a year pension, rising to £26,000 with the state pension. An equivalent private pension pot would be worth over half a million pounds and require firefighters to contribute twice as much.

The firefighter pension age of 60 was introduced in 2006 and is in line with the police and armed forces. We have been clear with the Fire Brigades Union that our pension reforms are not introducing a national fitness standard.

Increasing town hall transparency

My Department continues in its drive for more openness and transparency across Government. On 20 September, we updated our plain English guide to openness and transparency on interests to make it clear that personal interests will necessarily include membership of any trade union and so should be registered by councillors.

This clarity will give local people the confidence that their councillors are putting residents’ interests before their own and is an important tool in helping to prevent conflicts of interests when councils are considering issues directly affecting trade unions, such as reviews of taxpayer-funded subsidies given to trade unions.

Flying the flag

England’s historic counties continue to form an important part of our cultural and local identity in this country and many people remain deeply attached to their home county. This sense of pride and shared identity is one of the things that bind communities together.

In the past, it has been known for many parts of Whitehall and municipal officialdom to shun historic counties, many of which date back over a thousand years of English history. My Department is changing that and has been clear that communities should be free to proudly fly their flags without barriers and we are encouraging more local communities to create their own local flags.

Over the recess period we have proudly hoisted the flags of Cumberland and Westmorland above our headquarters. We have also raised a purple flag in recognition of the contribution and excellence of our town centres in establishing and managing thriving, vibrant and safe early evening atmosphere.

I am placing copies of the associated press notices and documents in the Library of the House.

Director of Service Prosecutions

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

Under section 364 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 the Director of Service Prosecutions is appointed by Her Majesty the Queen. The term of the current incumbent, Bruce Houlder QC, comes to an end on 30 November.

I can inform the House that Her Majesty has appointed Andrew Cayley QC to succeed Mr Houlder as Director of Service Prosecutions. Mr Cayley is a former British Army officer who was until recently the International Co-prosecutor of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal in Cambodia, nominated by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

I should also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mr Houlder. As the first Director of Service Prosecutions he faced the significant and challenging task of creating a single organisation—the Service Prosecuting Authority (SPA)—from the three single-service prosecuting authorities. Mr Houlder, a highly respected member of the Bar, has demonstrated, through his commitment and professionalism, that the decisions to establish an independent tri-service prosecuting authority and to appoint a civilian to lead it were the right ones. Under his leadership, the SPA has become securely established as a respected independent prosecution service, underpinning the operational effectiveness of the armed forces, and instilling continued confidence in the service justice system. As he hands over his responsibilities to Mr Cayley, I would like to express my personal gratitude for the important contribution he has made, including his agreement to stay in post for some extra months to ensure a smooth handover to his successor.

“Scotland Analysis: Defence”

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

The UK Government have today published the sixth paper in its Scotland analysis programme, “Scotland analysis: Defence”. This series of publications is designed to inform the debate on Scotland’s future within the United Kingdom ahead of next year’s referendum.

The “Scotland analysis: Defence” paper analyses the UK’s approach to defence and the potential consequences of Scottish independence. From a defence perspective, the arguments for Scotland remaining in the UK are extremely strong. As part of the UK, Scotland benefits from a very high level of security and protection provided through the UK’s integrated defence capabilities and network of international defence alliances and relationships, as well as from the opportunities for industry available through the UK’s single, domestic defence market. An independent Scottish state could not come close to replicating these benefits.

Scotland benefits from the full range of UK defence capabilities and activities. These defend UK airspace, patrol the surrounding seas and help to protect everyone in the UK against both natural and man-made threats. Scotland also benefits from the UK’s extensive defence engagement overseas to project influence and help to safeguard and establish peace and security in countries affected by conflict or instability, maintain competitive advantage and tackle security threats before they reach the UK.

In the event of a vote for independence, an independent Scottish state would lose the benefits of one of the largest defence budgets in the world and of an integrated approach to defence that currently protects all parts of the UK, while offering significant economies of scale, as well as contributing to conflict prevention and resolution, and to humanitarian operations overseas. The start-up costs and complexity of establishing separate defence capabilities for an independent Scottish state would be very significant, and would need to be factored into the Scottish Government’s budget estimates.

The UK’s defence is rooted in a strong network of international alliances and relationships, underpinned by the reputation and effectiveness of the UK armed forces, which means the UK is able to exercise significant global influence to advance its security and prosperity objectives.

In a globalised world, an independent Scottish state would have to start from scratch, as a new and much smaller state, in forming alliances, building relationships and forging its reputation. It would cease to enjoy the influence that derives from the UK’s established status as a key player within the international system, and the opportunities this offers to advance the UK’s security and prosperity objectives.

The substantial defence industrial footprint in Scotland benefits from UK defence contracts, in particular the shipbuilding industry. The scale of UK defence helps to sustain defence industry in the UK and its success in the exports market. The sustainability of the defence industry in an independent Scottish state could be a cause for considerable concern, as it would no longer be eligible for contracts that the continuing UK chose to place or compete domestically for national security reasons, and would lose the support to exports provided by the UK’s extensive international defence engagement and the reputational benefits of affiliation with the UK’s armed forces in the highly competitive global market.

Future papers from the Scotland analysis programme will be published over the course of 2013 and 2014 to ensure that people in Scotland have access to the facts and information ahead of the referendum.

Children and Families Bill

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

I am proposing an amendment to the Children and Families Bill that will make significant changes to the legislation regarding young carers. This is in line with the commitment made on Commons report by my colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) to look at how the legislation for young carers could be improved. This amendment will be considered during the House of Lords Committee stage of the Children and Families Bill.

Improving outcomes for carers is a priority for this Government as we said in 2010 when we published “Recognised, valued and supported: next steps for the carers strategy”. We are clear that effective whole family approaches to assessment are essential to improving support for adults and young carers alike. My Department has been working with voluntary sector partners for several years to encourage local services to adopt “whole family” approaches to supporting young carers and their families. In that time we have funded and shared some excellent good practice examples and delivered numerous workshops and seminars. While we have seen plenty of appetite for working in this way and some changes to the way local services are designed and delivered, change has been slow. Meanwhile, data from the national census show us that the number of young carers is rising.

Recent evidence from the Children’s Society’s Hidden from View report indicates that young carers are no more likely to be in contact with support agencies than their peers. Carers trust found that the majority of those that are identified as young carers still do not get an assessment of their needs or access to the support they and their families need. The consequences can be serious and long lasting. Hidden from View also found that young carers achieve on average nine grades lower than their peers at GCSE which can have consequences for their long-term economic prospects and life choices.

It is clear therefore that we need to do more to support young carers. With the Care Bill also under consideration by Parliament, this is an ideal opportunity to ensure that young carers get equal consideration and protection. That is not to say that they should be treated the same as adult carers. We are committed to ensuring that young people are protected from excessive or inappropriate caring responsibilities. The best way to achieve that is to ensure that the person being cared for, whether that is an adult or a child, is assessed and has all their eligible needs met first. To do this effectively requires local services working together across the statutory and voluntary sectors to consider the whole family’s needs. Edward Timpson has worked and will continue to work closely with the Minister of State, Department of Health, the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) who is responsible for care and support to ensure that that our respective pieces of legislation and associated guidance work together to deliver support to the whole family.

Both Departments have worked closely with interested parties over the summer, including the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, the Association of Directors of Adult Services, the National Young Carers Coalition, the Local Government Association, practitioners and young carers themselves. Our proposals reflect these discussions. We have also identified key principles to consider in the drafting of regulations and statutory guidance about a whole family approach to assessment of adults under the Care Bill. Draft regulations and guidance will be published for consultation in the spring.

Through this amendment to the Children and Families Bill we believe we have arrived at a solution that will deliver four things: it will consolidate and simplify the legislation relating to young carers’ assessments, making rights and duties clearer to both young people and practitioners; the right to an assessment of needs for support will be extended to all young carers under the age of 18 regardless of who they care for, what type of care they provide or how often they provide it; make it clear to local authorities that they must carry out an assessment of a young carer’s needs for support on request or on the appearance of need, and provide the appropriate links between children’s and adults’ legislation to enable local authorities to align the assessment of a young carer with an assessment of an adult they care for.

This amendment will work with provisions in the Care Bill that also support the combining of assessments, and the forthcoming regulations on a whole family approach to assessing and supporting adults. Together they will provide a clear legislative framework that will support local authorities to consider the needs of the whole family, deliver co-ordinated packages of support and protect children and young people from excessive or inappropriate caring roles.

Smart Meters

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)]

I am pleased to announce that four companies have signed contracts to establish and operate the Data and Communications Company (DCC) providing the shared infrastructure needed for energy suppliers to roll out 53 million electricity and gas smart meters by 2020. This represents a significant milestone in the roll out of smart meters in Great Britain.

Smart meters offer a range of intelligent functions. They will provide consumers near real-time information on their energy use in pounds and pence, as well as accurate bills to help them better manage their energy use. The roll out will support investment and growth, offering significant net benefits to the GB economy.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change has been leading and co-ordinating the work of a wide range of parties to develop the policy, regulatory and commercial platform to roll out smart meters, through the smart meters implementation programme.

Within this programme, DECC has conducted competitions on behalf of industry to establish and operate the Data and Communications Company. The Department announced the award decisions in principle on Wednesday 14 August, subject to the completion of contracts. This process has successfully concluded as described below.

DCC Licence

Capita plc has been awarded the DCC licence. The DCC licensee will manage the smart metering service on behalf of its users and will contract with, and manage, the data and communications service providers. The estimated value of the licence over 12 years is approximately £175 million. The DCC licensee will be regulated by Ofgem.

Data Service Provider contract

CGI IT UK Ltd has signed a contract with Capita plc as the data service provider. CGI will develop and operate the system controlling the movement of messages to and from smart meters. The estimated value of this contract over eight years is approximately £75 million.

Communications Service Provider contract for the North region

Arqiva Ltd has agreed a contract with Capita plc as communications service provider for the north region (north of England and Scotland) and will provide wide area communications to and from the smart meters. The estimated value of this contract over 15 years is approximately £625 million.

Communications Service Provider contracts for the Centre and South

Telefónica UK Ltd has agreed a contract with Capita plc as the communications service provider for the centre (midlands, East Anglia and Wales) and south (south of England) regions. The estimated value for these two contracts over 15 years is approximately £1.5 billion.

The smart energy code will be administered on behalf of its parties by the smart energy code administrator and secretariat. Gemserv Ltd has been awarded a contract to perform this role valued at approximately £10 million over four years.

I am grateful to all bidders for their participation in these competitions and for the high quality of responses received. At the same time it is important that we acknowledge that this marks the beginning of a new set of challenges. To realise the important benefits for consumers, these companies must now build and test their systems and work closely with energy suppliers (and other service users like network operators) to support the smart meter roll out. This will require ongoing commitment from industry, from Government and from the Data and Communications Company.

More information on the DCC’s role in the smart metering system can be found on the Government’s website

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-smart-metering-system-leaflet.

Coal Authority

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)]

I am today announcing the start of the triennial review of the Coal Authority. Triennial reviews are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that non-departmental public bodies continue to have regular independent challenge.

In line with the standard practice of such reviews, we will consider the authority in two stages. The review will first examine whether there is a continuing need for Coal Authority’s functions and its form, and whether it should continue to exist at arm’s length from Government.

Should the review conclude there is a continuing need for the body, it will then go on to examine whether the body’s control and governance arrangements continue to meet the recognised principles of good corporate governance.

I will announce the findings of the review by the spring of next year.

Westgate Shopping Centre: Terrorist Attack

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Written Statements

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

I would like to inform the House about the Government’s response following the terrorist attack on the Westgate shopping centre in the Westlands area of Nairobi between 21 and 24 September. In doing so, I wish to repeat our message of profound sympathy to the Kenyan Government and the Kenyan people affected by this incident. I also, once again, express our condolences to the families and friends of the British citizens, and other nationals, killed in the attack. As the Prime Minister said on 22 September this was

“”an absolutely sickening and despicable attack of appalling brutality”.

Within hours of the terrorist attack unfolding on Saturday 21 September, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office activated its 24-hour crisis response centre. Travel advice, including details of the FCO emergency helpline number, was issued on 21 September advising UK nationals to avoid the area around the Westgate shopping centre. Also on 21 September, the Prime Minister spoke to the Kenyan Government to express the condolences of the British people and to offer any assistance we could provide.

Six British nationals were killed in the attack and three were injured and hospitalised. We were in touch with the next of kin and provided consular support and assistance to the families. A rapid deployment team was sent to Nairobi on 21 September to support the work of our High Commission in providing assistance to British nationals. Extra assistance measures, designed to provide additional support and assistance to British nationals in crisis situations, were activated. We have also been liaising closely with other Governments with affected citizens to share information on the situation and our response.

In response to a Kenyan request, the UK was able to provide assistance at the scene in the identification of bodies and the collection of forensic evidence. Other UK support has included the provision of rations and medical supplies to the Aga Khan hospital where many of the wounded victims were taken. We have continued to work closely with the Kenyan authorities and other international experts in providing expert support for the Kenyan-led operations.

The UK-Kenya partnership is strong and wide. We work together on many shared goals. The UK and Kenya have a mutual interest in tackling terrorist threats. In line with the UK’s overall approach to addressing terrorism overseas, we are committed to helping Kenya strengthen its capacity to investigate, prosecute and detain terrorists in line with international human rights obligations. Our support also extends to helping Kenya strengthen its borders and counter security threats that emanate from across its international borders. In recent years, this has included capacity building, training and the provision of specialised equipment. We will continue to discuss opportunities for co-operation with the Kenyan Government.

Science and Technology Committee

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health, Earl Howe, has made the following written ministerial statement:

I would like to inform the House, together with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts), that the Government response to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee Inquiry into Regenerative Medicine, Cm 8713, was laid before Parliament on 1 October.

The Government welcome the Committee’s report and agree with many of its helpful findings and recommendations.

The Government remain committed to the field of regenerative medicine and we recognise the significant role that regenerative medicine has in delivering the next generation of healthcare, providing possible treatments or cures for areas of unmet medical need. Regenerative medicine is recognised as one of the UK’s eight great technologies, given its huge opportunities for technological advance and the economic benefits we believe it can bring to the UK economy.

Following the recommendations of the report we are setting up a regenerative medicine expert group to develop an NHS regenerative medicine delivery readiness strategy and action plan. This group will draw and build on existing initiatives outlined in the response to ensure the NHS is fully prepared to deliver the innovative treatments that regenerative medicine offers. In addition, this group will monitor the effect that regulation has on the progress of regenerative medicines in the UK,

“Government Response to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee Inquiry into Regenerative Medicine” is available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office. It is also available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regenerative-medicine-inquiry-government-response.

Personal Health Budgets

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

In October 2011, the Government announced that people receiving NHS continuing health care (NHS CHC) would have the “right to ask” for a personal health budget (PHB), including a direct payment, subject to the results of the PHB pilot programme. This commitment was confirmed in November 2012, following the publication of the independent evaluation of the pilot programme.

This “right to ask” for a PHB will be enshrined in secondary legislation and will take effect in April 2014. These amendments make it clear that clinical commissioning groups will need to develop the capacity and capability to deliver PHBs, as it imposes an obligation to give serious consideration to requests for PHBs. The “right to ask” for a PHB is not the same though as an automatic entitlement to a PHB. There will be some people for whom a PHB is not appropriate because, for example, their existing package of care is the best way of managing their needs.

I am today announcing to the House that the position is to be strengthened for those groups who gain the “right to ask” for a PHB in April 2014, as from October 2014 this group will further be given the “right to have” a PHB. A “right to have” will guarantee that people in receipt of NHS CHC and those transitioning in from social care or children’s services will have continuity of care in the services they receive. Those already on NHS CHC will be able to continue to access the services they are familiar with as they will be in control of how their budget is spent and have the confidence to exercise choice. Similarly, those who are new to NHS CHC, those who transition in from social care budgets or those who transition from children’s services will be able to continue to access the services they are accustomed to without the fear that this power to choose will be taken away from them when they move to a new package of care. There will continue to be people for whom PHBs are not appropriate but by giving a “right to have” we will ensure that they will only be declined on clinical or financial grounds which are deemed to make a PHB unviable.

I believe that this policy will ensure stability and continuity for those who need it most and go further towards our goal of providing greater personalisation within our NHS.

Registered Travellers

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

On 24 September 2013, Border Force launched a registered traveller scheme. Registered traveller will be beneficial to high value, regular travellers to the UK and have a positive impact on economic growth.

Individuals from Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the United States of America who have travelled to the UK four or more times as a short-term visitor in a preceding 52-week period will be able to apply to join registered traveller online at a dedicated website. Applications will be initially restricted to those registered on the iris recognition immigration system (IRIS) scheme, which has been in place since 2005 and will be fully decommissioned later this year.

Successful applicants will submit information contained in their passport to allow Border Force to undertake background checks prior to their next arrival in the UK, when, if their application is accepted, they will be able to enrol on the scheme. Once enrolled on the scheme, users will be able to access expedited clearance processes at the border. The scheme will initially be in operation at Heathrow and Gatwick airports before being rolled out to other ports in due course.

The period between now and April 2014 has been designated as a proof of concept phase for registered traveller. It is currently intended for registered traveller to operate on a permanent basis from 1 April 2014. The Home Office also intends for there to be an annual charge for the scheme from this point.

I have made an arrangement under paragraph 1 (d) of schedule 23 to the Equality Act 2010 to enable Border Force to process selected individuals from Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the United States of America as “registered travellers”. This arrangement came into force on 24 September 2013 and will allow the scheme to operate on a sound legal basis.

The arrangement is made under the nationality exception contained in the Equality Act 2010. The nationalities covered by the arrangement will be reviewed by the Home Office on a regular basis.

I am placing a copy of the arrangement in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

Serious and Organised Crime Strategy

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Written Statements

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

On 7 October, I published a new cross-Government strategy for tackling serious and organised crime. Its publication coincides with the formal establishment of the new National Crime Agency (NCA).

Organised crime is a threat to our national security. It includes drugs trafficking, human trafficking, and organised illegal immigration, high-value fraud and other financial crimes, counterfeiting, organised acquisitive crimes and cyber crime. It costs the United Kingdom at least £24 billion each year. Crime groups intimidate and corrupt and can have a corrosive impact on our communities. Cyber crime undermines confidence in our communications technology and online economy. Organised immigration crime threatens the security of our borders. We regard human trafficking as a pernicious form of modern slavery. Financial crime may undermine the integrity and stability of our financial markets and institutions. Overseas, organised crime undermines good governance and the stability of countries of strategic importance to our national security. Organised crime groups can facilitate or engage in terrorism.

The aim of the strategy is to substantially reduce the level of serious and organised crime affecting the UK and its interests. It marks the biggest change in our approach to tackling this national security threat for a decade.

This new strategy uses the framework we have developed for our counter-terrorism work. The immediate priority is to prosecute and continuously disrupt organised criminals and reduce the threat they pose (“pursue”). This includes the formation of the NCA as a powerful new body of operational crime fighters. The agency will hold the single authoritative intelligence picture of the threat to the UK from serious and organised crime and it will have cutting edge capabilities. It will work closely with the police and others, and have a mandate to lead and co-ordinate the national response. We will also ensure that new local partnership boards bring all available powers to bear against organised crime; there is more capability in regional organised crime units; there are new powers to attack organised crime, criminal assets and modern slavery; there is more enforcement action against foreign national criminals and our international network deals with all forms of serious and organised crime, including child sexual exploitation and cyber crime.

We will create a new programme to stop people beginning or continuing to engage in serious and organised crime (“prevent”). This will include raising awareness of the reality of serious and organised crime through new education and communications programmes; using existing intervention programmes (such as for gangs and troubled families) to prevent people from being drawn into different types of organised crime and more aggressive use of legal interventions such as serious crime prevention orders. And at the same time, we will better manage the threat from lifetime career criminals through an effective approach to tracking them into and out of prison.

We will increase protection against serious and organised crime (“protect”). This will include further strengthening our borders—including through the work of the NCA—and ensuring that there is better information sharing with the private sector about the threats we face. We want to see better collaboration between law enforcement and local authorities to contain the risk of organised crime benefitting from local authority procurement and the public to be better informed. And we are proposing a range of new measures to improve, more broadly, our anti-corruption response. We will also ensure that we have more robust contingency planning arrangements in place, and that we support people most affected by serious and organised crime (“prepare”).

Serious and organised crime requires a response across the whole of Government (national and local), the police and our law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies, and close collaboration with the private sector and with many other countries. The public has a part to play. The new strategy sets the framework, and unifying direction, for this response. It sets clear and coherent strategic objectives. It will bring the full power of the state to bear against serious and organised crime.

Copies of the strategy are available in the Vote Office.

Parliamentary Written Answer (Correction)

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

I regret to inform the House that a written answer I gave on 2 September 2013, Official Report, column 218W, to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) was incorrect. The hon. Member asked the Secretary of State for Justice how many offenders released on licence following a life sentence have committed (a) homicide and (b) other offences in each of the last two years. The response originally stated that there were four murders committed by four offenders. In fact, there were five murders committed by four offenders. All four offenders are now serving whole life tariffs.

The corrected answer is as follows:

Data on life sentence prisoners who commit offences of homicide are taken from the NOMS Public Protection Unit Database.

The most recent figures were published in July 2012 and may be found at the following web address:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/163377/2012-compendium-reoffending-stats-analysis.pdf.pdf

In the last two years there were five murders committed by four offenders on life licence, two in one year and three in the other. To provide some context, there are around 1,900 life sentence prisoners on supervision in the community at any one time.

Data on offenders released on life licences who have committed offences other than murder are not held centrally in a readily accessible format for the last two years. To obtain these data would exceed cost limits.

However, there are also data from published proven reoffending statistics for England and Wales for life sentenced prisoners. These statistics are published on a quarterly basis and the latest bulletin, which was published on 26 April 2013 on the Ministry of Justice website, is available at the following address:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2

Trusts (Capital and Income) Act 2013

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

In a written ministerial statement of 14 March 2013, Official Report, column 27WS, my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) announced that she had made the Trusts (Capital and Income) Act 2013 (Commencement No. l) Order 2013. This order brought the following provisions of the Trusts (Capital and Income) Act 2013 into force on the dates specified: (a) sections 1 to 3 (inclusive) on 1 October 2013; and (b) for the purpose only of exercising the power to make regulations in accordance with section 104B of the Charities Act 2011 as inserted by that provision, section 4 on 6 April 2013.

My hon. Friend also said in the same statement that she would make a further announcement about the commencement of the remainder of section 4, which specifies when and how charities may adopt total return investment, following the completion of a consultation by the Charity Commission on the content of the regulations to be made under the new section 104B.

The Charity Commission has now completed the consultation and intends to bring the regulations into force on 1 January 2014. The Trusts (Capital and Income) Act 2013 (Commencement No.2) Order 2013 has therefore been made, which will bring section 4 fully in force on 1 January 2014.

As a result of the making of this order the whole of the Trusts (Capital and Income) Act 2013 will be in force from and including 1 January 2014.

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I am today announcing a review of the way in which the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) delivers services to its customers. This includes services to motorists, businesses, the police, the courts, local authorities and others.

We are committed to delivering better quality and better value motoring services to the public, business and other interested parties. In line with the objectives we set out in the Department for Transport’s motoring services strategy last year, we will undertake a review of the DVLA commencing this month. The review will focus on the DVLA’s current operation, services and change portfolio and make recommendations for a future business strategy which will enable digital service transformation and a step change in efficiency, while supporting economic growth and meeting statutory obligations. I am placing a copy of the terms of reference in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Department’s website.

Mary Reilly, a non-executive director of the Department for Transport, will lead the three-month review before submitting a report to Ministers outlining formal recommendations for transformation within the DVLA. We will then consider those recommendations fully before making any decisions and any further announcements.

House of Lords

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Tuesday, 8 October 2013.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Introduction: Lord Horam

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Lords Chamber

14:39

John Rhodes Horam, Esquire, having been created Baron Horam, of Grimsargh in the County of Lancashire, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Boswell of Aynho and Baroness Browning, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Introduction: Baroness Grender

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Lords Chamber

14:45

Rosalind Mary Grender, MBE, having been created Baroness Grender, of Kingston upon Thames in the London Borough of Kingston upon Thames, was introduced and made the solemn affirmation, supported by Baroness Thomas of Winchester and Baroness Parminter, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Lord Judge took the oath.

Message from the Queen

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Lords Chamber

14:49

[The Lord Chamberlain (Earl Peel) (CB)]

My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:

“I thank you most sincerely for your loyal and dutiful address and congratulations on the occasion of the birth of my great grandson. The Duke of Edinburgh and I are greatly touched by the good wishes which you have expressed towards my family”.

Message from His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Lords Chamber

14:51

[The Lord Chamberlain (Earl Peel) (CB)]

My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, signed by his own hand. The message is as follows:

“The Duchess of Cambridge and I thank you most sincerely for your loyal congratulations on the occasion of the birth of our son. We are greatly touched by your good wishes”.

Death of a Member: Lord Hayhoe

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Announcement

14:52

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)]

My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, on 7 September. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.

Transport: Road Building

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

14:52

Asked by

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what forecasts for road traffic they used in setting their current road building programme.

[Lord Popat (Con)]

My Lords, in July this year the Government published Investing in Britain’s Future and Action for Roads, which set out a package of investment and reforms for the strategic road network. This work drew on the Department for Transport’s 2013 national traffic forecasts, published alongside, to inform strategy for the network. However, the identification and selection of individual highway schemes for the national programme is based on local forecasts and National Trip End Model data, which feed into scheme appraisals.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for the reply, but is he aware—he probably is—that the development of accurate transport forecasts for traffic has not been achieved in the past 20 years? In fact, if 1990 forecasts had been met today, we would have 50% more traffic than we do. Therefore, what is the point of building more brand-new roads when existing ones are in such an awful state, when we could have more investment in buses, cycling and walking, and might even be able to fill in some of the potholes that cyclists regularly fall into?

[Lord Popat]

My Lords, the department produces forecasts on a regular basis. Modelling is rarely, if ever, perfect, as we are predicting the future. However, we are confident that the forecasts are broadly in line with the traffic pattern. We are investing in existing roads. It is vital that Britain has an infrastructure system fit for the global race, which will involve investing in new as well as existing roads, including filling in those potholes. The department has investigated whether traffic has reached its peak and has concluded that it has not: nor is it likely to in the near future. The forecast is for total road traffic to rise by about 43% over the next 30 years.

[Lord Mawhinney (Con)]

My Lords, is it part of the active government policy on roads that motorists should wait for more than half an hour to cross the Black Cat roundabout where the A1 joins the A421? If it is not part of their active roads policy, when are the Government going to take some action to reduce that inordinate delay?

[Lord Popat]

My Lords, since coming into office in 2010 the Government have completed a number of major road schemes and brought forward 26 new major schemes, so we are taking all the action necessary to repair and maintain our existing roads as well as filling in those potholes mentioned earlier by the noble Lord.

[Lord Bradshaw (LD)]

Although the point about potholes is academic, the structure of our highways network is deteriorating very rapidly. Would it not be better to concentrate our money on putting the existing roads in proper order and then dealing with some of the worst pinch points to which the previous speaker referred?

[Lord Popat]

My Lords, that is exactly what the department is doing. The Government have made £800 million available for local councils to fill potholes and maintain and repair local roads so that we can see the traffic flow and avoid the congestion that we normally see in the mornings.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord in his enhanced responsibility for transport. I hope that he enjoys Question Time as much as his predecessor the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, obviously did. However, perhaps I may emphasise that he has got off to a rather weak start, as the roads programme on which he has commented is slipping drastically. The completion dates of more than half the major schemes that the Government have announced since the general election have slipped by more than a year. Why is the money not being spent, as several noble Lords have already emphasised, on successful maintenance of our existing road network? It is quite clear that the roads are a danger to many users, particularly cyclists, and also to cars when they hit potholes. We need attention and resources given to road maintenance.

[Lord Popat]

My Lords, the Government are committing to the biggest programme of investment in roads since 1970. We will triple annual investment in major road schemes by 2020. Since coming into office we have completed eight major road schemes, brought forward 26 new major schemes to start during this Parliament and invested £300 million in 123 pinch-point projects on the national network. There is a lot happening and a lot of funding has been made available to make sure that our road infrastructure is well maintained.

[Lord Glentoran (Con)]

My Lords, are the noble Lord and his department aware that the most expensive way of maintaining and repairing roads is to go round filling in potholes? That is well understood by most of the professionals in the industry and I hope that, one day, the department will catch on.

[Lord Popat]

I agree with the noble Lord that it is expensive to fill potholes. However, it is important that we do it.

[Lord Sugar (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister advise whether there could be some common-sense co-ordination between the various utility companies—gas, water, electricity and telecoms—to ensure that when they dig up the road they all get in there and do what they have to do? I have constantly experienced the road being dug up, sealed off and then dug up again by a different utility company. Surely common sense should prevail.

[Lord Popat]

I agree with the noble Lord. It is a nuisance that roads are dug up quite often and there is a huge traffic hold-up. I will certainly take this matter to the department to see what further action we can take to make sure that we minimise the traffic congestion.

Syria

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

14:59

Asked by

[Lord Dykes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the prospects for a United Nations-led settlement in Syria supported by the European Union, the United States, Russia and China.

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)]

My Lords, in September, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution which endorsed the Geneva communiqué and called on all Syrian parties to engage seriously at the future Geneva II conference. We pushed for, and agreed with other permanent UN Security Council members to aim for, a mid-November start date for the Geneva II process. The UK will work tirelessly with its allies and the Syrian opposition to support the process and the intensive preparation that is being led by the UN special representative, Lakhdar Brahimi.

[Lord Dykes (LD)]

Was my noble friend the Minister not pleased that, for the first time for a long time, the UN Security Council came together with western countries, supporting the suggestions made by other leading members of the UNSC, to reach a collective peaceful settlement promoting the idea of peace, as well as inspections, in the tragic Syrian conflict? With that background now, is she optimistic that that will be built on, avoiding the mistakes made by the UNSC elite in the past, particularly with one member doing excessive vetoes since 1967 about the Middle East? Can we make sure that there will be a genuine move to peace when Geneva II starts? Also, what is the likely date for that conference?

[Baroness Warsi]

I was, of course, pleased, as were the Government, to see progress on the first resolution that has been adopted on Syria in 17 months at the Security Council. Resolution 2118 requires a full implementation of the decision of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. It sets out that Syria’s chemical weapons must be effectively eliminated within the first half of 2014—but, of course, I agree with my noble friend that the political track will run alongside that. At this moment, the P5 has agreed that that meeting is likely to take place in mid-November.

[The Lord Bishop of Oxford]

It is well known that to have a peace process that works all the relevant parties must be gathered together, not just the moderates. Can the Minister assure us that, at Geneva II, the more extreme nations will be involved, including Iran, Saudi Arabia and so on, as well as the opposition groups, both internal and external? Will they all be there?

[Baroness Warsi]

The right reverend Prelate may be aware that the Geneva communiqué was for the first time adapted and supported by the UN Security Council as part of this resolution. That effectively means that the opposition and the regime have committed to being part of the Geneva II process. Which other states are part of that process depends very much on what they would be prepared to endorse, and whether they would be prepared to agree to the Geneva communiqué. At this stage, Iran has not done that.

[Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House who the Government expect to be the single representative of the Syrian opposition at Geneva II, given the deep divide between the so-called Syrian national coalition and the increasing number of jihadist groups that are said to include at least 10,000 foreign fighters, including, sadly, some from this country?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord is right that the make-up of the opposition is incredibly complex. We have been working with the national coalition, which has now been recognised as the voice for the opposition by a large number of member states—most of our allies, including most of the Arab world and the Arab League. Therefore, it is the national coalition that we are working with and which we expect will represent the opposition at the Geneva II process.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, in view of the developments since this House and the House of Commons last met, would the Minister reflect that perhaps the House of Commons and many in the House of Lords displayed a degree of wisdom that may have been greater than the Government thought at that time? In view of that, will the Minister assure us that there will be no preconditions from the British Government to any talks about a future settlement, particularly when we bear in mind that, however awful the devil we know in Syria, there are a number of devils around that may ultimately be even worse, both locally and of a strategic nature?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord raises an important point but I need to be clear on this issue. There are two parts to what has been discussed over recent months, on the political track. The Government have always been clear that the matter will be resolved politically, but the specific incident relating to chemical weapons and on which the will of Parliament was listened to was a separate situation. Noble Lords would accept and agree that the Assad regime’s now voluntary destruction of deadly weapons in the form of chemical weapons is an important step that has vindicated the threat of military action by the United States. We would not be in this position if the Assad regime did not anticipate that some military action would be taken.

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, the position, as I understand it, of Her Majesty’s Government, the American Administration and our ally, Turkey, has been from the start that any settlement would involve the removal of Mr Assad as President. Given the UNSC decision, does the noble Baroness accept that if he proceeds to dismantle chemical weapons and thus obey the one institution that the UN Security Council has agreed, it may be difficult to sustain that position?

[Baroness Warsi]

The Geneva communiqué clearly says that there should be a transition Government with full executive powers, which, among other things, will reflect the will of the majority of people in Syria. It is not for us to set those preconditions but we cannot anticipate a situation in which Assad remaining would be conducive to a settlement that would be acceptable to the people of Syria.

[Lord Triesman (Lab)]

My Lords, I think probably all of us welcome the Answer that has been given and the progress that has been made. However, the House will need to understand the process to be followed at the United Nations Security Council rather more clearly. What instructions have been given to our ambassador at the United Nations, what milestones have been set and how will any progress, or indeed the lack of it, be reported to this House?

[Baroness Warsi]

Security Council Resolution 2118 sets out the timeframe within which the destruction of chemical weapons will take place. Indeed, teams are already on the ground in Damascus and a number of weapons, including armed warheads, have been destroyed, the detail of which I was reading only this morning, so the work has started. The noble Lord will be aware that there is a sense that if that timeframe is not followed, consequences could follow. I will, of course, keep the House updated on this matter, as I have done, and am more than happy to take questions or update the House as and when is necessary.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, while the international effort to attain chemical weapon eradication is on the way, is the noble Baroness satisfied with the development of humanitarian help provided to Syrian refugees? In particular, is she deeply concerned about the continuous reports of women being raped in some of the refugee camps? What is her analysis of that?

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, I am incredibly proud of this Government’s record of pledging and providing humanitarian support in this crisis. We are the second largest donor and are now taking our donations up to half a billion pounds. Not only have we given ourselves, we have encouraged the rest of the world to give. It is because of the work of this Government, led by my right honourable friend the International Development Secretary, that a further £1 billion was pledged during the United Nations General Assembly meeting. In relation to specific work around women, the noble Baroness will be aware of the very personal initiative that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has driven on preventing sexual violence in conflict. It is exactly in situations such as this where that kind of work is so essential to send out a very clear message that there will be no impunity for these horrendous crimes.

Tourism

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:08

Asked by

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the importance of tourism to the United Kingdom economy.

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, tourism makes a major contribution to the economy in all parts of the United Kingdom. In 2011, tourism directly contributed £53 billion to the economy and employed 2.7 million people in full or part-time jobs. The Government place great importance on this industry as part of their strategy for growth. That is why we are investing more than £130 million, matched between the public and private sectors, in the GREAT and other marketing campaigns.

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

My Lords, the reality is that successive Governments have treated tourism as a Cinderella industry. If you look at the rates of air passenger duty and VAT, we are internationally uncompetitive. On visa requirements, France gets six times the number of Chinese visitors that we do. Tourism was not mentioned in the manifestos of any of the parties at the previous election. As a result of the reshuffle, we are now on our ninth tourism Minister in 10 years. Is my noble friend aware that 33 tourism bodies have today come together to form the campaign for tourism to argue that tourism should be much higher up the political agenda, and that they have written to the party leaders and are determined that tourism will be supported to enable it to fulfil its true potential?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am, indeed, aware of the campaign and its letters to the party leaders and other interested groups. I have read its letter, which a wide range of organisations has signed. I am sure I shall have nothing to do with the writing of any of the party manifestos, but I encourage the writers and all of us to think very strongly about that important sector, tourism.

[Baroness Billingham (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that Members are aware that we have at our disposal, at virtually no cost, an opportunity to increase tourism by at least 10% by introducing a daylight saving scheme in this country. We have tried this—noble Lords groan, but it is even more important now with our economy as it is and given the fact that we have an Olympic legacy, on which it was said that we would produce a new sporting generation. Daylight saving would enable young and older people to partake in sport outside for much longer, it would be much better for all of us and there would be a saving in energy. It is something that I hope the Minister will take back and use his persuasive powers to have reintroduced.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I thank the noble Baroness for her observations on daylight saving, which has come before your Lordships before. I think it is fair to say that everyone has sought a consensus across all parts of the United Kingdom. This has always been a problem, particularly for our friends in the northern part of the kingdom. That has been the worry and it is traditionally why we have felt that there should be a consensus. I am also particularly struck by the successes of sports tourism, and of course we very much look forward to the Tour de France in Yorkshire next year.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

Will the Minister agree that London is an extremely important part of the tourism industry and will he therefore pay attention to the point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, about the appalling level of roadworks in London, which makes it extremely difficult for tourists to get around, increases pollution and is extremely unsightly? Will he consult the Mayor of London about doing something to ease this problem? We were promised before the Olympics that once the Olympics were out of the way everything would be much better. Will he please talk to the mayor about this?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I would, of course, be delighted to speak to colleagues. We all suffer from the inconveniences of roadworks. Obviously, they are intended to improve the passage of us all once they have been achieved, but I understand entirely the point that my noble friend has made.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that the arts play an incredibly important role in tourism, and the arts are very much under threat at the moment, as he knows. However, given that the BBC, in the form of the promenade concerts, is a boilerplate for tourism in this country, perhaps this is a good moment to welcome the return to Reithian ethics—education, entertainment and information—as stated by the new director-general this morning, with more emphasis on the arts in future. Will he welcome that?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I certainly welcome what the noble Lord has said about the importance of the arts, not only to the domestic market but to many visitors from abroad. Museums and galleries are already doing a lot of work, as part of their China Ready programme, preparing for speakers of Mandarin and making sure that guides are in Chinese. So there is a lot going on in the arts sector.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

In relation to tourism and sports, I am sure that the Government will be aware of the fact that tomorrow at Buckingham Palace the Queen’s baton relay for the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games begins its trail round all the countries of the Commonwealth and back to Glasgow next summer. Will the Minister not only congratulate those involved in reaching this important juncture but commit the UK Government to supporting the Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council in making the most of that event next summer for tourism for Scotland and the whole of the UK?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I could not endorse more strongly what the noble Lord has said. Not only will Buckingham Palace be a great venue for that but the venue for football yesterday shows that royal palaces get involved too, which is excellent. I think that all your Lordships would want to strongly support the success of the Commonwealth Games. They speak not only for the Commonwealth but for the sporting traditions of all those countries. I certainly wish the Games extremely well.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that with events such as the Rugby League World Cup, which is occurring this month, we have a golden opportunity to bring all these supporting bodies together in a coherent structure? If we cannot learn from the Olympics how to get the best out of something, we really are in a very sad state.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My noble friend again is correct. Tourism and sport help so much with dialogue between nations. Not only is that the case with rugby league but in 2015 VisitEngland will be actively supporting the organisers of the Rugby World Cup. Across the piece, many sports are very important to tourism.

Syria: Humanitarian Assistance

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:16

Asked by

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they propose to take with fellow European Union member states to establish evacuation, reconnection and resettlement programmes, in the light of the humanitarian situation in Syria.

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)]

My Lords, the UK is leading international efforts to alleviate human suffering in Syria. Our total for humanitarian funding for Syria is now £0.5 billion—the largest total sum that the UK has ever committed to a single crisis. We have no plans to resettle or provide temporary protections to Syrians within the UK; however, we support the EU plan to establish a regional development and protection programme that ensures that support is given to the neighbouring countries that need additional help.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House in welcoming the support given to those who have suffered so much—2.1 million of them refugees, including 1 million children—in Syria. What is happening with those held up at Calais who until now have been refused admission to the United Kingdom? As this problem cannot be dealt with on an individual national basis, will the Minister make sure that we have the utmost co-operation with others in the European Union in tackling these sorts of crises, possibly even a continuous element in preparation for crises that will occur, so that the European nations can act together as one?

[Baroness Warsi]

My noble friend is right; the Syrian people have suffered terribly in the current crisis and millions have been displaced, both internally and externally. It is for that reason that the United Kingdom takes its convention obligations to refugees and asylum seekers incredibly seriously. But my noble friend will be aware that France is also obliged under the same convention obligations. France is a safe country and we would expect asylum seekers to make their applications there.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House what aid is being given directly to Jordan, which is a country with little energy, scarce water and few natural resources, but which has extended extraordinary humanitarian aid to those fleeing from the violence in Syria? Jordan has been a good friend to this country in many ways and many of us would hope that Her Majesty’s Government are supporting the efforts of the Jordanian Government to give the support that is so needed.

[Baroness Warsi]

We take our obligations to all the regional countries incredibly seriously and, indeed, as far as Jordan is concerned, the latest figure is that we have provided £87 million in aid. Jordan has about 500,000 refugees at the moment—about 25% of the people who have been externally displaced. That support is in the form of humanitarian assistance and support, but also support to the Jordanians to cope with the wider infrastructure challenges that are being posed by such a large influx of people arriving.

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, I endorse the question just asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons; will the Government give particular attention to the plight of Jordan? It has already absorbed 550,000 refugees and is preparing for a future influx. While our Government have been particularly generous towards Jordan, will they spend some time stirring up some of our European colleagues, such as France, who have been much, much less generous?

[Baroness Warsi]

I completely take the point that my noble friend makes but we understand that the biggest percentage of refugees are currently in Lebanon. It was for that reason that at the UN General Assembly meeting, the P5 Foreign Ministers created a new international support group for Lebanon. It may be that we will continue to monitor the refugee situation and to respond accordingly. However, I assure noble Lords that we are incredibly aware and responsive to the pressures that have been placed on the region because of this crisis.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

On UNHCR figures, there is an alarming underfunding crisis. For example, 53% of the US$1 billion in the 2013 regional response plan for Syrian refugees remains unfunded and 72% of the US$249 million in the 2013 IDP response budget remains underfunded. Clearly, the British Government have responded well. Other countries have not. What are we doing to urge the laggards to respond adequately to the situation, including naming and shaming?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord makes an incredibly important point. For that reason, not only have we given ourselves but we have encouraged other countries to give and to pledge, and then to make good their pledges. That is why during the G20 at St Petersburg, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister started this campaign. It was led across the world by our embassies. At the UN General Assembly in New York, a further US$1 billion was pledged. However, the appeal is still short. It is an ever increasing appeal because the situation continues to get worse. I assure noble Lords that we are doing our fair share in giving and that we are punching above our weight in asking others to give.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I may say how grateful many of us are to the generosity of the Government and their far-sightedness on the Syrian issue. I have a much more immediate question. As the discussion and the investigation of chemical weapons continues in Syria, the inspectors are moving into more and more dangerous territory, which is controlled by the opposition in its many forms. Will the Minister tell us whether there is any discussion between Her Majesty’s Government and this country’s allies about ways to provide protection, which means essentially using highly experienced military people, for the inspectors as they proceed with their work? We cannot ask them to lay down their lives because of what we are asking them to do.

[Baroness Warsi]

The inspectors are working in incredibly dangerous circumstances. My noble friend raises an important point. The United Nations Security Council resolution has required Syria to co-operate. Of course, there are situations where opposition forces hold that territory and, therefore, inspectors potentially could be working in areas which are not controlled by the regime. This is a long process which will take possibly until the middle of next year to complete. It has started and we will keep it under review. The fact that all parties to the negotiations are saying that they will co-operate with this sets a good first standard.

Care Bill

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

15:22

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 39, Schedule 1, Clauses 40 to 43, Schedule 2, Clauses 44 to 70, Schedule 3, Clause 71, Schedule 4, Clauses 72 to 86, Schedule 5, Clauses 87 to 94, Schedule 6, Clauses 95 to 99, Schedule 7, Clauses 100 to 103, Schedule 8, Clauses 104 to 116.

Motion agreed.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Committee (1st Day)

15:23

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed.

Clause 4: Ring-fencing of certain activities

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Blackwell]

1: Clause 4, page 8, line 47, at end insert—
“( ) In determining the “specified extent” in subsection (5)(d), the regulator shall have due regard to proportionality where the ring-fenced activities constitute a large majority of the group’s overall activities.”

[Lord Blackwell (Con)]

My Lords, since I was unable to speak at Second Reading, I should take this opportunity to declare my interests at the start of Committee stage. I am a non-executive director of Lloyds Banking Group and chairman of Scottish Widows group.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, I would be most grateful if colleagues could leave the Chamber quietly, particularly because my noble friend is taking the proper course of declaring an interest which must be correctly entered in Hansard.

[Lord Blackwell]

My Lords, before moving on to the amendment, and as I did not speak at Second Reading, I want to make it clear that I strongly support the principles of the Bill, and the principle of ring fencing in particular. My amendment is to deal with some of the practical issues of making that work in the financial institutions. The amendment deals with the situation where a financial services group that is primarily operating ring-fenced activities retains a small set of activities that may fall outside the ring-fence.

The consequence of the legislation as it stands is that where a group is primarily operating ring-fenced activities but retains some non-ring-fenced activities which may be excluded activities, it would be required to have a separate board for the ring-fenced subsidiary and a separate set of directors operating in it—that is, separate from the group board.

I can understand why having separate boards for a ring-fenced subsidiary may be seen as desirable where the group contains a large non-ring-fenced activity in investment banking or wholesale market activities in order to police the separation between the ring-fenced and the non-ring-fenced activities. The provisions of ring-fencing under the Bill should of course deal with that situation by specifying the amount of capital and requirements for security in the ring-fenced activity and its resolution, preventing the flow of dividends controlling the financing relationships between the ring-fenced activity in the group, but I can also understand that having an independent board for the ring-fenced activity where there are other significant activities in the group provides an added level of security to deal with potential conflicts of interest.

However, where the non-ring-fenced activities are of a very minor nature compared with those within the ring-fenced bank, it could potentially lead to a situation where the group board with responsibility to shareholders and to the public has virtually no control over the activities of the ring-fenced activity, despite the fact that the vast majority of the assets and capital are within the ring-fenced subsidiary. That would be a nonsensical situation. It would be poor governance and it would be difficult to operate such a group board in that situation.

The type of activities that I am talking about are those where the ring-fenced bank may feel that to serve its customers effectively it needs to retain some element of activities outside the ring-fence not engaging those as a principal part of its business but as part of achieving a proper level of service to its customers.

The amendment would explore that situation where the non-ring-fenced activities are a fairly minor part of the group. There are two ways in which this could be resolved in a common-sense way. The first way would be for the regulator to exercise discretion under new Section 142D to the FSMA to allow a small volume of otherwise excluded activities to be carried out within the ring-fence so long as the regulator is satisfied that including those activities within the ring-fenced subsidiary did not put at risk the solvency or ability to resolve the ring-fenced activities if there were situations that used the capital applied to the non-ring- fenced activities. So one solution would be to allow the ring-fenced bank to extend its activities. Of course, the regulator would also need to be assured in that situation that allowing the ring-fenced bank to operate those activities would not distort competition with non-ring-fenced banks operating in those markets without the ability to operate within the ring-fence.

The second way of resolving this, if the regulator does not feel that it can include those excluded activities within the ring-fenced subsidiary, would be for the regulator to use its discretion under new Section 142H(5)(d) to waive the requirement for separate board membership of the group and its subsidiary, again where the regulator is convinced that in so doing it does not put at risk the ability to resolve the ring-fenced bank where there was a threat to its solvency.

The amendment is probing in nature. The legislation as I have described it allows the regulator to exercise discretion, but I invite the Minister to provide clarity that where the legislation says that the separation of the boards should be “to a specified extent”, the regulator would have the freedom and indeed the expectation that it should exercise that discretion with due respect for the proportionality of the activities within the ring-fence and any activities that there may be within the group outside the ring-fence. That seems to me to be a common-sense solution. I beg to move.

15:31

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the Committee, I, too, would like to participate in these proceedings although, like my noble friend, I was prevented from participating in the Second Reading debate. I strongly support the amendment put forward by my noble friend for the reasons that he has explained very well. I do not think that I can improve on his excellent explanation, but your Lordships should consider that governance would not be improved if there is a situation where the holding company has a completely different membership from the boards of the ring-fenced subsidiaries, and that applies most strongly in the case where the excluded activities comprise only a small part of the activities of the group as a whole. But even in the case where a relatively greater amount of excluded activities are carried out within the group, if the board of the holding company with responsibility to shareholders comprises completely different people from the board of the principal operating subsidiaries, does that provide for effective governance? I therefore would like to hear from the Minister something more about what “to a specified extent” means in new Section 142H(5)(d).

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton) (Con)]

My Lords, I will consider both Amendments 1 and 2, and I will talk first about Amendment 1, which has been proposed by my noble friend Lord Blackwell. I have much sympathy with the intention behind this amendment and I hope that I can provide some of the comfort that my noble friend seeks. Independent governance is of course key to the integrity of the ring fence to ensure that ring-fenced banks do not simply operate in the interests of their group’s investment bank, in this example, or indeed other parts of the bank, but it is important that any governance requirements are proportionate to the threat to the ring-fence. Where a ring-fenced bank makes up the great majority of a group’s business and the investment bank is therefore small, so the risk of the ring-fenced bank being dominated by the interests of the investment bank is also small.

The Independent Commission on Banking recommended that where the vast majority of a group’s assets were in the ring-fenced bank, requirements for independent governance should be relaxed. The Government accepted that recommendation, and in our June 2012 White Paper we supported,

“flexibility in governance arrangements where a ring-fenced bank represents the overwhelming majority of a group’s business”.

Under the Bill, the precise details of ring-fenced bank governance arrangements, along with other ring-fencing rules, are for the regulator to determine. The Bill sets the objectives that rules must achieve; the regulator then decides what exact structures or restrictions are needed to achieve those objectives. This is appropriate because of the highly technical nature of the issue, and in order to allow requirements to keep pace with developments in a fast-moving market. Rule-making will, of course, require the regulator to exercise its judgment, and proportionality will be central to how it does so. In particular, the regulator will be obliged to consider the costs and benefits of any rules it proposes to make, including ring-fencing rules.

In the case of ring-fencing and governance rules, the Bill also specifically gives the regulator flexibility to consider the proportionality of different requirements. The Bill requires the regulator to ensure “as far as reasonably practicable” that a ring-fenced bank is able to take decisions independently of the rest of its group.

The formulation “as far as reasonably practicable” specifically anticipates circumstances in which certain governance requirements might be impractical or have costs that are disproportionate to their benefits. The case where a ring-fenced bank constitutes the overwhelming majority of a group’s business may be one such circumstance. I hope the noble Lord can therefore feel reassured that the intention of his amendment is already reflected in the Bill. I therefore call upon the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Government Amendment 2 corrects a minor and technical point in connection with new Section 142H, which imposes an obligation on the appropriate regulator to make certain rules requiring that a ring-fenced bank be independent of other members of its group. The clause as currently drafted defines the appropriate regulator only in relation to ring-fenced bodies. However, as new Section 142H also imposes an obligation on the appropriate regulator to make rules applying to authorised persons who are members of a ring-fenced body’s group, but are not themselves ring-fenced bodies, the appropriate regulator needs to be defined in relation to all authorised persons, not just ring-fenced bodies. This is corrected by this amendment, and I commend it to the House.

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder whether, in his assessment of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, the Minister might take into account the fact that it was exactly this sort of procedure that led to the steady erosion of Glass-Steagall over the years. There was a tendency continuously to say, “Well, if we have a particular subsidiary, then perhaps we don’t need to have the separation in this smaller subsidiary”. These steady erosions built up over the years, until by the early part of this century, before its repeal, the effectiveness of Glass-Steagall had been completely eroded. Perhaps the Government should take that into account. There is also the point that, if the investment banking services required by a ring-fenced bank are relatively small, they could, of course, always be purchased from another provider.

Finally, the Minister mentioned that the precise definition of the rules of extent and so on will be defined by the regulators and in secondary legislation. I wonder whether it would be appropriate at this moment to take into account the latest report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which has expressed considerable concern about the scrutiny of secondary legislation that will follow from new Sections 142A, 142B and so forth as we are discussing in this particular context. Are the Government likely to accept the enhanced scrutiny proposed by that committee with respect to these particular sections?

[Lord Blackwell]

I am grateful for my noble friend’s comments on Amendment 1 and for his explanation that the flexibility allowed for in this Bill will be flexibility that the regulator will be expected to interpret. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, but clearly the regulator’s role will be to ensure that creep does not occur on the way and that the protection of the ring-fenced bank is the requirement as set out in this legislation. Therefore, with those assurances from my noble friend, I am pleased to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Deighton]

With respect to the specific question, we have not had the chance to review the delegated powers yet, but of course we will in formulating where we go from here.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

2: Clause 4, page 9, leave out lines 7 to 9 and insert—
“(a) in relation to a PRA-authorised person, the PRA,(b) in relation to any other authorised person, the FCA.”

Amendment 2 agreed.

Amendment 3

Moved by

[Lord Turnbull]

3: Clause 4, page 9, leave out lines 26 to 39 and insert—
“Reviews142J Reviews of ring-fencing
(1) The Treasury must make arrangements for the carrying out of reviews of the effects of the operation of the provision made by or under this Part in relation to ring-fenced bodies, including ring-fencing rules made by the PRA and the FCA and any rules made by the PRA and the FCA under section 192JA (rules applying to parent undertakings of ring-fenced bodies).
(2) The first review must be completed before the end of the period of 4 years beginning with the date on which section 4 of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, so far as it inserts this section, comes into force.
(3) Subsequent reviews must be completed before the end of the period of 5 years beginning with the date on which the previous review was completed.
(4) Not less than 9 months, nor more than 12 months, before the date on which a review is due to be completed, the PRA and the FCA must publish a joint assessment of the impact of the operation of their ring-fencing rules.
(5) For the purposes of this section, a review is completed when the report of it is published.
142JA Persons by whom reviews are to be conducted
(1) The Treasury shall appoint not fewer than 5 persons to conduct a review of whom one is to chair it.
(2) A person may not be appointed to chair a review unless the chairman of the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons has notified the Treasury that, in the chairman’s opinion, the person is likely to act independently of the Treasury, the PRA and the FCA in carrying out the review.
(3) The persons appointed to conduct a review must include at least one person with substantial experience in central banking or financial regulation at a senior level.
(4) The reference in subsection (2) to the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons—
(a) if the name of that Committee is changed, is to be treated as a reference to that Committee by its new name, and(b) if the functions of that Committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee of the House of Commons, is to be treated as a reference to the Committee by which the functions are exercisable;and any question arising under paragraph (a) or (b) is to be and any question arising under paragraph (a) or (b) is to be determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.142JB Reports of review
(1) The persons appointed to conduct a review must give the Treasury a report of the review.
(2) The report must include an assessment of the extent to which the provision made by or under this Part in relation to ring-fenced bodies, including ring-fencing rules made by the PRA and by the FCA, are facilitating the advancement by the PRA of the objective in section 2B(3)(c) and by the FCA of the continuity objective.
(3) If the report is made before section 4 of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, so far as it inserts section 142JD, has come into force it must also include a recommendation as to whether or not section 4 of that Act should be brought into force to that extent.
(4) The report must include—
(a) recommendations to the Treasury as to the provision that should be included in orders and regulations under this Part, and(b) recommendations to the PRA and FCA about the provision that should be included in ring-fencing rules.(5) The Treasury must lay a copy of the report before Parliament and publish it in such manner as it thinks fit.”

[Lord Turnbull (CB)]

I shall speak also to Amendments 10, 14 and 116 in the group. I also express my regret that I was unable to take part in debate on Second Reading. All these amendments relate to the so-called first reserve power, under which a ring-fenced bank group which fails to respect the principles of ring-fencing can be required to divest itself of the non-ring-fenced assets.

First, I must congratulate the Minister on surviving the reshuffle, despite the fact that his tenure is rapidly approaching the average for a junior Minister in the Treasury. More importantly, I must record my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on her promotion to Minister of State. She has been an excellent colleague to all of us on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards; she will be sorely missed in our deliberations.

Let me say a few words of introduction. It was always inherent in the timetable of the parliamentary standards work and the timetable of the Bill that many of the clauses to implement our recommendations would need to be introduced in the Lords after completion of the Commons work, but we have certainly ended up with more than we bargained for, with total amendments running at 116 pages and government amendments accounting for 95 pages of that: more than three times the length of the original Bill. That tells us something about the process of legislation. We are dealing with amendments to amendments to amendments which are in turn amending statutes that have already been amended more than once.

The Government’s response to the parliamentary commission’s report stated:

“We today set out plans to implement the major recommendations of Changing banking for good”.

The reality, however, is somewhat different. There are recommendations that HMG have faithfully embraced and provided proposals to implement them. There are also recommendations where the Government say that they accept them but the provisions in the Bill dilute them to the point where they may be ineffective or where they say that legislation is not required: I am sure that we will hear that plea quite often. There is also a long list of recommendations which the Government have rejected or simply ignored: recommendations on leverage, proprietary trading, special measures, a new regulatory decisions committee for banking, the strategic objective of the FCA, and so on. Of course, in Committee and at Report, I and my colleagues on the parliamentary commission will seek to work constructively with the Government to bring us closer to our recommendations so that we succeed in achieving the purpose of the title of the report, which was Changing Banking for Good.

We are locked into this unsatisfactory legislative process, and we will therefore need a degree of flexibility. In debate on a previous financial services Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, sought and secured some relaxation of the constraints on speaking at Report. I would certainly support him if he seeks similar dispensation this time.

I turn specifically to ring-fencing, which is the subject of the amendments in this group and the background to it. There was a vigorous debate within the commission on whether to endorse the ring-fencing plan of the independent commission, the Vickers commission. By the time we started work, the Government had effectively told us that they were minded to accept it. Alternatively, should we continue to press the case for full separation of investment banking activities from commercial and retail banking, in effect adopting a UK version of Glass-Steagall, which the US had operated for many years but which was eroded and finally abandoned? The arguments for this were, first, that investment banking activities are inherently riskier and so imperilled the continuity of regular commercial banking and, secondly, that there was cultural contamination in that there were attitudes to risk and remuneration which were alien to good customer-focused banking.

15:49

The arguments put against this were that there was no clear mapping of the banks that failed against the divide proposed. Some universal banks, such as HSBC and JP Morgan, survived the financial crash better than specialist investment banks, such as Lehmans, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch, while some of the most dramatic failures in the UK—HBOS and Northern Rock—conducted very little investment banking. Their failure was attributable simply to bad lending, particularly in retail and commercial property. We also saw signs of poor behaviour and culture across the whole banking spectrum and it was argued that rather than being a source of risk, an investment bank could also be a source of reinforcement.

In the end, we largely endorsed the ICB proposal but felt that if we adopted the ring-fencing regime, we needed to protect it. This became known colloquially as electrification and was rooted in a belief that banks are limitlessly ingenious and remorseless lobbyists, so some safeguards should be put in place. We agreed to this subject to five conditions. First, the ring-fenced bank should have a substantial degree of independence from the group, subject to the caveats raised today by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell. Secondly, the directors of the ring-fenced bank should have an additional duty to observe the principles of ring-fencing and preserve the stability of that bank. Thirdly, we sought to reduce cultural contamination by tightening up on banking remuneration, with more remuneration being deferred and for longer and the possibility that previously paid benefits could be clawed back—and, in the event of failure and state rescue, reclaimed. Fourthly, there should be a power to require an individual bank that was abusing the ring-fence regime to dispose of its non-ring-fenced assets. Finally, after a review the Government could decide to change the scheme and require full separation across the whole sector.

In the proposals before us, I would say that we have secured about two-thirds or 70% of the conditions that the commission was looking for. The Bill provides a first reserve power to deal with individual banks and provides for the desired governance of the ring-fenced bank. The Government accept the principles on remuneration but are still arguing about whether those should have statutory force. After what I would describe as a stumble in the Commons, the Government have also come round to introducing a workable process for dealing with individual banks which are misbehaving. The scheme as originally proposed in the Commons might be called “Five strikes and you might be out in six years’ time”. That new amendment is Amendment 6, which we naturally welcome, and there is also agreement on the kind of behaviours that should trigger separation under new Section 142K. So where do the issues remain?

It is agreed that there should be a periodic review after four or five years; there is an opposition amendment suggesting a shorter period. This scheme is highly innovative and very important. We are ahead of a similar scheme that gets to the same place in a slightly different way and goes under the name of the Liikanen proposals, so it is absolutely right that provision is made to review it.

In the view of the commission, though, the review should be conducted not by the PRA alone but independently, as in proposed new Section 142JA, and it should be required to report on its recommendations, as in proposed new Section 142JB. We have also suggested that where a bank is issued with a preliminary notice, there should be a further independent review of its relations with the regulator. This is to create a safeguard against the regulator getting into a relationship where it is picking on a particular bank. That is in Amendment 10.

In the scheme proposed by the commission, these sanctions could be enforced only after a general review had taken place, but in the Government’s scheme they could be undertaken at any time. So there is quite a lot at issue to resolve between the Government, the Opposition and the survivors of the commission, but I believe that we can achieve reconciliation before we get to Report. The final question, about the differences on the second reserve powers, will come later in the afternoon as it is further down the Order Paper.

Amendment 4 (to Amendment 3)

Moved by

[Lord Eatwell]

4: Clause 4, line 11, leave out first “4” and insert “2”

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

My Lords, I am in total agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, has said about the importance of the reviews of this process. We have to realise that we really are breaking new ground here. In a way, this is a leap in the dark and we have no idea whether it will work. Obviously a lot of effort has gone into trying to ensure that it will work, but it is such a novel innovation that we really cannot be sure whether it will, or indeed whether it will have a whole series of unintended consequences.

Accordingly, I feel that it is very important that the process be kept under virtually continuous review. The amendment in the name of myself and my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe seeks to ensure that the first review and subsequent reviews take place within relatively short time periods of up to two years. The reason for that is that it is only five years ago, almost to the day, that Lehman Brothers collapsed, and let us think what has happened since then. If we were to retain the four-year limit, that would cover almost that whole period, with all the remarkable devastating changes that have occurred.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, in his proposed new Section 142JA, that such a virtually standing group should act as an independent arbiter and assessor of these matters. It certainly should not be, as in the Government’s proposal, the PRA inspecting itself. That does not seem to be a very satisfactory structure at all. It is not appropriate in terms of giving confidence in the reviews, and it is not fair to the PRA. The PRA should be able to stand up and do its job, and then accept that it will then be scrutinised by the sort of independent group proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull. My amendment would simply ensure that that group had a virtually standing role in assessing these major changes to ensure that, once we have taken this leap in the dark, we land on firm ground. On Amendment 5, I shall simply reiterate the arguments that I have just made. I beg to move.

[Lord Blackwell]

My Lords, I must express some reservations about the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull. It is not that I do not understand the significance of having continuous and effective review of these ring-fencing procedures, but it seems to me that we have set up, with a lot of time in this House and the other place, a regulator that has learnt in that legislation and its constitution and objectives many of the lessons of the past, and we have entrusted that regulator with maintaining the stability of the financial sector and enforcing this legislation, if the Bill is passed. I think there is a danger in seeking to replace the regulation of an industry by an independent regulator with what might be in danger of turning into regulation by parliamentary committee. Parliamentary committees have many virtues and values, but they cannot engage dispassionately in the same evaluation of detailed analysis and commercial information that a regulator can, and they are more likely to be swayed by current opinions of the day. I pay tribute to the work of the commission on which the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, and other noble Lords sat, which did an excellent job. I worry about the possibility of moving away from regulation by independent regulators, which are deliberately made independent of the Executive, towards regulation by parliamentary committees.

[Lord Turnbull]

The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, referred to the fact that this might become a parliamentary committee. I think it is very clear that this would not be a parliamentary committee. The person who chairs it should,

“act independently of the Treasury, the PRA and the FCA”.

It would be much more like the Vickers commission.

[Lord Blackwell]

I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. I was responding to the fact that the amendment suggests that the chair should be approved by the chairman of the Treasury Select Committee. That would certainly alleviate some of my concerns. Nevertheless, the main point is that if we have an independent regulator, we should trust that regulator to do the job we have asked it to do. That does not prevent Parliament, or any Select Committee of Parliament, conducting its own reviews at any time it wishes, or appointing other reviewers if the circumstances require it.

I must just add that my concerns on that would be even greater if this was required to happen at two-yearly intervals, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, rather than at five-yearly intervals, because the task of the regulator with a permanent body looking over its shoulder would then become almost untenable.

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

My Lords, I had the opportunity of speaking at Second Reading, which seems rather unusual. I pointed out then, and I remain of the view, that the way that the Bill is drafted, with so much reference to a previous Act, makes it extremely difficult for the House to work out what is happening from moment to moment on an unbelievably complex matter. Having said that, the briefs that have been provided by the Treasury on individual amendments and so on are extremely helpful and do something to ameliorate the problem that I have just mentioned.

It seems to me that we are going very much into uncharted waters here. There is a lot of doubt about ring-fencing, its effectiveness and whether it is a sensible way of proceeding at all. I continue in the view that total separation is a better way of going with it. Certainly, since ring-fencing may cause problems, the case for having a review of it is overwhelming.

With regard to the specific way in which this amendment is drafted, the noble Lord who moved it pointed out that the suggestion is that the people who are appointed to the reviewing body should require the endorsement, effectively, of the Treasury Committee. I think I served as chairman of the Treasury Committee for longer than anyone else has ever served, and I welcome the fact that it is playing an increasing role in these affairs. It also seems to me that the development that has been adopted lately, of saying that it requires a degree of endorsement by the Treasury Committee, is good.

It certainly would be wrong—I think that my noble friend Lord Blackwell has misunderstood the position—to start saying that the review should be carried out by the Treasury Committee. It has, after all, an awful lot of work on its plate anyway. However, having said that, we certainly ought to have this amendment or some variation on it, simply because of the difficulties that the ring-fence system as now proposed is likely to create, assuming that we go ahead with it.

16:00

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, this must be the first time in parliamentary history for the amendments to a Bill to be more than three times the length of the Bill itself. Moreover, as others have said, the complexity of both the Bill and the amendments is quite barbaric. I must admit that when I put all the papers on my dining room table to try to make head or tail of them, they occupied 10 feet of space, including all the so-called explanatory documents. Having said that, I thank my noble friend Lord Deighton, who has at least listened to what was said at Second Reading. He has an open mind, which has undoubtedly led to the introduction of a lot of the measures in the amendments that we are now debating in Committee.

I thoroughly support Amendment 3, largely for the same reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. We are groping around in an extraordinarily complex area of life and it is abundantly sensible to have these reviews—not just of ring-fencing but a series of reviews—to see how we are coming along and whether the suppositions we are making in the course of this legislation prove to be correct. I disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Tunnicliffe. We need to give time for these new arrangements to bed down and show their paces. Frankly, in each case, four and five years are likely to be better than two years.

I will make a few quick points on the way in which Amendment 3 is put together. We will have an opportunity at the next stage to make changes to what is currently before us. A review panel formed of five persons is unnecessarily large. You might well get by better with three or even two people, so more thought is needed on that. I also note that there is a requirement that the PRA and the FCA carry out their independent reviews but that they publish a joint outcome. Proposed new Section 142J(4) says that they,

“must publish a joint assessment of the impact of the operation of their ring-fencing rules”.

However, they may not agree. You have at least to allow, in this terminology, that that may be the case. You cannot force consensus upon these two august bodies.

The other point is in relation to the appointment of the chair and the endorsement of the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons. It requires that the person appointed,

“is likely to act independently of the Treasury, the PRA and the FCA”.

We should provide that the person is likely to act independently, full stop. It is not only required that they are independent of those three bodies; general independence is required, and so I suggest that those words be excluded.

Finally, proposed new Section 142JA(3) states:

“The persons appointed to conduct a review must include at least one person with substantial experience”.

That is one person out of five. If we are to stick with five people—and I suggest fewer, or at least the prospect of fewer—it is not enough to have only one with experience of all this. This is an extremely complex area of life—there is no area more complex—and experience on the part of more than one person on this panel of reviewers is essential.

That was not quite my final point; I have another quick comment. Proposed new Section 142JB(4) states:

“The report must include … recommendations to the Treasury as to the provision that should be included in orders and regulations”.

It is not inconceivable that there may be no recommendations. Indeed, it is very conceivable that there may be more than one. Therefore the language of proposed new subsection (4) needs amending. I will leave it at that, but I commend the noble Lords who tabled the amendment in this group.

[Lord Desai (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading; I was out of the country. I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Eatwell. As many noble Lords said, ring-fencing will be a new experience. However, given what happened in the banking industry, and the damage it caused, we have to start the process with extreme care and great suspicion. Given time, I know that the banks will innovate ways of avoiding ring-fencing; that is the nature of the market in innovation. Therefore, before anything further happens, we ought to have early scrutiny of ring-fencing arrangements, as proposed by my noble friend. Later, if we wish, we may do the next review after four or five years, but the initial reviews must be done as early as possible and as toughly as possible, because if we are kind to the banking sector and it does the same thing again, the public will never forgive us.

[Lord Deighton]

My Lords, there have been a number of comments on the length and complexity of the Bill. I am not here to apologise for the Bill, but I know that my officials in the Treasury have worked extraordinarily hard to try to make sense of it and to deliver comprehensive briefs as quickly as the timetable allowed. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will bear with us as we work our way through this complex process.

At the heart of this group of amendments is the question of the nature of the review and what it is trying to accomplish. The critical point that I want to clarify is that under the Bill the PRA will review the workings of the ring-fence: how well the rules achieve the ring-fence’s objectives and how far the banks are complying. The PRA is not being asked to judge whether the ring-fence is the right policy.

As the Chancellor emphasised in his evidence to the PCBS, the Government have no objection in principle to independent reviews. Indeed, as the House knows well, the ring-fence has its origins in the recommendations of an independent review: that of the Independent Commission on Banking. As I stated, the Bill provides for regular reviews of the operation of the ring-fence. Clause 6 provides for the PRA’s annual report to Parliament to cover the extent of banks’ compliance with the ring-fence—a provision that Amendment 42 will strengthen, as I will discuss in a moment.

Subsection (3) of new Section 142J requires the PRA to carry out a review of ring-fencing rules every five years to assess how well the rules are framed in order to achieve the objectives set for the PRA in the legislation. Should the PRA identify areas where the rules need to be changed, it will have the power—indeed, the responsibility—to do so. Regular reviews of how the mechanics of the ring-fence are working are legitimate and necessary, so it is right that the Bill already provides for them.

On Amendment 42, in response to arguments made in the Commons, we are strengthening the requirement of the PRA to report each year on banks’ compliance with the ring-fence. Amendment 42 requires the PRA to report annually to Parliament on how ring-fenced bodies have used any exemptions to excluded activities or prohibitions. As noble Lords will know, the Bill allows the Government to create exemptions from the exclusion or prohibition of certain activities, as long as the exemptions are not likely to threaten the continuous provision of core services—that is, retail deposit-taking. These exemptions are necessary to allow ring-fenced banks to enter into derivative contracts to manage their own risks. The Government also intend to use this power to permit ring-fenced banks to sell simple derivatives to their customers, subject to safeguards to ensure that this does not expose ring-fenced banks to excessive risks or undermine their resolvability.

It is right that any such exemptions should be closely monitored. We have therefore agreed with the suggestion from the Opposition, who in the other place advocated that the regulator should report on the sale of simple derivatives by ring-fenced banks. However, our amendment goes further, requiring the PRA to report on ring-fenced banks’ use of all exemptions created now or in the future. These will include exposures of ring-fenced banks to financial institutions incurred for the purposes of risk management, providing payment services or trade finance services, as well as the sale of simple derivatives. This amendment will ensure that Parliament has sufficient information to make an informed judgment about whether the ring-fence fulfils its objectives and the exemptions remain fit for purpose.

On the other amendments, it is far less clear to us that we should legislate for repeated reviews of the whole policy. Amendment 3 would effectively reconvene the ICB in perpetuity to ask afresh every few years whether we should continue with the ring-fence at all. I have two main objections to this. First, one of the original aims of establishing the ICB was to secure consensus and certainty over the future of the banking industry in this country. The Chancellor has memorably described how, before this Government took office, he heard four different proposals from the then Prime Minister, Chancellor, Governor of the Bank of England and chairman of the regulator. The ICB process brought together all these voices and others to produce recommendations, including for ring-fencing, that commanded wide consensus support. That consensus gave the industry certainty over the future regulatory framework, which is so important to enable businesses to plan and invest. Reopening that consensus every five years, or indeed even earlier, would undermine that certainty.

If I have learnt one thing in my relatively short period in the Treasury as Commercial Secretary, it is that the one consistent request I get from businesses in every industry is, “Please provide us with a stable and certain framework so that we can plan and invest so as to sustain this recovery”. As I have implied here, shortening the gap between reviews—as Amendments 4 and 5 would do—would add further to the uncertainty. I also question whether it would even be possible for a review to judge after only two years whether ring-fencing was working. Given the scale of the changes involved, any verdict arrived at before ring-fencing has had more time to bed down would surely be premature.

My second objection is to this amendment’s prescription that the terms of reference for these repeated reviews must include considering the case for full separation. This seems rather like requiring that reviews continue until they come up with the right answer. I do not believe that that is appropriate. Given this, I also see no case for delaying the commencement of the Government’s provisions for a firm-specific power of separation until after a review, as Amendment 116 would require.

I turn now to the proposal in Amendments 10 and 14. So that noble Lords are clear, this is quite a different issue. It is for an external review to form part of the procedure for the firm-specific power to require separation. It is the electrification power. As noble Lords will know, the Government have accepted the case for a firm-specific separation power, and we will shortly debate the government amendments designed to make the separation of power already in the Bill more credible and effective. That is what I promised when we first discussed this Bill. However, the Government do not understand the possible justification for an external review to form part of this power. The PCBS proposed this as a safeguard for banks against arbitrary or unreasonable actions by the regulator, but the right of appeal to the tribunal already protects against this possibility. The tribunal, of course, is independent, so an additional safeguard is unnecessary.

Further, an external review could also serve to undermine the electrification process. The PCBS argued powerfully that regulators should not be subject to self-serving lobbying by banks. An external review could easily become an opportunity for banks to lobby during the electrification process to seek to persuade the reviewer that the regulator was acting unreasonably or treating them unfairly. Any bank required to restructure will have a right of appeal at the end of the process, so why give it another opportunity to challenge the regulator? I am also concerned that, even if the bank’s lobbying efforts did not succeed in blocking a requirement to restructure, they could serve to delay it and slow down the process for the regulator to require separation. This seems contrary to the objective, shared by both the PCBS and the Government, of making the electrification process less lengthy and cumbersome. For these reasons, I cannot agree to these proposals, and I call on the noble Lord to withdraw them.

16:15

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords, I listened very carefully to what my noble friend the Minister said. I am extremely grateful to him for the extent to which he has accommodated the points made by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, of which I had the honour to be a member and to which the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, referred—and I entirely endorse his remarks. However, the remarks that the Minister has just made simply do not stack up. Before going into why that is so, let me put a little perspective on what we are doing today. It sounds very dry, arid, tedious and tiresome in many ways. Indeed, it is not a model of how to construct legislation, as my noble friend Lord Higgins pointed out. Nevertheless, it is testimony to the fact that the Government have listened attentively to what the parliamentary commission had to say, and what was said in the other place in response to it.

My noble friend the Minister has already raised matters wider than the amendment that we are discussing. He started to talk about the industry-wide separation power, which we were concerned about but which was not part of this group of amendments. We will come on to that later. In this country, we are suffering, as part of the wider world’s suffering, the after-effect of a most appalling global recession. There were a number of causes of that problem, but it is generally agreed that right at the heart of it was a banking meltdown. Nothing is more important, therefore, than to do whatever we can to ensure that a further banking meltdown in future is unlikely to occur and to ensure that, if it does occur, the damage will be much less than that caused in 2008 and thereabouts.

There are few pieces of legislation going through Parliament that are more important than this Bill. I am not saying that you can do everything with legislation—there are a number of wider issues. But you have to do whatever you can. It is a long time since this House has had such an important role in trying to ensure that it is put right. It is clear that the legislation that was introduced in the Commons and went through the other place was wholly inadequate, and as a testimony to that are all the amendments that we are discussing today and all the amendments that the Government have moved. It is up to this House to get the legislation right; that imposes a very great responsibility on us and we should look at the legislation in a non-partisan fashion.

The Minister rested his argument on the fact that the Vickers commission came up with this wheeze of ring-fencing. It was a compromise between full separation of commercial and retail banking and investment banking and just leaving it as universal banking. There are a number of problems with the idea of the ring-fence. As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and others have pointed out, this is new territory and has never been done before. We do not know whether or not it will work. We know that separation can work. There was separation in the United States under the Glass-Steagall legislation from 1933 to 1999 when it was repealed and for most of that time it worked very satisfactorily. It was weakened as time went on as a result of the success of the American banks in lobbying various authorities in the United States to make exceptions here and amendments and changes there. We need to watch out for that. It was also weakened to some extent by the ingenuity of investment bankers in finding ways round it, to which the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, referred. Nevertheless, separation worked pretty well in the United States and in the United Kingdom.

I speak with some experience. It is now more than half a century since I was the principal writer of the Lex column in the Financial Times and I have been a close observer of the banking scene throughout that period. I recall that for most of that period we had a separation between what were called the joint stock banks, which engaged in retail and commercial banking for small businesses and so on, and the investment banks, which were not called that in those days—they were called merchant banks. They were completely separate and it worked very well, so we know that separation can work, and has worked, in the two major banking centres in the world.

It is true that the continent of Europe has always gone in for universal banking. That is so in Germany in particular but is generally the pattern in continental Europe. However, it is no accident that the two major banking centres of the world, London and New York, had separation. That worked. Whether this halfway house can work or not is very uncertain. Although the remarks of my noble friend Lord Blackwell on this amendment showed that he got completely the wrong end of the stick on it, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, pointed out, he was absolutely right to point to one of the problems, although not the only one, with the governance structure. It is a very curious governance structure in which the two subsidiaries of the holding company are together but separate. They are meant to be completely separate even though they both, as boards of directors, have responsibilities to exactly the same group of shareholders. It is a very odd system and we do not know the workings of it.

I say that my noble friend the Minister is unconvincing because his whole point rested on the fact that Vickers said the ring-fence is the right answer and that because Vickers said that we must stick with it and not change it. What we are saying, which is surely much more reasonable, is that we will, of course, give Vickers a chance. Indeed, we will try to reinforce his proposal by means of the so-called “electrification” procedures. However, if it is seen not to be working, we will have to go to separation. One member of the Vickers commission is already convinced that we should go to separation without any intermediate step but I am quite sure that nobody on the Vickers commission wishes to see a failure. Let us give Vickers a chance and see how it works but if it does not work—it has to be kept under review—we should go to full separation. That must be sensible. The fact that the Vickers commission said what it did is really no argument at all.

I am very glad to see the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in his place. He was a most distinguished member of our Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and I hope that he will contribute to our debates. One of the things that he has emphasised strongly—I have tried to explain the importance of this—is the problem around the culture of banking. This was accepted by Parliament when it set up the commission and, indeed, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister explicitly said that it was to deal with the culture.

One of the key problems is that retail and high-street banking—commercial banking—and investment banking are two completely separate cultures. It is very difficult, with the best will in the world. I am not against investment bankers, but I do not think they should be bailed out by the taxpayer. We may, from time to time, need to bail out the commercial banks, with their retail depositors and their responsibility for the payment system. They may need that, even though they have enhanced capital funds, but it is wrong, I think, ever to bail out investment banks; they should be like hedge funds, with a fear of failure restraining what they do. They will be imaginative, they will be adventurous, they will be creative, they will be exciting for those who are excited by this kind of thing, and they will have a totally different culture. To assume that you can get two quite separate cultures in the same entity is stretching it a bit. Therefore, we have to see how this will work. It may not work. If we are going to address this cultural problem we have to make sure we address it effectively.

We shall come on to the other amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, to which I have added my name, but on this major issue we have to strengthen the Bill in the way that the noble Lord highlighted, endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for the Official Opposition. We have certainly not heard any good reason from the Minister why we should not do that.

[Lord Barnett (Lab)]

My Lords, I have enormous sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, who said in his introduction that he has never seen such a shambles presented to any House. As Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I had the misfortune for five years, as the noble Lord will know, to take two Finance Bills a year through, mainly because the first Bill had to be amended because it had not been properly scrutinised; it had been guillotined by all successive Governments. Yet I have never seen anything remotely like this Bill and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, and his staff, who have done a tremendous job in trying to present to us what exactly is going on here. It is very difficult when one is working without a group of secretaries, let alone one, to understand what the devil is going on.

It seems to me that every speaker we have heard so far, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, is stumbling towards the only real solution. We will have to debate fairly soon to settle whether the House agrees to separation—call it Glass-Steagall, call it what you like. However, while we are stumbling in this direction—I am not sure from what my noble friend on the Front Bench was saying whether our Front Bench is stumbling towards it as well—it seems inevitable to me that we have to decide this one, major issue. However many times this is reviewed, ring-fencing can never be the solution to the different cultures that the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, referred to. It is quite impossible.

I do not want to take too much of the Committee’s time on this occasion, but we have to settle, once and for all, whether we agree with this ring-fencing idea. It is so complex that it makes the situation even worse, as we have heard in a number of debates. Until we settle this matter, we will go from amendment to amendment for years on end, and have reviews for years on end, getting nowhere at the end of it. I hope that we can have the major debate as soon as possible so that the House can decide.

16:29

[Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)]

My Lords, it was, along with other Members, a privilege to be a member of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. I want to add a few words to what has been said. As a member of the commission whose view on this matter was for full separation, I signed up to the recommendation in order to have unanimity in the committee and because for the rest of us, with due deference to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop, it was an act of faith. That is what the recommendation from the committee was, because ring-fencing is at the moment theoretical. Without naming the person, I well remember someone on the Vickers commission saying to me, “John, we lost our nerve and advocated ring-fencing”. I do not want us to lose our nerve but I want us to be vigilant on this issue.

I well remember the evidence given to us by Paul Volcker who, noble Lords will remember, said, “I cannot really understand what the situation will be if you are the holding company which has authority over the ring-fence. If it comes to making a decision by that holding company’s executives about the future of the company, then the executives of the holding company will win over the decisions at the ring-fence”. At the end of the day, it is the holding company that matters. There is therefore something uneasy and illogical about this issue.

I also well remember another witness, not at the banking standards commission but elsewhere—Willem Buiter, when he was on the Monetary Policy Committee before he went to Citibank to be its chief economist—saying, “Remember that the half-life in the financial services industry is less than three years”. In other words, people will forget what has happened before. Having spent nine or 10 years as chairman of the Treasury Committee, all that I can say is that the banking industry is ever vigilant. If we sit back here for a four or five-year period and then return to the matter to see what has happened, the landscape will have changed completely. All that I would add to noble Lords’ comments is that if this House does not express that it has to be vigilant at all times, we are going to lose out and it could be to the disbenefit of ourselves as a Parliament and of society.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I did not speak at Second Reading because I could not stay for the wind-ups, but listened to most of that debate. I should like to press my noble friend on his logic. He says that we cannot have some body to police or check up on the regulator. I am very surprised that my noble friend Lord Blackwell, with whom I am normally absolutely on the same square on most issues, says that we must trust the regulator. There was a reason we got into this mess and, by the way, we still ought to have a proper inquiry into what the regulator was doing and how the crisis happened in the first place. The very last thing I feel like doing is trusting the regulator.

We have also seen the regulators going off to work for the banks at, no doubt very appropriately, very high salaries to help them with their compliance and operation of regulation. Let us face it, I am not sure where I stand on the notion that we should trust the regulator on this matter. Like the noble Lord, I was prepared to go along with ring-fencing but could not see how it could work. But it certainly is not going to work if you have very clever people in the banks and at the regulator, but no one is actually breathing down the regulator’s neck. That seems to be the lesson that we can learn with absolute clarity from the previous experience.

I have to say that my noble friend’s logic was, “We can’t possibly have the regulator being subject to second-guessing all the time. How are they going to be able to carry out the agreed policy?”. As has repeatedly been said in a number of speeches, this is an experiment because it is part of a compromise to try to get the banks reasonably on board and to proceed on the basis of consensus.

In my seven years—perhaps it was nine years—working in an investment bank, I learnt that investment bankers are extremely adept at getting between the wallpaper and the wall. If they can find a way to get around something, they will. That is their job and how they make money and resources. The notion that if we have ring-fencing there will not be lots of clever people finding very good schemes to get around the intention of it and that the regulator will stand up to them, especially if we are in a period of prosperity, flies in the face of the experience that we have had.

It is essential to have someone independent of the regulator looking at this relationship and seeing if it is working. They should report to Parliament, with Parliament ready to enforce separation if it is required. It is by putting their feet to the fire in this way that we can be sure that they realise that it is in their interests to make this ring-fence procedure work. Without that, it will not work and we will be back to where we were before you can say “renewed prosperity”.

My noble friend uncharacteristically showed a lack of logic in what he was saying. If he wants the House to commit itself to this policy, he needs to address this basic question of who will guard the guardians.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I have a lot of sympathy with what my noble friend has said. However, on my noble friend’s thesis, there is the problem that if you have a regulator of the regulator, you should have a regulator of the regulator of the regulator. At some point you have to put some trust in someone. As he has said, bankers are adept at getting around any set of regulations. Is there not a point at which you have to have trust?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I agree, but all questions can be reduced in that way—reductio ad absurdum. On that basis, we would get rid of Parliament, which ultimately is the regulator of the regulator. The regulator is accountable to Parliament. We are dealing here with day-to-day very complex circumstances. In this great House we have many experienced people. In my view, the banking commission has done a brilliant job, as has the Treasury Select Committee in many respects. I think all of us would agree that that was appropriate and that that job has been done. However, as I understand it, in the particular instance of deciding whether this ring-fencing experiment will work, here we are talking about the need for some kind of process which will scrutinise that and will report on an informed and an in-depth basis. That is why I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, which seems a sensible course of action.

In the case of the Bank of England, why did it allow interest rates to remain so low when it could see a housing bubble and an asset bubble being formed? Even the former governor, who is now a Member of this House, has acknowledged that and has said publicly that it is very difficult when everyone is making lots of money and the whole consensus is that we have abolished boom and bust. It is very difficult for a regulator to stand up to that, especially if Ministers are egging them on and in their speeches are saying the same thing.

If the purpose of this exercise is to say, as we always say, “What went wrong? What are lessons that we need to learn?”, this amendment points to one of the clear lessons that we need to learn. I am disappointed that my noble friend does not see that.

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, I rise very much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. The particular point that I should like to make is that if we look at events over the past five years, it was not derivatives or standard investment banking activity which got the banks into trouble but unwise forms of large-scale lending. It was the purchase of blind CDO instruments from the US without knowing what was in them and the banking practices in particular of HBOS. These were the areas in which huge amounts of money were lost and which nearly brought down two of the main banks of this country.

Looking at the ring-fence model, it seems rather strange that all that sort of activity will be in the same box as good old-fashioned high-street banking, as I understand it. I repeat my interest as a director of Metro Bank, which is an old-fashioned high-street bank in essence. But if the high-risk areas of banking generally are going to be in the same box as the lower-risk activities of high-street banking, that does not seem to make much sense. The delineation of what is investment banking and what is commercial, high-street banking is not a particularly good one if your objective is to protect the ordinary citizens’ banking activities.

[Baroness Cohen of Pimlico (Lab)]

My Lords, like many in the House I did not manage to speak at Second Reading either, but I have spent a miserable summer concluding that Vickers got it wrong. This is a horrible thing to say to my good friends in the Parliamentary Commission, but they got it wrong too about separation. I come from a long career in merchant banking. I was pulled out of the Civil Service to be a merchant banker and I understand very well how ingenious they are. We had a wonderful concept in my youth called the Chinese wall. All I can say is that ivy grew over that Chinese wall and ear trumpets went through it because we are an ingenious lot.

The very complication of the debate that we are having, the horrible complication of the legislation and the very real difficulty of the amendments all stem from the fact that we are trying to do something impossible. Ring-fencing will not work. It does not matter how many people you place in charge of it, you need institutional separation. As my noble friend Lord Barnett says, we are going to have to come up against this one of these days.

I am also fairly horrified to hear Members of this House describing ring-fencing as an experiment. What are we doing experimenting with the banking system? We have experimented with it before and we should not. We should be sticking to what we actually know will work.

I am in entire sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I think that his diagnosis is absolutely accurate, but I differ on the conclusion.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I did not say that I necessarily accepted the Government's conclusion: I was merely testing the Government on the logic of their own position.

[Lord Stewartby (Con)]

My Lords, I came in this afternoon hoping for enlightenment. I received much more and varied judgment expressed from all corners of the House. But the one thing that everything leads to is an assumption that the ring-fence will not work and I am afraid to say that I agree. I do not say that with any satisfaction. A lot of time and effort has been put into this by very well-informed people, but it is against the ethos of the institutions and the markets in which they operate.

To say that we are going forward as an experiment is merely an attempt to sum up where we have got to in this afternoon's debate. We cannot just leave it like that. If there is generally—not just in this House but in a more widespread way—fundamental doubt about whether something as important as this will work, we have to assess whether we are bound to follow that structure. All I have heard so far leads me to think that ring-fencing is not workable. We ought to accept that situation as soon as possible. I leave it to others to follow more logically what I have rather stumblingly set out.

16:44

[Lord Turnbull]

My Lords, in responding to the points that have been made, I want to make it clear that the commission is not seeking to use this Bill to reopen the position we have reached and try to get us back to a policy of separation. What we have is a policy of ring-fencing plus safeguards plus vigilance. I listed some of those safeguards at the start. If that is the policy we are on, we have to make the safeguards and vigilance work. In response to the Minister, I do not think that a process in which the reviewing is done by one of the key players in it, which is the Prudential Regulation Authority, carries any credibility whatever. Its work is important and it should be a contribution to a wider study, and the wider study should be undertaken by someone who is independent of it.

The other argument used by the Minister was that we do not want a state of permanent vigilance. I do not think that it is possible, in an industry which is highly innovative—reference has been made to the term “half-life”—that you can find one system that will last for ever and therefore you need to be able to keep an eye on what you have created and make sure that you are taking steps to keep to that policy until such time—which may be the point of the amendments we shall come to in another group—that you conclude that it is not working. But the search for something which you can just do and then simply routinely maintain is an illusion. If ring-fencing is to be the policy, it is absolutely essential that it is backed by maximum vigilance and some high-powered mechanisms for review. I really do not think that what the Minister has promised us today meets that requirement.

The Minister pointed out that there are of course two reviews here. The other one is much less important and serves a completely different purpose. It is to safeguard a bank that has been threatened with separation against the arbitrary behaviour of its regulator. You could ask why that is needed because there are other safeguards, but if you do not have it, you come to the question of whether the Regulatory Decisions Committee, which is a step on towards the tribunal, should be beefed up. However, that is a recommendation we will come to, which the Government have not accepted. I do not think that the lesser review, the Amendment 10 review, can be taken off the table. If you do that, you increase the case for Amendment 91, recommending a new RDC. My conclusion is that we have not reached an agreement in this area. The debate is interesting, but what it means is that a lot more work has to be done between the opposition, the commission, other members and the Treasury to get to a point of resolution. However, it is essential that the point we reach has a much more high-powered review mechanism in it than is currently set out in subsection (6). I am content to withdraw the amendment on the basis that further discussions between now and Report will take place and that there will be flexibility on the part of the Government in their consideration.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, as I have tabled an amendment to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, I believe that it is for me to withdraw my amendment first and for him to follow. The noble Lord, Lord Deighton, has two objections to the process of review, both of which have, I think, been demonstrated to be false. He said that the first was to secure consensus. From the discussion today, he should be effectively disabused of the idea that the ICB has secured consensus. People have settled around the ICB as the best that can be obtained under the current circumstances, but there is a considerable degree of uncertainty about whether the ring-fence is actually a good idea.

The noble Lord also said that he wanted certainty, but he absolutely does not get certainty in this way because we are very uncertain as to whether this system will actually work. That is why his second objection—that time should be given for the system to settle down and work—is a very dangerous one. As we go through the process of implementation—if eventually Parliament agrees to these ring-fence proposals and implements them—we will discover by sheer practice where the lacunae may be, where things simply go wrong with unintended consequences, and so on. Unfortunately, we will be conducting an experiment and under those circumstances, it is very important that the sort of expert committee that the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, has proposed, focusing on the particular question of whether this works, with growing expertise and experience, should be in place to review what is happening as the process unfolds.

That is why in particular I was very nervous about one aspect of the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, with respect to the review not taking place for four years and then taking place at five-year intervals thereafter. Although it is “up to” four years, I would be willing to bet that the “up to” will turn out to be about two. None the less, my amendments were intended to ensure particularly that we have the expert committee proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, virtually in place as a standing committee with the expertise to guide us through what is going to be a very difficult and uncertain process.

Given the debate, and the views expressed around the House, this is a matter to which we certainly must return after significant negotiations have occurred between Committee and Report stages to try to achieve something of a consensus—at least on the issue of the nature of review. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 4.

Amendment 4, as an amendment to Amendment 3, withdrawn.

Amendment 5, as an amendment to Amendment 3, not moved.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Amendment 6

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

6: Clause 4, page 9, line 27, at end insert “and of any rules made by it under section 192JA (rules applying to parent undertakings of ring-fenced bodies)”

[Lord Deighton]

My Lords, Amendments 6 and 81 insert two new sections into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and make a consequential amendment to new Section 142J. The first new section, new Section 192JA, gives the PRA a power to make rules over the parent companies of ring-fenced entities. Ring-fencing will require banking groups to make large structural changes to ensure the independence of the ring-fenced bank from other entities in its group. The PRA may need to make rules to ensure that the groups in which ring-fenced banks sit are structured and governed appropriately. Rules over parent companies may be needed to ensure that this is the case.

It is important that the regulator has the ability and flexibility to tackle parent companies. They can influence subsidiaries in a number of important ways—through their attitude to risk management throughout the group, for example. This obviously has implications for the incentives faced by a ring-fenced bank. This amendment, therefore, further enables the regulator to strengthen the ring-fence.

I also expect the PRA to use this power to require groups containing ring-fenced banks to adopt a so-called “sibling structure”. This means that a non-ring-fenced bank cannot own a ring-fenced bank and vice versa. Both the ring-fenced and the non-ring-fenced bank will sit directly underneath the holding company. In this way, the PRA will be able to supervise banking groups more effectively, by having a clear divide between the ring-fenced and non-ring-fenced parts of a group. As development of the ring-fencing policy has progressed, the PRA has identified additional supervision benefits to a “sibling” arrangement such as this. I also understand that the Bank of England is encouraging banking groups to issue loss-absorbing debt from the holding company level, which is likely to lower the marginal cost to banking groups from adopting the sibling structure.

New Section 192JB will give the PRA and the FCA, as appropriate depending on the nature of the firm, the power to impose rules on qualifying parent undertakings to require them to make arrangements which would facilitate the exercise of resolution powers in relation to the parent or any of its subsidiaries.

[Lord Higgins]

Can my noble friend explain precisely what is meant by “resolution powers”?

[Lord Deighton]

The resolution powers all relate to the Bank of England’s powers essentially to step in in advance of a bank’s insolvency so that it can change, for example, the creditor arrangements.

The PRA and FCA already have powers to require regulated entities to take actions that would facilitate the resolution of a firm in the event of its failure. This may include requiring it to raise additional capital, issue debt to the market or make structural changes to enable the firm to be resolved.

However, banks may be organised in a number of ways. Many have a structure whereby the bank is owned by a financial holding company, which may not be regulated. Banks may also be part of corporate groups which contain non-corporate banking entities. In these cases, the existing powers may be insufficient to deliver some of the changes that the regulator feels are necessary to make a bank resolvable. This is because the regulated entity may not have the level of control required to make the change. This may be the case where, for example, capital and debt are issued out of the parent undertaking before being downstreamed to a bank. It may also be operational in nature; for example, where a service company which is not owned by the bank but sits in another part of the group provides critical services in the bank.

The amendment will address these cases and ensure that the PRA and the FCA have the necessary powers to make banks resolvable for all types of corporate structure. It amends new Section 142J to ensure that any reviews by the PRA of “ring-fencing rules” under that section must also cover rules made under the power given in new Section 192JA in relation to parent undertakings of ring-fenced bodies.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, I have enormous sympathy with the amendments and the struggle that the Treasury is having in having effectively to provide rules for parent undertakings in relation to the maintenance of the ring-fence. In many ways, the amendments go at least some of the way to achieving that. However, I should like to ask a question which I asked at Second Reading and which was not answered then. The Minister referred to capital and debt being raised at the level of the parent company and then downstreamed into the ring-fenced entity. If it can be downstreamed, can it not be upstreamed? If that were so, the ring-fence would not exist.

[Lord Deighton]

It is a valve which goes only one way; it cannot be upstreamed—otherwise the noble Lord is right that the ring-fence would not work.

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, the clause as I understand it seems to be absolutely essential if the powers involved are to be able to ensure that there is a separation between one part of the bank and the other, in which case it is rather extraordinary that the amendment has suddenly appeared at this stage.

If I understand the clause correctly, it has both national and international implications. My noble friend, in response to my inquiry, referred to the Bank of England, but the clause also apparently refers to any similar powers exercisable by the authority outside the United Kingdom. That gives me cause for concern. It would be very useful if all the actions taken in this country, in the European Union and in the United States worked on the same basis. However, as I understand it, that will not be so. The line will be drawn in rather different places in the United States compared with the European Union and in the European Union compared with the United States or this country. How precisely are the FCA and the PRA to set about ensuring that they can separate the two parts of the bank effectively? I am not clear from the amendment how they will do that.

17:00

[Lord Deighton]

The simple way to look at the amendments is that they are to ensure that both regulators have the flexibility to address every aspect of the group structure to ensure that the ring-fence works. That is why we are trying to give as much flexibility as possible to address even the non-regulated entities within the group.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has raised a very important matter with respect to authorities outside the UK. The proposals under Glass-Steagall and under Liikanen are different from the ring-fence—the divisions appear in different places. In those circumstances, “similar powers” seems to be a very weak description, because they are similar but not the same. With respect to resolution powers, which are crucial in the relationship between the parent body and the ring-fenced entity, that seems to create a degree of uncertainty. Can the Minister clarify exactly what that applies to? Presumably, it applies to the home-host division in regulatory responsibility and therefore subsidiaries of UK institutions in other jurisdictions will be regulated by the home regulator. If the home regulator has different rules with respect to the divisions, it seems to me that there will be a degree of confusion as to what is actually being enforced.

I am grateful for the Minister’s clear answer about the valve that goes one way on the raising of debt and capital. I return to my previous question. Let us suppose that we have a group in which the liability structure of the ring-fenced entity is essentially provided from the parent through the one-way valve and then the parent simply stops providing. In those circumstances, the security and stability of the ring-fenced institution would surely be threatened. The ring-fence would not be working simply because the steady flow of financial support for the ring-fenced institution had been cut off.

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, I am a little clearer now than I was a moment or two ago. It would be helpful if my noble friend could say what is the position in each of the countries that I just mentioned. As I understand it, the emerging EU proposals—I am looking at a brief from the Law Society—will,

“require banks to create separate entities (although they will be allowed to stay within the same group) in order to split proprietary trading and market making off from other banking activities”.

On the other hand, the United States scheme will require,

“complete separation of proprietary trading but the bank is allowed to undertake market making”.

Under the amendment, we will apparently have those outside bodies setting the rules for banks in the UK. Consequently, we may find that the ring-fence is being drawn in quite different places—the noble Lord opposite seems to agree—depending on which authority is exercising the powers of resolution.

[Lord Deighton]

I shall try to go through those points one by one. Just to be clear with respect to the foreign banks, the power we were talking about relates to the Bank of England’s rule-making power over parent companies. It allows the Bank of England to support a resolution being carried out by a foreign regulator where the bank is in a different country. It just allows the support of that resolution going on elsewhere so that we have the kind of international co-operation which is necessary for these resolutions. On the point about Liikanen and the convergence in how we are looking at this around the world, the general view of the officials who are working on the European legislation is that we are sufficiently in tune with where that is heading for these arrangements to work effectively.

I was not sure that I entirely followed the risk that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, was pointing out. However, risk-fenced banks can of course have equity provided by their parent and, once it is given, it need not be repaid, so the flow can still keep going into the ring-fenced bank.

[Lord Eatwell]

What if it stops?

[Lord Deighton]

That is part of the resolution process that needs to be sorted out but there is nothing to stop it continuing to go in.

Amendment 6 agreed.

Amendment 7

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

7: Clause 4, page 12, line 19, leave out from “a” to end of line 24 and insert “notice (a “preliminary notice”).
(1A) The preliminary notice must—
(a) state that it is a preliminary notice,(b) state that the regulator proposes to exercise the group restructuring powers,(c) state the action which the regulator proposes to take in the exercise of those powers,(d) be in writing, and(e) give reasons for the proposed action (which must include the regulator’s reasons for being satisfied as to the matters mentioned in section 142K(1))”

[Lord Deighton]

My Lords, these amendments streamline the procedure for the group restructuring powers—the so-called electrification powers. In another place, following the recommendations of the PCBS, the Government introduced amendments adding new Sections 142K to 142V. These sections give the regulator the power to require a banking group to restructure if the regulator believes this necessary to ensure the objectives of the ring-fence. As the PCBS recommended, the regulator will have the power to require the group to divest completely either its ring-fenced bank or its non-ring-fenced bank, or transfer specific business units out of the group. These extensive powers may be exercised if the regulator believes that the group’s ring-fenced bank is insufficiently independent or if the group’s conduct is such as to threaten the regulator’s ability to meet its statutory objectives. The amendments made in the Commons thus provide for the power to require the separation of an individual banking group that the PCBS recommended.

However, some concerns were expressed both in the other place and in this House that the procedure for the regulator to exercise its group restructuring powers was too complicated and drawn out. It was argued that the number of steps involved and the length of time required from start to finish created a process that was so cumbersome as to be difficult for the regulator to use in practice, and that this risked undermining the group restructuring powers as a deterrent against attempts by banks to subvert or game the ring-fence.

The Government took these concerns very seriously. As noble Lords will recall, I committed at Second Reading to bringing forward amendments to simplify and streamline the process for exercising the group restructuring powers. These amendments do exactly that. Amendments 7, 9, 11 and 12 replace the requirements for three preliminary notices with just one so that if the regulator is considering exercising its powers it need notify the target group only once, stating its reasons for considering requiring restructuring and the action it is proposing to take.

Amendment 8 removes the requirement for the Treasury to consent to a preliminary notice. Previously, Treasury consent was required for each of the original three preliminary notices. Under this amendment, the regulator need give the Treasury only a copy of a preliminary notice. Treasury consent will be required only later in the process for the issue of a warning notice.

Amendment 15 clarifies that any notice of a decision by the regulator not to exercise its powers must be given in writing. Amendment 16 provides that a copy of such a notice be given to the Treasury.

Amendment 17 shortens the warning notice period from 12 to 18 months to three to six months. This period is intended to give a bank about which the regulator has concerns, and to which it has issued a preliminary notice, an opportunity to address the problems identified by the regulator of its own accord. The Government still believe that it is right to give a bank the chance to tackle any problems, but agree that the period originally provided for was too long.

Amendments 13, 18 to 20 and 38 are consequential on the other amendments being made to these sections. Amendments 21 and 22 remove the requirement that the regulator must allow at least five years for any restructuring or divestment to be completed. Now it will be up to the regulator to set whatever deadline it considers appropriate.

These changes will bring the procedure for using the group restructuring powers into line with that proposed by the PCBS. One point on which we continue to differ from the PCBS is the inclusion in the procedure for requiring the restructuring of an external review, which Amendments 10, 14 and 116 would have inserted, and which we have already debated.

As for the total time involved to require the separation of a group, following the Government’s amendments, the minimum total time will be slightly shorter under the Government’s provisions than under the PCBS’s. Under the Government’s amendments, the minimum time from the regulator’s first notice of its intention to require restructuring to the actual imposition of a requirement to separate will be approximately four months, compared to approximately five months under the PCBS’s amendment. These amendments will therefore make the group restructuring powers—the “electrification” powers—an effective reinforcement to the ring-fence.

Some will argue that the Government should have gone further and should also legislate for the option of full separation across the entire UK banking industry. The Government do not agree with this suggestion. To provide for a targeted deterrent against members of an individual banking group that seeks to game or evade the ring-fence is a sensible reinforcement for the ring-fence. To legislate for industry-wide separation, however, would not be a sanction; it would be to abandon that policy. The logic of requiring all banks to separate would have to be that the ring-fence had failed to achieve its objectives of delivering greater financial stability while preserving the legitimate economic benefits of universal banking. It could in no way be described as a deterrent.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

My noble friend has talked about the great advantages of universal banking that need to be preserved. Will he explain to the House what these unique advantages are?

[Lord Deighton]

The first point that I would make in response is that it was the position of the ICB, which did an enormous amount of work on this, that the ring-fence was not in any sense a compromise but was in fact superior to full separation because of some of the synergies available in the universal bank. The essence of the argument is that the other parts of the bank that may not get into financial trouble actually provide benefits of diversification and scale that can protect the ring-fenced entity from any of the problems that they may have. It is essentially the diversification and scale advantages that universal banking may bring.

I have some sympathy with my noble friend’s underlying suggestion; in much of the discussion so far we have talked about how ingenious bankers are but, given what they have done to their organisations and the industry over the past five years, you have to question exactly how ingenious they are on a consistent basis.

To come back to the point, others are of course perfectly entitled to the view that the ring-fence will fail—we have heard that point of view from many Members here—and a future Government would be entirely within their rights to propose an alternative policy to ring-fencing. However, the only proper way to legislate would be for the Government to conduct research and analysis to match the calibre of the Vickers commission in support of full separation. I note that the PCBS produced no such evidence. Let it build a consensus around its conclusions, and let it come to Parliament with new legislation to be subjected to the full scrutiny and debate that such a step would require.

17:14

[Lord Turnbull]

I very much welcome this simplified process. It took two steps for the Government to get there, but the prodigal son is welcome at any time. Let us pocket that. I said we would look again at this special review that the commission suggested inserting into the process. I noticed that the Minister was drifting on to the next group, and I thought I was going to introduce it, but let us come to that at the appropriate time.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull. I think this is a significant improvement on the procedures that were previously outlined. I have a number of exploratory questions about this procedure. First, the regulator essentially seems to be judge and jury in this respect. It was the role of the old Regulatory Decisions Committee and, I believe, the ambition of the commission with respect to its development of the Regulatory Decisions Committee to ensure that there was an independent step in any major regulatory enforcement. The main reason why that was introduced into FiSMA was because it was felt that otherwise it would contravene human rights legislation. Are the Government confident that this procedure does not contravene such legislation?

Secondly, with respect to the publication of notices, in the very thorough and welcome briefing that the Minister’s staff provided on these amendments, the Government argued that they would not accept the commission’s proposal that the existence of a preliminary notice or of various stages be publicised. Instead, it was felt that these matters should be kept “secret” until such time as any impact on Stock Exchange listing rules demanded publication that the group was being subjected to such a procedure. It seems to me that this is a slightly dangerous structure. It is a traditional structure of central banks. It has always been strongly opposed by securities regulators which believe much more in transparency in this respect. This lack of transparency is likely to produce rumour and false information in the marketplace. Consequently, if we are going to have this procedure—which I think is well thought out, apart from the one issue that I raised, on which I would like to have assurances—we should make it a transparent procedure because rumours and false information are really damaging to markets. Transparency is always to be preferred, even if that transparency may be extremely uncomfortable for the firm being subjected to this process.

[Lord Deighton]

On the question of the breach of human rights, we are confident. The RDC still exists, and under this procedure we still have the independent Upper Tribunal. We have looked into that.

On the publication of the initial warning, we are all trying to accomplish the same thing, and it is quite finely balanced as to which way you go. I point out, for the benefit of noble Lords, that of course the regulator has the discretion to publish the initial notice but is not obliged to do so. Therefore, in those circumstances in which it is in the interest of the market to do that, it would do so. One of the principal reasons why we are reluctant to do that is because if you have gone public with the initial warning it may make you reluctant to issue the initial warning and to begin a process because of the consequences of that being out in the public domain. This is a tricky area where the arguments are relatively well balanced. We came out with this option for the regulator to disclose it, which we thought was, on balance, the right thing to do. I beg to move.

Amendment 7 agreed.

Amendments 8 and 9

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

8: Clause 4, page 12, leave out lines 25 to 30 and insert—
“(2) The appropriate regulator must give a copy of the preliminary notice to the Treasury.”

9: Clause 4, page 12, line 31, leave out “first”

Amendments 8 and 9 agreed.

Amendment 10 not moved.

Amendments 11 to 13

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

11: Clause 4, page 12, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 13

12: Clause 4, page 13, line 13, leave out “third preliminary notice” and insert “preliminary notice under section 142M”

13: Clause 4, page 13, line 15, after “if” insert “, having considered any representations made by any of the relevant persons,”

Amendments 11 to 13 agreed.

Amendment 14 not moved.

Amendments 15 to 22

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

15: Clause 4, page 13, line 19, after “a” insert “written”

16: Clause 4, page 13, line 19, at end insert “and give a copy of that notice to the Treasury.”

17: Clause 4, page 13, line 20, leave out from second “period” to end of line 22 and insert—
“(a) beginning 3 months after the end of the period specified under section 142M(3) as that within which any representations must be made, and(b) ending 6 months after the end of that period.”

18: Clause 4, page 13, line 31, leave out “third”

19: Clause 4, page 13, line 34, leave out “third”

20: Clause 4, page 13, line 38, leave out “third”

21: Clause 4, page 13, line 43, leave out from “must” to end of line 44 and insert “specify the date or dates by which each of the following must be completed—”

22: Clause 4, page 13, line 46, leave out “or”

Amendments 15 to 22 agreed.

Amendment 23

Moved by

[Lord Turnbull]

23: Clause 4, page 17, line 17, at end insert—
“Full separation142VA General requirement of separation
(1) Where the members of any group include one or more ring-fenced bodies and one or more other bodies, the members of the group must, before the end of the period of 5 years beginning with the relevant commencement date, take steps to secure that there are no members of the group that are ring-fenced bodies.
(2) If in the case of any group steps to secure that there are no members of the group that are ring-fenced bodies are not taken within the period specified in subsection (1)—
(a) at the end of that period the Part 4A permission of each member of the group that is a ring-fenced body shall be treated as having been cancelled to the extent that it relates to a core activity, and(b) after the end of that period the appropriate regulator must refuse to give any member of the group a Part 4A permission to carry on a core activity.(3) At the end of the period specified in subsection (1)—
(a) in section 142H, subsections (1)(b) and (4) to (7) and, in subsection (8), the definition of “specified”, and(b) sections 142K to 142V,cease to have effect.(4) In subsection (1) “the relevant commencement date” means the day appointed for the coming into force of section 4 of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 so far as it inserts this section.”

[Lord Turnbull]

I referred to the second reserve power, which would allow that where, in the commission’s view, it was felt that not just a single bank but the banking sector as a whole was not respecting the constraints of ring-fencing and the scheme was basically not working, it could move by steps to full separation. Of course, this second reserve power was predicated on the assumption that there will be a fundamental review of the kind that some of us have been arguing for. If all that we have is the PRA-led review of the kind that the Government have been seeking, we would certainly not have a sufficiently strong basis. However, the review we are seeking is based on a view of the world in which, first, there is continuous innovation and, secondly, other jurisdictions are making changes—notably in the EU. At some point that, combined with the behaviour of a banking sector, may lead to the conclusion that there should be a further change. Deciding that this scheme is not working does not necessarily lead you to full separation; it could lead you to something else, such as tightening the regime or some other modification.

We have had this argument about the review. However, then you get to the real crunch, which is that even if there is agreement on the review, and the review says that ring-fencing needs to be changed in some way, this amendment says that the further action that has been identified and recommended by a son of Vickers could be implemented under the powers of this Bill. That is the fundamental disagreement. The Government argue that that means that you are doing something completely different. I argue, first, that getting legislation is not an easy thing to do—you have to compete for time; and, secondly, that not being able to implement the conclusions of such a review reduces the effect of the deterrence and increases the opportunity for lobbying. In any case, the Government would have the last say in the scheme that we have devised. Therefore, if there was a recommendation from a Vickers mark 2, the Government would not be forced to act on it: they could decide that they did not want to act on it and did not have to accept it. Equally, if they wanted to, they would be able to. The position is asymmetrical. Since the Government have a veto, they cannot be railroaded into a policy that they do not want. However, if it is a policy that they do want, they have the power to accept it and act accordingly. That is the basis of Amendment 23, which refers to this power, and of Amendment 117, which states that you cannot exercise this power until a fundamental review has taken place.

[Lord Blackwell]

Could the noble Lord explain the drafting of Amendment 23? As I understood his explanation, it was that this would be a contingent power that the regulator could enforce if necessary. The way the amendment is drafted, proposed new Section 142VA gives the impression that it would be a requirement regardless of any other condition. Perhaps the noble Lord will clarify how it will become contingent on the regulator deciding that it is necessary.

[Lord Turnbull]

If the drafting does not say that, we will have to amend it. The clear intention is for this to be a power and not a requirement. I beg to move.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

Perhaps I may say something about this. As the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, mentioned, we retrenched on this in discussions on earlier groups. This is something to which I attach great importance. The noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, said that the commission had got it all wrong, that ring-fencing could not possibly work and that there would have to be complete separation. I agree with her—and this is no surprise. I was speaking out for complete separation long before almost anybody else I can think of, certainly in this country. For five years I have been writing and speaking on this: before the parliamentary commission and before the Vickers report. It remains my view that this is most unlikely to work, partly for reasons that the noble Baroness gave and partly for others.

Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord McFall, pointed out, we on the commission decided that it would be sensible to have a unanimous report. There was no majority on the commission—and certainly not unanimity—for complete separation. Therefore, we proposed what we proposed. One thing we proposed, which is what this group of amendments is about, was a route to complete separation. This is what the amendment is about: a process by which, if it is seen, and events prove, that the noble Baroness and I are correct, along with many others who think the same, this procedure, which the Government at the present time refuse to accept—something I regret—is a way in which we might get there.

When I asked the Minister what the great advantages were of universal banking, from which we should in no way depart, his main argument was that diversity was a form of strength. I am old enough to remember when industrial conglomerates were extremely popular. In the late Lord Hanson’s group, and others, there were a whole lot of disparate industries in the same holding company, and the argument was that this diversity was a form of strength. In fact, of course, it was a disaster and nobody argues the case for industrial conglomerates any more.

17:29

However, at least with industrial conglomerates there is the discipline of the marketplace and you can allow companies to fail. The problem in banking is that the conglomerates are much more serious. You get the problem of “too big to fail”. Indeed, it is not just too big to fail, but too complex to fail and, as we have seen, too big and too complex to manage. That problem has proved to be right at the heart of this. My noble friend the Minister is saying, “Forget about all that, let us make them even bigger and even more complex”. I am afraid that he has not convinced me. In certain special circumstances there may be some slight advantage in having linkages of this kind, as there were with the conglomerates. However, the balance is overwhelmingly on the other side of the ledger. It is a huge disadvantage and a huge risk for the economy, which we should not entertain.

The Government have also said—I do not know whether the Minister is going to say this now but a government spokesman has said it in the past, and I think that the Treasury said it in its response to our commission’s report—that maybe you are right and we should go this way, although their heart is not in it. It should be new primary legislation and not a power under this Act, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull said, can be exercised only with the agreement of the Treasury and the Government who are responsible to Parliament. We are not saying that an independent committee can decide any more than the Vickers committee could decide. It had to be accepted by the Government of the day. If you say that this has to be new primary legislation the reality is that it will be too much hassle. There will never be time for the primary legislation and it simply will not happen. It is an integral part of the logic behind this Bill. That is why it should be in this Bill and why the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, is absolutely right.

There are in a sense two separate issues. There is the issue—which we were all concerned about and to which reference has been made during the debate on earlier groups of amendments—of the intense ingenuity of investment bankers, in particular, who may find ways round it and also the success in lobbying. Maybe we need to introduce something—at a later stage maybe; it is too late to do it today—to implement on the statute book the recommendation of the parliamentary commission about lobbying in paragraph 262 of its summary of conclusions. If you look again at what happened in the United States, intensive lobbying led to a weakening of the Glass-Steagall legislation, and British banks are just as able to do it as American ones.

However, it is not just a question of finding clever ways round or lobbying in this instance by particular banks but also, as has been widely pointed out, that the whole structure may not work. If it does not, we have to go for industry-wide separation and that is what this is about. I am not going to talk now about proprietary trading, because we are going to come to it later, but as the issue has been raised I will just mention it now even though it is not really relevant to this group. Proprietary trading has been separated out in the United States. We made recommendations about that too in an earlier report. The final report was not an attempt to sum up everything: we did it in tranches. This comes back to the question of culture. Maybe I am old-fashioned but I regard one of the essential elements of banking culture to be service to clients. As the whole essence of proprietary trading is that there is no client, the culture of service to clients cannot possibly exist. It is totally alien and the banks are literally in it for themselves. That is a separate issue. The important thing now is that there should be a route to complete separation if too much ingenuity is shown, if there is too much successful lobbying or if the whole system is shown to be flawed, which I suspect will be the case for a number of reasons which noble Lords have already mentioned. We will abandon this route at our peril. I fear that if we do, we will deeply regret it in the future.

[The Archbishop of Canterbury]

My Lords, I apologise that I, too, was not here for Second Reading as I was at the funeral of a close friend. I speak as a member of the PCBS, having had the privilege of a year of lessons from the other members, especially noble Lords here today, and the great pleasure of being rung up by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, quite frequently at weekends, to explain how I should think about a particular subject, which he has done with great eloquence as well today.

I agree entirely with the speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, twice, and both speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, which have put the position very clearly. It must be a very long time—and my experience of this House is very limited—since a solution to a major problem was put forward with such a noticeable lack of enthusiasm. Almost everyone who has spoken about the ring-fence has damned it with faint praise, to put it at its most polite. The noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, simply eliminated it quite quickly and very clearly. We are in danger of getting lost in looking at the regulation and forgetting what the regulation is trying to do. This is about a question of a culture and ethics, not detailed rules. We all remember Bob Diamond, the chief executive of Barclays, saying that culture is what happens when no one is looking.

We know what happened when no one was looking in the culture of some parts of the banking industry—they fixed LIBOR, overgeared and gamed any system of regulation going. All of that was dealt with under regulatory processes that did not work. They still fixed LIBOR, gamed the system and did all kinds of other things. The force of culture in those institutions made it hard to challenge and it is very noticeable that over 10 years when this was going on at its worst the number of people who blew whistles on this was almost zero. The culture made it very hard to discern that what you were doing was not right.

The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, referred to the dreadful effect of the meltdown we experienced in 2008—as was said earlier, five years almost to the day. The terrible cost of that catastrophe must not happen again. That is what we are trying to do. It has affected the City of London for a while but the far-flung areas of deprivation and poverty in our country suffered grievous blows of further damage from which they are still in the process not even of looking for recovery. The damage when the culture goes wrong is not localised. It is not just about the City; it is about people far away who know very little about what is going on there but find that they cannot raise money, that they cannot do their business and that their banking disappears locally. The vast structures of reform that have been and are being passed through Parliament, including this Bill, and that are passing through the regulators and the industry, show that there is a great failure of trust—and trust will be re-established not by regulation but by culture.

We have already heard the problems expressed very clearly about the ring-fence. The noble Baroness expressed herself very pointedly and precisely. But one thing that we found in discussing this issue in the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards is that separation is almost as hard to work out as a ring-fence, because you have to decide which bits get separated into which bits. The next thing that happens is that the brilliant merchant bankers, as it was put a few minutes ago, get between the wall and the wallpaper—that, I think, was the memorable phrase—and start putting other bits into the wrong bit. They game the system just as much with separation as with a ring-fence, so I do not think that that is a simple solution.

We have had the prodigal son and elements of faith from the noble Lord, Lord McFall, but we have the Trappist solution here. You live in the same community, but you do not talk; that is how the ring-fence is meant to work. The amendment—and this is why the element of culture is so important—increases vastly the voltage of the ring-fence. If it has to be used, like much of these forms of regulation, it will have failed to some degree. But it says that, if the industry loses its way in ethics and culture, as it did in the early years of this century, there is catastrophe in regulatory terms. Banks will be split up; people will come in and take them apart. The Government have argued that such a drastic step should require further primary legislation, but that argument seems to carry very little weight. The amendment is merely a rational extension to existing provisions and ensures that the banking industry realises that poor culture leads to fatal shocks, not to a little buzz in the fingers, or to lengthy debates in future on primary legislation. It will concentrate minds.

There is no doubt that we are seeing good things happen in the culture of a number of banking institutions. The new leadership in a number of banks is changing the culture very effectively. A professional standards body is being set up. I believe that this is not merely temporary self-interest but, in many cases, a deep sense that there needs to be a change of culture and values. But that is what is happening in this generation, now; it must be reinforced with firm boundaries to the ring fence, with very serious consequences if you walk into it to see what will happen. The amendment will reinforce that change of culture and act as a permanent reminder to the banking industry of the danger of slipping back into the bad old ways. Not to have that reality signalling the boundaries of acceptable ethics and culture is to encourage behaviour that looks first to what is legal, as has happened for a number of years, and never to ask the question, “What is right?”. To have banks ask what is right rather than what is merely legal would be good not only for the bank but for the whole society that it exists to serve, as the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, said.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with what the most reverend Primate has just said. As a lawyer of far more years than I am willing to admit, I wonder whether sometimes the legislation that we pass in this place, with the very best of intentions, has in some strange and horrific way an almost contrary effect, for the reason given by the most reverend Primate—namely, that people look at the law rather than what is behind the law and look at the small print instead of the large issues. In my professional life, I have seen this get worse and worse.

One argument above all others persuades me that this amendment is a good one. By and large, I am persuaded that it will leave us with a simpler, more workable outcome than the ring-fence arrangements, which seem to me, even in my most legalistic frame of mind, to be of barbaric complexity. These will be bad enough, but they are significantly more straightforward, more comprehensible and, in a way, more down to earth than the ring-fencing. So I support the amendment.

17:45

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I know that noble Lords are looking forward to hearing the Statement, but this is an important point. I certainly would not be able to add anything to what the most reverend Primate has said in a very powerful speech. I am glad that he liked my analogy about wallpaper and walls. I have to say to my noble friend the Minister that the writing is on the wall here, and it is absolutely clear that if we do not have in this Bill a clear provision that gives the Government power to deal with the sector as a whole, most banks will decide to go with the culture and try to make it work. But they are in competition with each other; one will come up with a clever scheme and the others will say, “They’re getting away with this—we ought to do the same, or we will do some variation of the same thing”. You need there to be a threat to the whole sector, if some of them fall by the wayside. That is another argument, in addition to the ones made by my noble friend Lord Lawson and by the most reverend Primate.

I hope that my noble friend the Minister will think about this very carefully and see the writing on the wall. He will find it very difficult to get this Bill through this House without a provision of this kind being incorporated in it.

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I make a simple observation from experience. I have seen this attempt at ring-fencing in the past. When you have ring-fenced or non-ring-fenced entities—it does not matter which—reporting up to a group head, at the end of the day that group head can manipulate things at an investment level or at all sorts of other levels to influence the outcome in a way that is unexpected. It does not work, the moment that you have a group, because that is outside the ring-fence. I could give noble Lords instances, but it might cause problems if you did. I would rather say that I totally support the most reverend Primate and this amendment, which is very sensible.

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, what underlies this whole debate is a feeling that the so-called advantages of the universal bank do not outweigh the dangers and disadvantages. My noble friend referred earlier to preserving the advantages of the universal bank, but there is no doubt that such advantages as there might be, regardless of the risks, are significantly reduced if we have an effective system of ring-fencing. Many of us here feel that the ring-fencing proposal is wrong and unlikely to be very successful. We came up with the Vickers report and the Government have gone along very largely with the proposal that was made, but the reality is that we are going to have a situation whereby we should really be going in the direction of full separation. This is bound to take time. Therefore, an amendment of the kind that my noble friend has proposed would effectively give us a means to get out of the present impasse to a situation where we move towards full separation.

I return for a moment to a point that I made earlier. Where does all this leave us in relation both to the United States and with regard to the European Union? This is clearly a global industry. It is no good our legislating for the situation with regard to British banks if quite different rules are being applied in Europe, or applied to us from Europe, or the rules are different in the United States. There is a strong case for trying to get an international consensus on this, but the ring-fencing proposal seems significantly different from what I understand is being proposed in Europe and certainly what is being put forward in the United States. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will respond to two points. First, where do we stand with this proposal in relation to the international situation? Secondly, is there not a case for the amendment which, as my noble friend has said, will enable us to act if what has rightly been called an experiment as regards ring-fencing turns out not to work?

[Lord Blackwell]

My Lords, given some of the recent speeches, I again sound a small note of caution. While I understand the need to electrify the ring-fence, the Government and this House should be cautious about legislating on a presumption that universal banking is the wrong commercial or organisational model. I share many of the concerns that have been expressed about the difficulty of having a common culture in an organisation that embraces too many different activities. However, it seems to me that it is primarily a commercial judgment for the management and shareholders to decide whether or not they can make that range of activities succeed. The primary duty of the Government and the regulator is to ensure that whatever is done is not a threat to the financial stability of the system. As I said in my introduction to the first amendment, I support ring-fencing which seems to me to be targeted at that purpose, which is to define the capital and risk exposure of the ring-fenced bank and ensure that it is regulated in such a way that the other activities of the group do not impinge on the capital and solvency of the ring-fenced activity. So long as the Government and the regulator can do that—I understand that people are raising questions about that—it seems to me that the question of other activities in the group is not something on which the Government should rush to legislate.

There are arguments which have not been put in this House about, for example, the ability to serve customers in a common way across different entities in the group, which would not be prevented by ring-fencing. There are arguments about the use of common resources such as IT resources, infrastructure and a whole range of central resources that can be used in a group structure. There may be good arguments or bad arguments but those are arguments that the management and the shareholders should primarily be in a position to consider. Some will succeed and some will fail but it is not up to this House to decide the commercial logic or otherwise of universal banking. The House should decide primarily whether or not the ring-fencing, the safeguards in the Bill and the electrification that is already built into the government amendments will do the job that is intended.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, what is particularly striking about the commission’s report, especially its final report, is the way in which it presents a coherent package of measures. This amendment fits together with the review amendment that we considered earlier as those two elements reinforce each other. As Amendment 117 makes clear, the review element is the key trigger for Parliament to consider whether this measure of separation should be introduced. There is coherence here. What is distressing about the Government’s rejection of the nature of independent review and hostility towards this amendment is that by removing that internal coherence of argument they significantly weaken the overall approach to financial regulation which we are attempting to achieve.

In anticipating this discussion on separation, the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, asserted that the arguments for separation had not been considered and that if you wanted an amendment of this sort you ought to have another commission to consider the arguments. That is just not so as the arguments were considered extensively, first by the independent commission and then by the parliamentary commission. The main point that came out of those discussions was that there was a strong case for separation. However, the experiment of ring-fencing was felt to be worth while as, if it worked, the trauma of separation would not be required. The idea that this issue has not been considered is not the case as it has been considered very thoroughly. It has not been rejected but is seen as a backstop, if you like, to the ring-fencing proposal.

The most reverend Primate made the terribly important point, in a way which has not been brought out by other speakers, that this measure strengthens the whole structure of the ring-fence and will incentivise the banks to regulate each other. There will be an enormous incentive for all the banks to keep an eye on what everybody else is up to to ensure that they are not drawn into this final total separation. The people on the inside who really know what is going on will have a strong incentive to make the ring-fence work because if it does not work they know that there is a reserve power in the Bill. If you really want the ring-fence to work, you need this clause. It is a contingent clause and a reserve power but if we really want the ring-fence to work, the Government should wholeheartedly embrace the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull.

[Lord Deighton]

My Lords, we have already discussed many of these issues as it has been extremely difficult to avoid talking about full separation when discussing the other amendments. However, I pause to review the most reverend Primate’s reminder that the most important thing in these institutions is culture and that we can make as many rules as we like but if we do not force a cultural change bankers will find their way around the rules. Separating banks is absolutely not a recipe for ensuring a better culture. If you look, for example, at the experience at HBOS, which was a pure retail player, there was clearly a massive cultural problem there. Culture is quite independent of some of the structural issues that we are talking about.

I remind noble Lords that we are talking about whether or not there should be a reserve power for industry-wide separation. Inevitably, the discussion seems to be about ring-fencing versus full separation but that is not the debate we are having. It is difficult to avoid confusion around that issue. The high voltage or the extent of the electrification and the incentive to banks is extremely strong in terms of individual bank separation. I outlined in our amendment how quickly and effectively that can be deployed. A bank needs no further incentive than to know that it will be completely restructured if it seeks to game the system. The notion that banks will watch each other is not how the industry operates.

As regards the point made by my noble friend Lord Higgins, the ring-fence rules are internationally consistent and have been designed to make sure that they are compatible with EU and US law, although the way each country deals with the issue structurally is different. I remind noble Lords that we are legislating to ring-fence retail from investment banking. That is what the Independent Commission on Banking recommended. The Government oppose this amendment as a matter of substance and process. The complete separation of retail and investment banking which this amendment would provide is not a sanction or deterrent but a different policy. It would not support or reinforce the ring-fence; it would abandon it in favour of an alternative. We can see this in the terms of the review that the noble Lord proposes which might trigger full separation. That review must decide how far the provisions in the Bill—that is, the ring-fencing regime itself—deliver the policy objective so that even if no bank gamed the ring-fence full separation could be triggered.

Having established this as an alternative policy, let me set out two simple reasons why we do not support the amendment. First, if a future Government did decide to switch to a new policy, it could not be appropriate for that change to be effected simply by commencing a reserve provision. That would entail no more than a single order with a single brief debate in each House of Parliament. There would be no detailed scrutiny, no opportunity to consider amendments and no chance for Parliament to assure itself that the circumstances justified the new policy. There would be no development of an extensive evidence base, no cost-benefit analysis and no opportunity to build an extensive domestic and now European consensus. This proposal may therefore be at odds with the desire expressed in both Houses to enhance the process of scrutiny.

18:00

[Lord Eatwell]

The point that the Minister seems not to have taken on board is that the arguments for review and this power have to be seen as a coherent package. The point is that there would be that review; there would be a continuous independent review providing exactly the information that he says is necessary.

[Lord Deighton]

Yes, there would be a review, but not a proper parliamentary process. The argument I am making is that this is such a switch from ring-fencing to full separation that it should benefit from that full process. While I obviously bow to the experience of my noble friend Lord Lawson, these things, if the circumstances dictate, can be done extremely rapidly, where the circumstances demand that kind of urgent move.

I think it is instructive to compare the process of developing the ring-fencing policy to that of this proposal for full separation. The ICB went through an extensive process of deliberation and analysis, carefully collected data, prepared a full cost and benefit analysis and compared that to full separation. It found that a robust ring-fence will insulate essential retail banking services from shocks originating elsewhere in the financial system. It will enhance the authorities’ ability to manage the failure of a ring-fenced bank, or its wider corporate group, in an orderly way. It will, therefore, deliver the financial stability benefits of separation. Ring-fencing will also preserve some of the benefits of universal banking. I made the argument of diversification and scale, not simply diversity. Customers will be able to access the full range of services from a single group: that is a marketing advantage as well. The frictional costs to the economy of ring-fencing are therefore lower than those of full separation. That is, of course, the reason we did not go for full separation. Further, in the event that the ring-fenced bank runs into trouble while the rest of the group is doing well, other group members can support it. That, of course, would not be possible under complete separation.

On a comparison of the costs and benefits, the ICB chose ring-fencing as the superior policy. The PCBS did not provide any new evidence to contradict this position. In this respect, the noble Lord’s proposal for an independent review of ring-fencing is an admission that the evidence base for full separation does not yet exist. The amendment asks us to put a policy into law and then establishes an independent review process in the hope that it might justify it. For us, this is lawmaking done backwards.

That brings me to the Government’s second and perhaps more powerful reason for rejecting this amendment. Let us imagine that a future Government decided that not ring-fencing, or full separation, but a third policy was appropriate. Imagine, for example, that it decided that a Volcker rule was the right policy, or a shift to full-reserve banking. In either case, a review that was limited to deciding whether to enact a reserve provision for separating ring-fenced banks from their groups would be no use at all, and the power would need to be repealed, along with much of the rest of the Bill. Coming back to Parliament would be the only way to give a future Government wanting to change policy the full range of options.

Therefore, on grounds of both substance and of proper legislative process, the Government continue to oppose a reserve provision for a move to full separation and I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Turnbull]

I think the Minister has erected a straw man here. The straw man is that there is a quite lightweight review, possibly of the kind that he is recommending, rather than the kind others are recommending, and then there is a day in the Commons and a day in the Lords and, bingo, this huge change takes place. What the commission envisages is a resurrection of the ICB. It is not a coincidence that the number five was chosen, as that was the number that worked on the ICB. The ICB went through all the steps that he claimed, of looking at the options, the cost benefits and so on, and evidence was taken in various Select Committees. Therefore, there would be an enormous amount of public discussion, inside and outside Parliament, before this was enacted. That seems to me to be the process and I cannot see what is wrong with it.

The other point is that the Minister downplays the incentive effect. If you have one bank which has no incentive to test the system and is very happy with its niche in the market and it sees another bank pushing very hard at the limits, what is its incentive? Does it simply turn a blind eye? Under this arrangement it has an incentive to support suggestions that the other bank should be reined in, otherwise it then brings big change on the sector as a whole. So it produces, it seems to me, the right incentive set for all the players in the banking sector.

The Minister has heard a lot of quite strong opinions on this. As I said at the start, the prior condition of all this is a proper review arrangement. If that is in place, this is, in the opinion of many, a sensible power to have. It can be enacted, but if the view is that some alternative to separation is better, there is no problem; the Government can go down a different channel. If they want to extend separation, they have the power to do so. As with the first reserve power, further discussions need to take place. I think the divisions here are more fundamental, but, equally, I think the strength of opinion is also more fundamental. None the less, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 23 withdrawn.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 7.07 pm.

Press Regulation

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Statement

18:07

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Maria Miller, has made the following Statement:

“We all agree that what is needed is a workable and effective system of press self-regulation. Equally, I believe that we must protect our free press while striking the right balance between independence and redress for individuals. There is no question of undermining the press’s ability to criticise or make judgments—indeed, that underpins our democracy and holds us to account. However, we are talking today about ensuring that the public has a fair system of redress through which to seek to challenge mistakes and errors when necessary.

I have always echoed Leveson in saying that the success of any new system will be seen in an approach that offers justice and fairness for the public and clearly protects the freedom of the press. This House will be fully aware of the careful deliberations following the publication of Leveson’s report and the weight of responsibility that comes with implementing that system.

Significant progress has been made since I last updated the House, particularly by the press themselves, who are well down the track of setting up their own self-regulatory body. Indeed, all involved in the process now consider a royal charter to oversee this regulatory body to be the correct way forward. Just six months ago this seemed impossible. What we are now talking about are differences of opinion in how a royal charter should be constructed.

The committee of the Privy Council is unable to recommend that the press’s proposal for a royal charter be granted. While there are areas where it is clearly acceptable, it is unable to comply with some important Leveson principles and, indeed, government policy, such as in the areas of independence and access to arbitration. A copy of this recommendation letter has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses so that honourable and right honourable Members have the opportunity to look at this in some detail.

In the light of this, we will be taking forward the cross-party charter, which was debated in this House. The cross-party charter will be on the agenda at a specially convened meeting of the Privy Council on 30 October.

In the interim, I believe that we should finish making our charter workable so it will meaningfully deliver independent and effective self-regulation. We have already improved the drafting in the cross-party charter, and we have worked with the Scottish Government and made sure that the press do not have to worry about complying with different frameworks on either side of the border. Further, we have had discussions with the Commissioner for Public Appointments to clarify how his role will work—all important improvements.

And, having considered the press charter, the committee has identified two substantive areas—access to arbitration and the editors’ code—where we could improve what is in the 18 March draft. The right honourable Member for Peckham opposite agrees—indeed, all three parties agree—that these areas could indeed benefit from further consideration. As such, all three political parties will work together in the forthcoming days and produce a final draft of the cross-party charter to place in the Libraries of both Houses on Friday. This will allow parliamentarians, the public, the press and whoever to see the version we intend to seal. If any specific change cannot be agreed by all three parties, we will revert to the 18 March charter debated by Parliament.

We have an opportunity to take a final look at our charter—an opportunity to bring all parties together and ensure that the final charter is both workable and effective. We have a responsibility to make sure that what we do here will be effective and stand the test of time, so we need to make it the best it can be. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get this right. I think we all today want to do that and give individuals access to redress while safeguarding this country’s free press, which forms such a vital part of our democracy”.

18:12

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement on independent self-regulation of the press, made a short time ago in the other place.

I suppose that we should be grateful to the powers that be for the processes that have allowed us to identify a little more closely what happens in Privy Council matters, and how things are looked at and agreed. I think that we have all been a little astonished at some of the things that have come out, but at least it is beginning to come out, and for that we should be grateful.

We welcome the assurance just given that the Government, and indeed the Conservative Party, remain committed to the introduction of a royal charter that gives redress to victims when the press breach their code of conduct, while in no way interfering with the freedom of the press. As the Statement says, this is about,

“ensuring that the public has a fair system of redress through which to seek to challenge mistakes and errors when necessary”.

This is the position of the Labour Party. Labour supports a free and irreverent press as being essential to democracy. We do not support any state control of the press.

It is almost a year since the Leveson report was published. We accept the central recommendations of the report—namely, the need for a new system of independent self-regulation of the press, guaranteed by law. We strongly believe that there are real benefits if we work on a cross-party basis to implement these recommendations.

Your Lordship’s House will recall that Leveson’s proposal has the press setting up their own independent self-regulatory body, with an independent recognition body, independent of politicians and the press, ensuring that the self-regulator remains independent and effective. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm, when he responds, that the Government’s intention remains that of ensuring that the interests of the victims are paramount and that the Government will introduce a Leveson-compliant independent complaints system for the press.

We believe that the parliamentary charter, the one put before the House of Commons in March 2013 by the Prime Minister, with the support of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and which was approved overwhelmingly by both Houses of Parliament, should have been submitted for consideration at the Privy Council meeting tomorrow. We regret that we will not be going to that meeting.

There has been too much delay. However, I accept that, given that we now know that the committee of the Privy Council will be unable to recommend the press’s proposal for a royal charter, there is at least a case for using the time available before the special meeting of the Privy Council on 30 October to finalise the original charter. There are, in fact, concerns from the regional press and there is, as has been mentioned, a Scottish dimension. There may, indeed, be merit in looking at the editors’ code.

However, I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm to your Lordship’s House the process that I understand that the representatives of the Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour parties have agreed will be followed to finalise the charter, and if he could also confirm that we will have absolute transparency of the process from herein. Confidence has already been shaken by the time and effort given to the press proposals and we now know that some drafting changes are being proposed to the original wording.

Can he therefore confirm: that following discussions on possible improvements to the March 2013 charter, the Secretary of State will place before the House the final version of the charter, if it has been agreed by all three parties, before the end of this week; that if the three party leaders cannot agree on changes to improve the charter of 18 March by the end of this week, then that original charter, as agreed by both Houses of Parliament, will not be changed; and that only a version of the 18 March charter agreed by all three party leaders will be the one put forward to the Privy Council at its special meeting on 30 October?

Does the Minister agree with me that the most important thing is for us to get an agreed version of the parliamentary charter sealed, to get a recognition panel established, and for a regulator to be set up? We must ensure that there will be a fair and effective complaints system independent of the press and independent of politicians.

We must not miss this historic opportunity for reform. We must ensure that what the press did to the Dowlers, the McCanns, to Abigail Witchalls’ family and to others, who suffered so terribly, can never happen again. As the Prime Minister said to the Leveson inquiry, “that’s the test of all of this. It’s not: do the politicians and press feel happy with what we get? It is: are we protecting people who have been caught up and absolutely thrown to the wolves”. So let us have no further delay. Parliament has decided; let us get on and implement Leveson.

18:17

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for his initial comments. I would say that it has been an education for me throughout this entire process, and while I have yet to understand all the processes of the Privy Council, the truth is that this matter clearly has been considered by the committee of the Privy Council with extreme care.

I should like to go through the points that the noble Lord has made and I shall start with the interests of the victims, as I will conclude with them, because this is why your Lordships are sitting here now—to ensure that what happened does not happen again, that we have the right system in place, that there is a change in culture and that certain parts of the press that lost their way recognise that this is not reasonable or acceptable to the nation. So I very much endorse the importance of the interests of victims and of ensuring that what people went through does not happen to other people.

The noble Lord mentioned delay. I entirely understand your Lordships’ frustrations, as indeed I have experienced, that this matter has taken quite a long time. However, the point about what we are seeking in these next few days with the right honourable Member for Peckham, my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness and the Secretary of State regarding these points on the work of the committee of the Privy Council is to see whether in these two areas in particular there may be reasonable and responsible adjustments, if the representatives of the three parties agree, which may make more practical sense. I should, however, like first to confirm that, as the Secretary of State said in the other place, the version of the cross-party charter will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses this Friday and that, if the three parties cannot agree to the thoughts of the committee that there may be this area of further consideration, the version of the 18 March will stand. The point is to see whether there can be some reasonable adjustments, particularly on the arbitration element relating to the concerns of local and regional newspapers. Lord Justice Leveson was particularly mindful of the importance of regional and local papers in the nation’s life. Those are the areas that the three parliamentarians will consider.

The noble Lord also mentioned the importance of sealing the cross-party charter, the establishment of the recognition body and the press’s self-regulatory body. I entirely agree. We need to get moving on ensuring that what we have done over these preceding months, timely though they may be—I emphasise that I understand the frustrations of your Lordships—will achieve a lasting settlement and that members of the press will understand that it is a wish not only of Parliament but of the nation that we move on in a responsible and reasonable way. I conclude with the noble Lord’s point about the test. The test of all the work that everyone has tried to achieve is that what happened before does not happen again.

18:21

[Lord Fowler (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s commitment to take action but I hope that this is the last act. This play has now been running for almost two years and I think that we are all impatient to make progress. Does the Minister agree that this charter will in no way interfere with the freedom of newspapers to express their views and that the concern is, and always has been, about members of the public having their rights directly infringed and the total failure of the previous Press Complaints Commission to do anything about those abuses?

Surely, what we need now is basically very simple. We need an independent and effective commission which is seen as independent and which is checked periodically to ensure that it remains effective. We need that sooner rather than later.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I thank my noble friend. All I can say is that, for the sake of the victims and from the nation’s point of view, I very much hope that this is the final stage of important work to ensure that there is a change in attitude and culture. I think that what we have in place for this week is to show that progress really is intended. It always has been intended. From my discussions with the Secretary of State, I know that she is absolutely clear that we need to make progress. The real essence of why the royal charter was first put forward is to see that the freedom and the independence of the press in terms of its self-regulation ensure that there is this freedom for the press to hold us and others to proper account. As my noble friend has said, abuses should not be part of what the press is undertaking. We need to ensure that we get this up and running and that this abuse does not happen again.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement made by the Secretary of State, particularly that the cross-party charter will be signed on 30 October. It is an unfortunate delay. It is time to act and the promise is there. The parliamentary version of the royal charter, which is designed to underpin the new independent self-regulator, was approved by Parliament in March. Even that charter was a substantial departure from the Leveson report, which called for statutory underpinning. It had 10 concessions to the press. Will the Minister confirm that no further concessions to the press will be made this week before the charter’s publication on Friday?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I thank the noble Baroness for her comments and I understand what she said about an unfortunate delay. However, I hope that I have explained that it will not be put forward tomorrow because there is to be further work, which I think all three parties agree would be sensible to consider and discuss given the committee of the Privy Council’s view that there are areas that should be looked at again.

In terms of the word “concession”, the intention is to see whether there are practical ways to address these issues about the arbitration situation for local and regional newspapers and the standards code, which are intended to make this a workable proposition. I do not see them as concessions. This is not about concessions but about seeking to ensure that we have a workable solution.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the cross-party charter in no way threatens press freedom? I speak as a journalist. Nothing in it will interfere with or undermine what we all recognise as crucial to our democracy; namely, press freedom. Indeed, Geoffrey Levy will remain free to publish his opinion, as will those who disagree with him. This charter addresses the ability of victims and those who have experienced unacceptable intrusion to achieve redress. Does the Minister agree that we should get on with making sure that this charter comes into being? Will he confirm that that will be on 30 October?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I thank my noble friend for re-emphasising that the whole intention of the royal charter is not to undermine press freedom. It is intended to provide a system whereby there is such a culture that the situation previously faced by victims no longer happens but that, if it does—and I very much hope that it does not—there is proper redress for people. So I agree with that. I certainly agree that the proposals are to get on with it this week. The date that has been agreed for the Privy Council to meet to seal the cross-party charter is 30 October.

[Lord Prescott (Lab)]

My Lords, the House will not be surprised that the Privy Council has rejected the PressBoF charter simply because it is not supported by all the industry or compliant with Leveson’s requirements. However, is the Minister aware that that caused a further delay? Why was it given preference over Parliament’s agreed charter? That delay was seven months and there is now another month’s delay. Is he aware that the way in which the press have beaten all six recommendations of the inquiry is simply by building in delay after delay after delay. If there are to be further consultations, we will be getting near to the general election when all leaders get pressed by the press and will decide that they have no time or political courage to implement the recommendations. Will he confirm that the Privy Council, at the end of the meeting on 30 October after Parliament has decided what these changes might be, has the possibility of rejecting it? If so, should there not be better representation on the Privy Council other than Tory Cabinet Ministers?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I think that I have already explained to your Lordships why there is a week when further work could be undertaken. As I have said, the right honourable Member for Peckham is very much part of those discussions. I hope that noble Lords opposite will be reassured that this is an honest venture to see if there are ways in which the points that the committee made can be incorporated. If not, the 18 March charter will remain.

The noble Lord used the word “beaten”. I want to reassure him that we have reached the point where, on Friday, the cross-party charter will be available to parliamentarians, the public and the press. The Privy Council will meet and the intention is to seal the cross-party charter on that date.

[Lord Inglewood (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister clarify for me—I am chairman of a regional newspaper company—whether the new charter, if I may call it that, will be discussed by Parliament between the time it is placed in the Libraries and the time that the Privy Council decides to adopt it?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, my understanding is that these are, as I say, points to do with the arbitration system, which are matters of detail. The intention is not to reopen this because all that will do is produce the situation that noble Lords have quite rightly berated me about. This takes us into avenues of reopening matters and, in a way, your Lordships and the nation feel that we have reached a point now where we have to resolve the matter.

[Lord Sugar (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to narrow my comments today to one particular organisation. All parties successfully applied pressure on News International, which resulted in the resignation of editors and the removal of the News of the World from circulation. I do not wish to dwell on the attack by the Daily Mail on the Leader of the Opposition in the other place or to compare it to the phone hacking incidents of the past, but the attack is the final straw. The tyrant Paul Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail, has gone too far this time.

It is about time that all parties again join together and demand of the shareholders and the owners of the Daily Mail the removal of this nasty man. He is not a fit and proper person to be an editor of a national newspaper. The culture that he has created at the Daily Mail has attracted the nastiest bunch of vindictive, arrogant and some would say racist people who call themselves journalists. Over the years, the Daily Mail has harassed members of all parties unfairly and it is about time Parliament showed some unity and flexed its muscles to deal with these nasty people once and for all.

We have to stand up to these bullies. Too many people have held back in the past. Anyone who dares to criticise the Daily Mail will be paid back by being attacked even more. There is no fair system of redress when it comes to them.

Noble Lords: Question!

[Lord Sugar]

I will give you a question shortly.

My question is in urging the Minister seriously to see what he can do to put pressure on the directors and owners of the Daily Mail. Dacre's refusal to apologise for what he did last week can be likened to the Kelvin MacKenzie/Hillsborough headline, which is something that he will be remembered for. I hope that last week's event will be something that Dacre is remembered for. Last week's events and the actions of the Daily Mail are further evidence that newspapers cannot be trusted to regulate themselves.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the first thing to say is that we are having a royal charter precisely because state regulation is not an option that the country or indeed parliamentarians generally wish to travel towards. As the noble Lord has raised the point about the Daily Mail, I think that honest exchanges and robust differences of view are all legitimate, but I have always thought that they should be done in a civil manner. I do not think that what happened with the Leader of the Opposition and the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday was civil.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, has legal advice been taken about the statutory underpinning of the charter? My recollection is that it says that the charter cannot be changed without a two-thirds majority in Parliament. In the very first lesson that law undergraduates ever have, one learns that one Parliament cannot bind another. No amount of saying that there needs to be a two-thirds majority can stand up if a future Parliament simply decides to change it. Has advice been taken on that?

Secondly, because everything seems to be going one way, is there a note of balance in this? It is, after all, our press that uncovered the so-called MPs’ expenses scandal. Our press investigated ill-doing in hospitals and old-age homes for the benefit of those in them even though some may say that they were being victimised by being uncovered. Our press uncovered the thalidomide scandal, perhaps the root of all our acknowledgement of investigative journalism in the past 30 years or so.

Some are fearful that investigative journalism of a very robust nature may become overshadowed if this is not fully taken account of in the royal charter, which one hopes is a cross-party initiative and not one unduly influenced by lobbyists.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

The first thing to say to the noble Baroness is that yes this is a cross-party charter—very much so. There have been robust exchanges with party leaders and parliamentarians across the parties trying to seek some resolution. I absolutely do not think that the whole process is seeking to stop the press in its legitimate task of holding us to account, holding institutions to account and ensuring that wrongdoing is exposed. That is the very essence of why we should champion a free press. But what has happened and why we are here is that elements of the press have been hugely irresponsible and worse.

[Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)]

One of the essences of the Leveson report was that the new regime, which is much needed, will be voluntary as well as statutorily underpinned. What comfort can my noble friend give the House that, whatever charter emerges at the end of this important process, the Government are confident that the newspapers will voluntarily sign up to it?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My noble friend makes an important point. Clearly, we need to have a regime in which the newspaper industry, even if reluctantly, concludes in the end that this is the wish of Parliament and, as I said before, the wish of the nation. I encourage the newspaper industry to see this as a reasonable settlement that protects freedom of the press but ensures that decent people have the proper redress that they deserve.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s commitment to look particularly at access to arbitration. Are the Government listening to the concerns of the regional press, which is particularly exercised because none of the problems that we have been talking about over the past couple of years derives from its work? Indeed, the regional press is the one part of the press that has followed the spirit as well as the processes of the regulation process, but now it is to be involved in a very expensive regulatory procedure. It is very worried about free access to arbitration, which could undermine the existing processes for settlement and, when the regional press is already in severe financial difficulty, could draw it into an additional cost burden.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I admit that I have not had very long to read the letter to the Clerk of the Privy Council from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State, but the last page specifically mentions what my noble friend has raised. That is why, over the next few days, this important concern about arbitration, particularly for local and regional newspapers, is a reasonable one. I think the point my noble friend has made is precisely why we are spending these final days looking to see if there are ways in which the representatives of the three political parties can come to an agreed view. That will pick up the point which has been made by my noble friend.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble friend explain precisely what has been arranged in respect of the First Minister in Scotland? He has talked about the leaders of the three political parties, but given the First Minister’s capacity for mischief, it is obviously very important that he is on board.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

One of the reasons that we took some time to ensure that the cross-party charter is absolutely correct was in order to have discussions with the Government in Scotland and to ensure that there is scope for the charter to include the press in Scotland. There have been clear discussions, and that is why the cross-party charter will include an ability for the Scottish press to be part of the arrangements.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, we have just had another reference to Scotland. In order to ensure the balance that we all seek, is the Minister aware that the legislative framework is now diversifying within the United Kingdom following the passage of the Defamation Bill here because it has been blocked in Northern Ireland so far? There could be wide variations in the legislative framework around the United Kingdom, so that certain areas could in fact become litigation hubs. That would be most regrettable.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I hope very much that that is not the case because what we are seeking to do is ensure that there is a situation whereby the press adheres, through the recognition body and its own self-regulatory body, to standards that we all think should be correct. I hope that we do not get into the situation referred to by the noble Lord.

[Lord Kilclooney (CB)]

My Lords, great stress has been laid on the importance—

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I regret that we must conclude because we have had 20 minutes on the Statement.

[Lord Kilclooney]

I thought that we had some extra time because the next business is not yet due to begin.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

There is a set time of 20 minutes for questions following a Statement. However, the noble Lord is right to say that the next business will not start until 7.07 pm, and so I beg to move the House do now adjourn during pleasure.

18:42

Sitting suspended.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Committee (1st Day) (Continued)

19:07

Amendment 24

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

24: Clause 4, page 17, leave out lines 20 to 44 and insert—
“(1A) The Treasury may by regulations require a ring-fenced body to make arrangements for any one or more of the following purposes—
(a) ensuring that, except in prescribed cases, the ring-fenced body cannot become liable to meet, or contribute to the meeting of, pension liabilities which arise in connection with persons’ service on or after a date specified in the regulations (“the specified date”) in any employment, other than service in an employment in respect of which the employer is a ring-fenced body;(b) ensuring that, except in prescribed cases, the default of a person other than another ring-fenced body would not result in the ring-fenced body becoming liable to meet, or contribute to the meeting of, pension liabilities arising in connection with persons’ service in any employment before the specified date;(c) to the extent that it is not possible to ensure the result mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b), minimising any potential liability falling within paragraph (a) or (b).(1B) The regulations may make provision enabling the trustees or managers of a relevant pension scheme in respect of which the employer or one of the employers is a ring-fenced body—
(a) to transfer to another relevant pension scheme part of the pension liabilities arising in connection with persons’ service before the specified date together with part of the assets of the scheme, or(b) to divide the scheme into two or more sections in relation to which prescribed conditions are met.(1C) The regulations may make provision—
(a) enabling a ring-fenced body to apply to the court in a case where the ring-fenced body has been unable to reach agreement with another person (“P”) about the making of arrangements with P on commercial terms for one or more of the purposes in subsection (1A), and(b) enabling the court on such an application to order P to enter into arrangements with the ring-fenced body for those purposes on such terms as the court considers fair and reasonable in the circumstances.(1D) The regulations must provide that any terms specified by the court by virtue of provision made under subsection (1C)—
(a) must be terms which, in the court’s opinion, represent terms on which the arrangements might be entered into if they were being entered into for commercial reasons between willing parties dealing at arm’s length, and(b) may involve the payment of any sum by instalments.(1E) The regulations may make other provision—
(a) about the making by a ring-fenced body of arrangements for one or more of the purposes in subsection (1A);(b) about any transfer or division falling within subsection (1B).”

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton) (Con)]

My Lords, I turn to Amendments 24 to 37. A central principle of ring-fencing is that ring-fenced banks must be independent from the rest of their groups, so that the failure of another member of the group cannot spread to—and bring down—the ring-fenced bank. Under existing pensions law, if a ring-fenced bank continues to share a pension scheme with other parts of its group then, if another group member were to fail, the entire liability for the scheme could fall on the ring-fenced bank as the “last man standing”. If this liability were sufficiently large, it could then threaten the viability of an otherwise healthy ring-fenced bank. Allowing ring-fenced banks to remain liable for a group pension scheme would thus leave open a potential avenue of contagion from the group to the ring-fenced bank.

It is for this reason that the ICB recommended that ring-fenced banks’ liabilities to group pension schemes should be removed or mitigated. Proposed new Section 142W, as currently set out, therefore gives the Treasury the power to require that ring-fenced banks make arrangements to ensure that they cannot become liable for the pension liabilities of any non-ring-fenced entity, or that they minimise such potential liabilities if they cannot entirely prevent them arising. This could involve segregating an existing pension scheme into discrete sections, or splitting it into two separate schemes. Restructuring would largely be executed through the existing means allowed for under pensions legislation.

The amendments to the powers as currently set out do not change the overarching policy objective. They simply ensure that the powers are wide enough to make sure that that objective is met in all scenarios. Under the existing drafting, the Bill allows the Treasury to make regulations requiring ring-fenced banks to make arrangements in relation to potential statutory liabilities they have to multi-employer schemes.

These amendments expand the scope of the power, allowing the Treasury to make regulations requiring that a ring-fenced bank ensure that it cannot become liable for the pension liabilities of non-ring-fenced banks, or at least minimise its potential liabilities to them, whether the liabilities are statutory—such as those which arise under the employer debt legislation—or non-statutory, such as can arise under contractual arrangements such as guarantees. The amendments also allow the Treasury to make regulations including provisions to help the banks to achieve the required separation of pension schemes, such as enabling the trustees to split the scheme or transfer assets and liabilities to a new scheme; and providing that a ring-fenced bank can make an application to the court if it is unable to reach agreement with a third party about the terms on which it should be released from a contractual arrangement or guarantee giving rise to potential pension liabilities.

In addition, the amendments enable the Treasury to make regulations requiring banks to do all they can to obtain clearance from the Pensions Regulator for any restructuring undertaken to comply with ring-fencing, to ensure that pension scheme members are adequately protected. This strengthens the existing provision in the Bill which only allows the Treasury regulations to require that a bank apply for clearance.

Finally, the amendments introduce a power, allowing the Treasury regulations to modify, exclude or apply legislation—including primary legislation—for the purposes of achieving the required separation of pension liabilities. Pension arrangements are inherently long-term in nature, and the Government must be able to respond flexibly to unforeseen developments as banks restructure their pension schemes if they are to ensure that the economic independence of ring-fenced banks is preserved. Regulations made under this power, like all regulations made under proposed new Section 142W, will be subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure, and can be made only for the specific purposes outlined above. These amendments therefore ensure that proposed new Section 142W is effective in making the ring-fence robust.

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this set of amendments about pension schemes. The argument for the amendments raises two significant questions. We are talking here about transitional arrangements: about moving from a group pension scheme to what might in future be deemed to be necessarily separate schemes for the ring-fenced and non-ring-fenced components of a group. There must therefore be other transitional arrangements as well—for example, property leases which are relevant to a group. Are they, too, to be separated and decomposed? What are we going to do about all those group liabilities similar to pension liabilities during the period between the implementation of legislation for ring-fencing and the conclusion when ring-fencing has been in place for some time? Over that period, there have to be transitional arrangements. Clearly, pensions are a very special case because the people will presumably stay where they are, but there must be other elements of liabilities which are also rather difficult to untangle. My first question is therefore: what is the Government’s thinking about such transitional problems?

The second question, which is much more specific to pensions and immediately arises, is whether the separation will be to the detriment of members of the pension scheme. This is precisely an area in which scale can become enormously important in a pension scheme, especially with respect to diversifying risk. The sheer scale of a pension scheme can be a component of the commercial success of that scheme. If the scheme is to be broken up, will it be to the significant detriment of the pensioners? There must surely be some consideration of whether it is to be their detriment and, if so, of what measures are to be taken to remove that detriment.

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

The role of the trustees will be very important in this context. Is it envisaged that the two parts of the bank will have separate trustees?

19:14

[Lord Deighton]

On the noble Lord’s question about transitional arrangements, the structure with respect to group liabilities will generally be to ensure that liabilities that are particularly relevant to the newly structured organisations that fall out of the ring-fencing arrangements are consistent with the businesses that they are in, so that an operating unit is created which has liabilities which match the business that it is running. If there was a lease at the group level and the ring-fenced bank was the organisation leasing the building, you would expect there to be an inter-company arrangement which would pass the cost down to that level. That is the principle and I think that most banks operate on that basis anyway because one is trying to put the costs and revenues where the business is. There is a provision under Part 7 of FiSMA which allows for transfer of business schemes if one is moving other businesses, but that is a separate point.

On the question of banks and trustees, it is for the banks to work out the practicalities. The legislation defines the objectives to make sure that the ring-fenced bank is protected and that the trustees and pension arrangements are protected in each case, which is why the provisions here ensure that the regulator is contacted in each case. Essentially, the cost of making this work, so that the pensioners are, at a minimum, indifferent to the outcome, will sit with the bank. That is the principle behind this. There may be some costs involved for the banks to leave the pensioners no worse than indifferent, and those costs are an intrinsic part of this separation and the advantages that it brings us.

[Lord Higgins]

Will my noble friend perhaps consider between now and Report whether there is not a strong case for the two schemes to be quite separate? There may well be a conflict of interest between the pensioners of one part of the bank and those of the other part; for example, on whether it should be a final salary scheme or a defined contribution scheme and so on. Will he consider whether one should not leave it to the banks but determine that they shall be separate pension schemes?

[Lord Deighton]

We will certainly review the question in that light. The principle behind this is that they would be separate pension schemes. They may be very similar schemes which are separated, but the notion here is that the ring-fenced bank would have one scheme and the rest of the group would be under different arrangements, the key objective being that the ring-fenced bank would not have an exposure to the pension liabilities that arise elsewhere in the group. That is the key principle here.

Amendment 24 agreed.

Amendments 25 to 38

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

25: Clause 4, page 18, line 11, leave out “a ring-fenced body from making” and insert “the making of”

26: Clause 4, page 18, line 18, leave out “a ring-fenced body to make the arrangements” and insert “the arrangements to be made”

27: Clause 4, page 18, line 19, at end insert—
“( ) require the trustees or managers of a relevant pension scheme or any employer in relation to a relevant pension scheme to give notice of prescribed matters to prescribed persons,”

28: Clause 4, page 18, line 25, leave out “the ring-fenced body to make the arrangements” and insert “the arrangements to be made”

29: Clause 4, page 18, leave out lines 27 and 28

30: Clause 4, page 18, line 34, at end insert—
“( ) modify, exclude or apply (with or without modification) any primary or subordinate legislation.”

31: Clause 4, page 18, line 34, at end insert—
“(3A) The Treasury may by regulations require an authorised person who will or may be a ring-fenced body or an authorised person who will or may be a member of a ring-fenced body’s group to do all it can to obtain from the Pensions Regulator a clearance statement in relation to any arrangements to be made for the purpose of complying with—
(a) regulations under this section, or(b) any provision made by or under this Part (other than this section) when the provision comes into force.”

32: Clause 4, page 18, line 35, leave out from beginning to “the” and insert “A “clearance statement” is a statement issued by”

33: Clause 4, page 18, line 49, leave out “The regulations” and insert “Regulations under this section”

34: Clause 4, page 19, line 5, at end insert “and this section”

35: Clause 4, page 19, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) “Relevant pension scheme” means an occupational pension scheme that is not a money purchase scheme.”

36: Clause 4, page 19, line 9, leave out ““employer”,”

37: Clause 4, page 19, line 14, at end insert—
“(3A) “Employer”, in relation to a relevant pension scheme, means—
(a) a person who is for the purposes of Part 1 of the Pensions Act 1995 or Part 2 of the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 an employer in relation to the scheme, and(b) any other person who has or may have any liability under the scheme.(3B) “Employment” has the meaning given in section 181(1) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 or section 176(1) of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993.
(3C) “Pension liabilities” means liabilities attributable to or associated with the provision under a relevant pension scheme of pensions or other benefits.”

38: Clause 4, page 21, line 15, at end insert—
“( ) In section 391 of FSMA 2000 (publication), in subsection (1ZB), after paragraph (i) insert—
“(ia) section 142N;”.”

Amendments 25 to 38 agreed.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed.

Clause 5: Directors of ring-fenced bodies to be approved persons

Amendment 39

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

39: Clause 5, page 21, line 36, leave out “In”

[Lord Deighton]

Amendments 39 to 41 bring Clause 5 into line with the new senior managers regime recommended by the PCBS. The intention behind Clause 5 is to make sure that directors of ring-fenced banks always have regulatory approval to perform their functions. The clause was introduced before the PCBS made its recommendations about the new senior managers regime. It required directors of ring-fenced banks to be approved persons when they carried out designated significant influence functions, in the terminology of the old regime. The Bill now introduces the senior managers regime, in which the concept of a significant influence function has been replaced. A technical amendment to the clause is therefore necessary to require that the regulator, which can be the PRA or the FCA, always has to designate directors of ring-fenced banks as senior managers, which removes the references to the old terminology.

Amendment 39 agreed.

Amendments 40 and 41

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

40: Clause 5, page 21, line 36, leave out “after” and insert “is amended as follows”

41: Clause 5, page 21, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 22 and insert—
“( ) After subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) In relation to the carrying on of a regulated activity by an authorised person which is a ring-fenced body, the function of acting as a director of the body must be specified as a controlled function in rules made—
(a) in a case where the body is a PRA-authorised person, by the PRA, or(b) in any other case, by the FCA.”( ) After subsection (10) insert—
“(10A) In relation to a body which does not have a board of directors, “director” means a member of its equivalent management body.””

Amendments 40 and 41 agreed.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed.

Clause 6: PRA annual report

Amendment 42

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

42: Clause 6, page 22, line 13, after “provisions,” insert—
“( ) the extent to which ring-fenced bodies are carrying on the regulated activity of dealing in investments as principal (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) in circumstances where as a result of an order under section 142D(2) that activity is not an excluded activity,( ) the extent to which ring-fenced bodies are carrying on activities that would be excluded activities by virtue of an order under section 142D(4) but for an exemption or exclusion made by such an order,( ) the extent to which ring-fenced bodies are doing things that they would be prohibited from doing by an order under section 142E but for an exemption made by such an order,”

Amendment 42 agreed.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed.

Clause 7 agreed.

Schedule 1 agreed.

Clause 8 agreed.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 7.22 pm.