House of Commons

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

Monday 11 November 2013

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What estimate he has made of savings to the public purse arising from the abolition of the education maintenance allowance.

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

By replacing the education maintenance allowance with the 16-to-19 bursary fund, we are saving £380 million every year and targeting help more sharply at the young people who need it most.

[Stephen Mosley]

My local further education provider, West Cheshire college, is proving very effective at ensuring that the bursary fund helps those young people who most need it. What is my hon. Friend the Minister doing to ensure that the bursary fund is targeted at those most in need?

[Matthew Hancock]

My hon. Friend’s local FE college is not only very good; it is also the FE college I went to. I am glad to say that the 16-to-19 bursary fund allows colleges to target support at those who need it most. The most vulnerable receive a bursary of up to £1,200, which is far more than they could have received from EMA.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Merseyside Colleges Association told Merseyside MPs just this week that the bursary fund is nowhere near enough to deal with the need that it finds for food, travel, or books. Will the Minister seriously reconsider? It is not just the very poorest students who are missing out, but those just above them; colleges do not have the money to cover them.

[Matthew Hancock]

It was found that the education maintenance allowance was paid to 10 times more people than needed it to access further education. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman mentions food, because the Government are introducing free school meals for those who need them in FE colleges—something the Opposition never did.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that some people who attend college in Chester do get EMA? Those of my constituents who are from Wales get it, because the Labour Government in Wales provide it to all pupils. Will he accept that that EMA provision means that people stay on at school for longer, and improves their ability to learn at school?

[Matthew Hancock]

No, because the 16-to-19 bursary fund is better targeted. It is typical of Opposition’s proposals that the shadow Secretary of State’s proposal to bring back EMA came with a measure to pay for it that would have raised just over £100 million, leaving yet another black hole.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to improve support for young carers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)]

On 8 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education issued a written ministerial statement announcing an amendment to the Children and Families Bill. For the first time, all young carers will have the right to an assessment of their needs for support as part of the consideration of the needs of the whole family. That amendment will help to achieve our aim of protecting young people from excessive or inappropriate caring roles.

[Stuart Andrew]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Many of the young carers in my constituency and their families will be delighted with that news, but how will he ensure that this landmark law is backed up with the support that is necessary for it to be implemented successfully?

[Mr Timpson]

It is important to recognise that we are not coming at this from a standing start. Since April 2011, we have been funding work done by the Carers Trust and the Children’s Society to establish and share the best practice in supporting young carers that we know is already out there. To date, they have worked with more than 100 local authorities, and we hope that we can help to build that progress with them.

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

We have an excellent young carers project in Salford, but it can do its excellent work only if schools and teachers help to identify carers in the first place, so that they can get that help and support. Does the Minister agree that it is essential for schools, colleges and universities to have in place policies that can identify pupils and students who are young carers, and make sure that they are referred to that excellent source of advice and help?

[Mr Timpson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She has been a strong advocate for young carers, not just in her constituency, but more widely. The Children’s Society has been awarded £1.5 million by the Big Lottery Fund to help ensure that teachers are better at identifying young carers in school, and that young carers are identified and get the support that they require. That is welcome news.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of progress on inter-agency working for child protection; and if he will make a statement.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

12. What recent assessment he has made of progress on inter-agency working for child protection; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)]

Professor Eileen Munro looked at inter-agency working in her widely welcomed review of child protection. We endorsed her conclusion that a strong culture of inter-agency working and information sharing is needed in child protection. That is why we have strengthened the statutory guidance, “Working together to safeguard children” 2013, setting out the core responsibilities and legal requirements for all who come into contact with children in order to keep them safe.

[Jenny Chapman]

The Minister’s response goes some way to reassuring me but, like many colleagues, I find serious case reviews depressingly similar. We hear about the same failings time and again. What is the Secretary of State planning to do to make sure that reviews do not just examine what went wrong, but help us understand why?

[Mr Timpson]

The hon. Lady highlights an extremely serious issue which we have taken on board in relation to serious case reviews. It is important that we understand not only what happened but, as she rightly said, why that happened. We have seen in recent serious case reviews the need to get that analysis right so that in the future we see fewer of the problems of the past resurfacing. The Secretary of State will be making a speech later this week on precisely this issue and setting out his vision of what more we need to do to keep our children safe, but it is right that we keep that focus directly where it needs to be—on children—and that it remains our highest priority.

[Bridget Phillipson]

All too often serious case reviews feature a history of domestic violence in the family. What is the Minister doing across government to make sure that a range of professionals are properly trained in this area and are then able to identify and respond to domestic violence?

[Mr Timpson]

Before I came to this House and was practising in the family courts, it was a depressing feature of most cases that domestic violence was taking place in the presence of children and sometimes with children being the recipients of that violence. That is why we must be extremely vigilant in whatever work we do with children to make sure we root it out. The Home Office is doing work to try to address training and the understanding of domestic violence, and I know that that is one of the key areas on which the sexual violence against children and vulnerable people national group is working. I will encourage it to do so in collaboration with my Department.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Given the priority that the Government are quite rightly putting on child protection, can the Minister tell me what steps have been taken since I wrote in April to establish the name of the school attended by Adil Rashid, who defended himself against a serious sexual offence on the grounds that his school—his state-funded school—had taught him that women were worthless?

[Mr Timpson]

I have been able to identify the school and the steps being taken. I know that my hon. Friend has been in correspondence and the Secretary of State is aware of the issue. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and to write to him with those details so that we ensure that all that can be done is being done.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

In conjunction with the need for inter-agency working, will teachers be given the duty of reporting child abuse when they come across it, and will there be a duty to report that to the local authority without any qualification whatever?

[Mr Timpson]

The new statutory guidance is crystal clear about the responsibilities of all those who work with children, including in schools, and if they have a concern about a child’s welfare, safety or care they should report that to the appropriate authority. We do not believe that making failure to report a criminal offence will improve the protection of children. There is international evidence that suggests that that can make children less safe, but of course we always keep these things under review.

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

Does the Minister agree that the Baby Peter case and the tragic event of the death of that little boy highlighted the need for inter-agency co-operation? Will he also associate himself with my view that we in this House should all be ashamed of the inappropriate hunting down and scapegoating of Sharon Shoesmith?

[Mr Timpson]

In the light of the recent tragic case of Daniel Pelka, we look carefully at what we could learn from the serious case review. It seemed clear to us that the most important focus of our work had to be on understanding what went wrong and why, as opposed to trying to single out individuals at that stage of the investigation. We want everyone to prioritise the protection of children, whatever role they have, whether it is at the level of director of children’s services or working on the front line. We need to send out the message, “We are there to support you in your work, but where you need to be challenged, where there are basic practice failures, we will do so and make sure we put it right.”

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

4. What plans he has to ensure an adequate supply of primary school places; and if he will make a statement.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

13. What plans he has to ensure an adequate supply of primary school places; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

We will spend £5 billion by 2015 on creating new school places across the country—more than double the amount spent by the previous Government in the same time frame. We have worked closely with councils on reforms to school place funding so that it is now more accurate than ever before.

[Barry Gardiner]

Two years ago, Brent had a surplus of primary school places: this year, 614 children are without one. Has the removal of local authorities’ powers to plan and review school places impacted to more damaging effect in any other borough in the country than in Brent, where we now have a 12.5% shortage?

[Mr Laws]

No, the hon. Gentleman has it completely wrong. What has done damage to place planning in large parts of the country is the removal by the last Labour Government of 200,000 primary school places, even after the Office for National Statistics reported the biggest increase in the birth rate since the second world war. I have some figures for the hon. Gentleman about his borough. Basic need funding for Brent in the last four years under Labour was £33.8 million, which I acknowledge is a lot of money. Under this coalition Government that has now risen to £114 million, an increase of 240%.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

The Conservative manifesto promised small schools with smaller class sizes. Will the Minister confirm whether, in the last year, the number of infant classes with more than 30 pupils has more than doubled?

[Mr Laws]

Of course the number has gone up, precisely for the reason that I gave: the Lady’s Government took out 200,000 places in primary education, even over a period when for seven years in a row the birth rate was rising. I also have good news for the hon. Lady. During the last four years of her Government, her area had a £3.1 million investment in basic need. Over a comparable period, that figure now is £11.7 million, an increase of 280%. She should be thanking us for that.

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

I thank the Minister for the recent funding that allowed a significant expansion of primary school places in my constituency. Will he confirm that the Government are spending twice as much on primary school places as the last Government?

[Mr Laws]

I will confirm precisely that. Not only have we allocated £5 billion over this Parliament, more than double the amount that the Labour party allocated over the same period, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has succeeded in securing from the Treasury £7.1 billion of capital funding for basic need alone from 2015 to 2021.

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

In 2001-02, Labour-run Leeds city council forced through a raft of unpopular primary school closures against the wishes of the community. Now, Labour-run Leeds city council is saying that it does not have enough places and that it needs to spend lots of taxpayers’ money building more schools. How can we prevent such appalling planning in the future?

[Mr Laws]

Now we have evidence from the ground, from Leeds, about the exact consequences of the last Labour Government and the mistake that they made by not investing properly in capital. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that the figures for Leeds are these: under the last Labour Government, £15 million over four years for basic need; under this coalition Government, £99.2 million, an increase of 560%.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

24. The pressure on primary school places in north-east Leeds is so great that many parents do not even get their fifth choice. What advice would the Minister offer those parents who are forced to send their non-Jewish child to a Jewish primary school and their non-Christian child to a Christian primary school?

[Mr Laws]

I would advise them to be very angry indeed about the last Government, who failed to invest in basic need. I would invite them to welcome the 560% increase in basic need funding under this Government and to draw the political conclusions from that.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the shortage is the result of two factors: first, the loss of those 200,000 places; and, secondly, the unprecedented population surge resulting from the open borders during the second half of the previous Government’s time in office?

[Mr Laws]

I agree that there has been a significant increase in population in some areas, and the number of places decreased by 220,000 under the previous Labour Government. This coalition Government are now making proper provision right across the country.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

18. One of the issues in Corby, which has seen a 25% increase in the number of children in reception and has the highest birth rate in the country, is that we now have more provision through a free school at secondary level, where we already have a surplus of places, but insufficient primary school provision. I ask the Minister—in not too political a way, I hope—to look at that.

[Mr Laws]

I am very happy to look at any issues the hon. Gentleman wants to raise about his constituency, but I point out that the funding that the Government secures for free schools is in addition to the funding for basic need.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

This morning I met the leaders of Tresham college, who have been able to announce a multi-million pound investment in my constituency that will include an education village, part of which will be a new primary school. Labour talked about it, but it never happened. Under this Conservative-led Government it is happening. Is not that a good thing?

[Mr Laws]

It certainly is a good thing that under this coalition Government we are seeing a massive increase in capital expenditure on basic need: £400 million was the pitiful amount spent in the last year of the Labour Government. Between 2013 and 2015 we are spending £2.4 billion.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

5. What plans he has to ensure that all primary schools are able to offer free school meals to all infants.

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has announced that every child in reception—year 1 and year 2—in state-funded schools will be entitled to a free school lunch from September 2014. The Government will say more about the detail of the policy over the next few weeks.

[Duncan Hames]

That is a very welcome announcement. On Friday I visited St Mary’s school in Broughton Gifford in my constituency, which does not have kitchen facilities and is no longer in a position to offer its pupils hot lunches. Will the Minister ensure that sufficient capital funding is available to enable small primary schools that do not have kitchen facilities to provide hot lunches to all their infants?

[Mr Laws]

We are certainly ensuring proper capital provision. We have a proud record on not only basic need, but the amounts we are allocating for maintenance, free schools and other parts of the capital programme.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the meals that are provided must be healthy? Some 31% of boys and 29% of girls between the ages of two and 15 are obese, and obesity leads to diabetes. Can we ensure that the meals provided actually help the nutrition for those children?

[Mr Laws]

I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The challenge is to ensure not only that we expand entitlement right across the country by September 2014, but that the meals are healthy and are delivered effectively in every single school. We shall ensure that we do that exactly as set out in the school food plan published a few months ago.

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

6. What assessment he has made of the potential role of massive open online courses in schools.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)]

MOOCs present a huge opportunity for this country and are part of a technological revolution that we are seeing around the world. A student in Newcastle can now watch a lecture online from a physics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for free. I think that helps democratise education and open up knowledge.

[Andrew Selous]

Does the Minister agree that MOOCs are a way of ensuring that all children, from whatever background, can get an outstanding education from world-class communicators, thus freeing up teachers to help children with their online exercises?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Thanks to our new national curriculum and qualifications, which are much more flexible, we are seeing a rise in the number of MOOCs in this country. Cambridge university is developing a new MOOC for physics and there are online courses, such as our new core maths course for 16 to 18-year-olds, which is enabling students to study international baccalaureate maths online in their schools.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

7. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of provision of education for children with special educational needs; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)]

Many schools provide excellent teaching for pupils with SEN, but we know from reports by Ofsted and Brian Lamb that too often pupils are classified as having SEN but do not make progress. That is why our SEN reforms, including education, health and care plans, focus on the involvement of families and the agreement of concrete outcomes, so that parents are clear that their children are genuinely making progress.

[Mr McCann]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. The 17 October debate in this Chamber on funding support for deaf children and young people highlighted areas of excellence in deaf education across the country, but sadly that is not the case everywhere. What steps will the Minister be taking to support and promote best practice, and ensure that we can distribute best practice for deaf children across the whole country?

[Mr Timpson]

The hon. Gentleman has a huge personal interest in this issue, and he made an excellent contribution to that debate. He is right that we need to ensure that, where there is excellence, it can be spread as widely and deeply as possible. That is why we are providing £1.1 million of funding to the National Sensory Impairment Partnership, to help to benchmark local authority service and provide guidance on good practice to support sensory support services, in an effort to get more children to benefit from the excellence that we know exists.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will pay tribute to Dig-iT, the dyslexia group in Tamworth, which does great voluntary work for dyslexia sufferers in the town. Does he agree that we need a level playing field in the teaching of children with dyslexia and dyspraxia, so that they get the best possible chance of success?

[Mr Timpson]

I have no doubt that Dig-iT in Tamworth is doing some incredible work to support children with dyslexia and dyspraxia, and we recognise that we need to do more to ensure a level playing field for those families who require extra support. That is why, over two years, we are providing £5.5 million to a number of voluntary organisations, including the Dyslexia-SpLD Trust, so that they can give free advice and training on key aspects of SEN, to make that level playing field a reality.

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

I congratulate the Government on their education, health and care plans, which could make a real difference. The Minister will know that parents who are used to struggling for support are worried that the plans may be too difficult to access. Given the intention to suspend them in custodial settings and to abolish School Action and School Action Plus, there is a fear that the brave new world could be limited to too few. Will the Minister take those concerns on board? In fact, in this instance, why do we not try to work together and do what is right for those with special needs?

[Mr Timpson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his co-operative spirit on this issue. It is important that Parliament and Government give a single, clear message on ensuring that all children with SEN get the support that they need and deserve. I am aware of a number of concerns that have been raised, by parents and others working with children with SEN, during the passage of the Children and Families Bill. The important thing to remember is that we are not reducing or diluting any of the existing protections or rights. In fact, we are expanding them in many cases, particularly for those young people over the age of 16. We will continue to work on some of the remaining issues as the Bill continues its passage through the other place.

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

8. What steps he is taking to ensure there is sufficient supply of child care places for the 40% most disadvantaged two-year-olds.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)]

After only one month of the programme being available, local authorities have reported to us that 92,000 two-year-olds have received an early education place. That is well on the way to our ultimate goal. In fact, it is 70% of it, which is a tremendous achievement by the local authorities and child care providers that participated. We are doing more work to make sure that childminders, nurseries and school nurseries are able to offer places for next year’s expansion.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but is it not the case that the latest figures produced by her own Department suggest that the take-up of the offer for two-year-olds has been lower than intended? This is a flagship policy of the Government, so will the Minister confirm whether she is satisfied with the information that she has just given us, or will she try to make the programme work even better?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I think that 92,000 places is a fantastic achievement for local authorities. There are disparities across the country, and we are working with local authorities that are behind. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that 400 two-year-olds have places in his local area of Tameside. We are doing more to ensure that childminders can offer places. All good and outstanding childminders will be able to offer places from this September.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Many parents want their young children to have home-based child care. What policies does my hon. Friend have to ensure that we can offer places to parents who want that kind of child care?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Unfortunately, the number of childminders halved under the previous Government. We are determined to see the number increase. We are allowing all good and outstanding childminders to offer early education. We are also enabling the establishment of childminding agencies, which will be a one-stop shop for new childminders who want to join the professions and will enable parents to find the home-based care that they want for their children.

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

The truth is that under the hon. Lady’s Government, the number of child care places has fallen. As a result, the costs are going up. Families who are already struggling to make ends meet cannot afford to work. When will she get a grip of the child care provision for two-year-olds and older children and tackle the child care crisis that is facing families across the country?

[Elizabeth Truss]

First, I welcome the shadow Minister to her new position and congratulate her on her well deserved promotion. I am delighted to be working with her on this issue. As I have pointed out, we reported today that 92,000 two-year-olds are in early education places. That compares with 20,000 two-year-olds in 2010. This Government have made massive progress.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

To make a difference, the additional capacity must be delivered in high-quality settings. Will the Minister discuss with Ofsted the need to ensure that the inspection framework is sufficiently robust to ensure that those providers who want to expand their capacity are challenged to give those from poorer backgrounds the best start in life?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are ensuring that those places are delivered by good and outstanding nurseries and childminders. This year, the number of early years teachers entering the programme increased by 25%. Those teachers will have the same standards as primary and secondary school teachers. We are improving the quality of the work force, which will ultimately deliver better early education.

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

9. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the training and support available for the teaching of children with special educational needs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)]

Teachers tell us that the quality of their training in SEN has improved significantly, with 69% of primary teachers and 74% of secondary teachers rating their training as “good” or “very good” in helping them to teach pupils with SEN. That compares with as few as 45% in 2008.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Just over 1,900 pupils in my constituency have special educational needs. Those children need teachers who understand their unique requirements as learners and adapt their lessons appropriately. Does the Minister accept that such pupils lose out in schools that have unqualified teachers who have never undertaken any special educational needs training?

[Mr Timpson]

No.

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

10. What assessment he has made of current provision of information, advice and guidance for young people.

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

We have introduced a new duty on schools to secure independent and impartial careers advice. For the first time, we have a National Careers Service and Ofsted will judge a school’s leadership on how well they deliver.

[Chris Evans]

Careers Wales has referred 9,000 people to the Jobs Growth Wales programme and 75% of them are now in sustainable employment. Have the Government studied the Welsh experience?

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, of course; we have looked all around the world. We are increasing the amount of mentoring to ensure that we have the best people, including employers, to inspire young people to go into careers that will enable them to reach their potential.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Research conducted last month as part of professions week found that, of the 1,200 14 to 19-year-olds surveyed, just 40% had received any form of careers advice or guidance in the past year. In the light of Ofsted’s damning report earlier this autumn, will the Minister assure the House that further steps will be taken to ensure that the transfer of the duty to schools leads to an improvement in careers advice and guidance?

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, we are clear that we are going to strengthen careers advice. Ofsted’s statement that it will look into the quality of the advice that is given will ensure that schools deliver appropriate high-quality careers advice. That advice needs to be of a high quality, and it must be delivered by people who understand how to inspire and mentor young people to enter careers that will interest them.

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

The Government’s programme for school-based careers guidance has been slated by the OECD, Ofsted and the Chair of the Education Committee. Careers England found that the Government’s changes have caused a drastic reduction in careers services for some 80% of schools. What is the Minister going to do about that?

[Matthew Hancock]

I am going to execute the plan that we set out last month. I welcome the hon. Lady to her post. The best way to solve careers advice is not to insist on a bureaucratic system of requirements, but to ensure that people in the workplace are closer to education and that schools communicate with employers, so that those who deliver careers advice understand the careers on which they are advising.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Does the Minister share my experience that it is quite unusual to hear someone of any age spontaneously talking about the excellent careers advice they received, and even rarer to meet someone who is in the job that they were once advised was for them? Is not the best advice often to keep one’s options open by choosing valuable, trusted subjects, hence the EBacc and TechBac?

[Matthew Hancock]

It is undoubtedly true that the two most important vocational subjects are English and maths and that the best insurance against unemployment as a young person is to study more English and maths. I will, however, take my hon. Friend slightly to task. Many people were mentored by those who inspired them and from whom they learned a lot. Ensuring that all children have such relationships with people in the sort of careers that they want to enter is an important part of strengthening social mobility.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Ofsted reports that three quarters of the schools that it visited were not carrying out the duty to give impartial careers advice. That confirms what everybody out there knows: careers advice, information and guidance are in a state on this Government’s watch. When will they do something about it and protect our young people for the future?

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, indeed, we are acting, having inherited a complete failure in careers advice. The Connexions service that the Labour party keeps talking about was well known to be a failing institution, and when it was taken apart, it was agreed across the House that that was the right thing to do because it was not delivering. Instead, we have put in place the sort of guidance and inspiration that will help and support people all the way through and into their careers. Ofsted will hold schools to account, and that is the right way to proceed.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

11. What steps he is taking to allow head teachers greater autonomy in their schools.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

The welcome growth in the number of academies has provided more freedom for more head teachers to raise standards for more students, especially the poorest.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Although a formal teaching qualification may be a bonus, with Ofsted’s rigorous new inspection regime and performance-related pay, does he agree that it would be dogmatic in the extreme to force heads to fire 15,000 teachers, regardless of their impact in the classroom, just because they do not hold a piece of paper?

[Michael Gove]

That is a characteristically acute point from my hon. Friend. The most important thing we need to do is ensure that the quality of teaching in our schools is improving. Ofsted tells us that it is, and I am delighted to report that to the House. That is a result of our reforms.

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

What will the Secretary of State do about Kings science academy in Bradford and the disaster that is that school? There are fines for admission policies, and it looks like criminality as well.

[Michael Gove]

There are certainly questions to be answered by those responsible for Kings science academy, but I stress that all academies and free schools are more rigorously audited and held accountable than local authority schools. I also stress that for many years the quality of education in Bradford has been appalling, yet it is only when new providers come in to innovate that we hear from Opposition Members. They are prepared consistently to turn a blind eye to Labour local authorities that fail, yet whenever there is any challenge to that complacency, all they can do is talk cynically about those idealists who are trying to improve state education.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

The Secretary of State will be aware from the recent Defence Committee inquiry that the education statements contained in the armed forces covenant clash with the Education Act 2011 on admissions to school. With that in mind, should head teachers of Army-focused schools have more authority over whom they admit to their schools?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. One thing that he has done consistently in his time in the House is to ensure that schools in garrison towns such as the one that he represents take appropriate account of the need of our armed forces and their children, particularly at times of movement and redeployment. I would be happy to talk to him more closely about how we can ensure not only that admissions arrangements but additional support are there for those families. We have introduced the service premium for the children of those in the armed forces. I hope that the introduction of that additional cash will help his constituents and those of every other hon. Member.

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

Does the Secretary of State share my expectation that head teachers, when they exercise greater autonomy, take account of the needs of the area in which they teach and operate, which we are trying to achieve in Birmingham? Will he encourage them to do so?

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely would encourage them to do that. Let me pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work in bringing teachers together in Birmingham to introduce the Birmingham baccalaureate, which is a perfect preparation both for the world of work and for further and higher education. One problem in Birmingham for many years has been a culture of underperformance in far too many schools, and that has been insufficiently challenged by the local authority. It should not have to fall to her to do the job that the council should have been doing, but if I would trust anyone to do that job instead of the council, it would be her.

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

14. What his policy is on oversight of free schools.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

Free schools and academies are held more rigorously to account than any other schools.

[John Cryer]

Well, that is a bit of a shock, because it is widely accepted that the democratic scrutiny and oversight of state schools is pretty intense but hardly exists at all for free schools. Does the Secretary of State not worry that that has led to the scandals of the past few months, which could well be the tip of the iceberg? We could see more scandals over the next few years because of that lack of democratic scrutiny.

[Michael Gove]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was surprised by either the content or the brevity of my response, but let me spell things out in slightly greater detail. Academies and free schools have an accounting officer in the way that local authority schools do not; and academies and free schools have to file accounts every year in a way that local authority schools do not. The National Audit Office has pointed out that the scrutiny of schools by local authorities is not what we should expect. The hon. Gentleman is right that there are problems in individual academies and free schools, but there are also problems in individual local authority schools. We know what has gone wrong in academies and free schools because this Government have put in place an improved system of scrutiny for them.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

20. Does the Secretary of State agree that the problems at the school in Bradford highlighted earlier are nothing to do with it being a free school? Will he comment on the One in a Million free school, which recently opened in Bradford? It was over-subscribed and is doing a fantastic job of providing the education that is much needed in that part of Bradford.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The highest-performing school in Bradford is, I believe, an academy. New free schools that have arrived in Bradford have, until recently, been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Increased choice for parents and an increased range of schools have helped to drive up standards across the UK. It is striking that schools in England have consistently improved over the past few years in a way that schools in Wales have not. That is because we have not only parental choice, free schools and academies, but a rigorous inspectorate and league tables, which enable us to identify good practice and spread it more energetically.

[Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)]

I am pleased to hear what the Secretary of State has said on the rigorous oversight for financial purposes of free schools. The Ofsted report on the Al-Madinah school in my constituency has been published, but when does he expect to publish the report of the external funding agency?

[Michael Gove]

The report is by the Education Funding Agency rather than the external funding agency, but I take the right hon. Lady’s point. We have published more about the Al-Madinah free school than has been published about other local authority schools in Derby. It is striking that she raises the weakness of the Al-Madinah free school when, as Ofsted has pointed out with respect to Derby, it is in one of the weakest areas of school improvement of any local authority. In consultation with the EFA, we will ensure that every piece of information necessary about the fate of that school is published at the appropriate time, in the appropriate way. However, it must be stressed that the action we have taken to deal with the Al-Madinah free school was taken faster than any action taken by Labour-led Derby council to deal with any of the underperforming schools in that great city.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the case of Al-Madinah school in Derby shows that the Government will not tolerate failure in education establishments, whether they are free schools or local authority schools?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Schools, including Sinfin school and Grampian school, were allowed to fail in Derby. When they were taken over as academies under this Government, they all saw real improvement in performance. Derby was among the 20% of local authorities that were the weakest when it came to school improvement. The right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) said nothing about that then, but she turns a Nelsonian blind eye to failure by Labour local authorities. When this Government take steps to improve state education, she has nothing to say.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not know what the Secretary of State is having for breakfast, but it is obviously achieving the desired effect.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State sat on the damning report on the Kings science academy scandal for more than five months. When was he planning to tell us that the school had been fined an additional £4,000 for refusing to implement the direction of the independent review panel? Why is there so much secrecy around these schools? Is it because, as he said earlier, he seems to think that fraud is acceptable as long as those responsible are innovators?

[Michael Gove]

There is less secrecy around these schools than there is around local authority schools. We have published the internal audit report on what happened at the Kings science academy. We informed the Home Office of our concerns about that school, and the reason the hon. Gentleman knows so much about the school is that this Government have been far more transparent about institutional failure than the Government of whom he was a member. [Interruption.] However much he may prate and cry from a sedentary position, he knows that this Government have been more transparent about failure and more determined to turn schools around and generate success than his ever was.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

15. What plans he has for teacher supply and recruitment.

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

We are improving initial teacher training in a number of ways. We are enhancing the Teach First programme and taking measures to increase the number of young people who can join teaching through the School Direct programme.

[Julie Hilling]

The primary duty of the Secretary of State is surely to provide enough good school places and enough good teachers. It seems that he is failing on both counts. Why have the Government not published the 2014-15 teacher training number allocation by providers, subject and phase, as normal? What is he trying to hide?

[Mr Laws]

We are not trying to hide anything. We have already published the headline figures for allocations to initial teacher training. The detailed allocations, including the breakdown by subject, will be published in the next few weeks, once they have been confirmed by universities and schools. I will be happy to ensure that the hon. Lady receives a full set of figures.

[Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

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

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

Next year, my Department will be joining the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that all children have the opportunity to learn from, and commemorate, the sacrifice of those who fell in the first world war. We will be building on the work of the excellent Holocaust Educational Trust, which ensures that children have the chance to travel to Auschwitz, so that children in all state schools have an opportunity to visit the battlefields of the first world war.

[Mr Crausby]

The Secretary of State will know that there is no requirement on schools to have a defibrillator on the premises. Is it not time for such a requirement, to ensure that all children and staff are protected? It cannot be right to leave it to parent teacher association fundraising and charities, which have so much else to do. What plans does he have to put that right?

[Michael Gove]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) has been campaigning on this issue and I will be meeting him shortly. There is much to be said for supporting schools to ensure that defibrillators are in place. I want to work with the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole to do that in the most effective way.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

T2. Last week, I was pleased to help launch “My Education”, a report produced by Teach First and Pearson, which surveyed 8,000 British teenagers on their education. The overwhelming majority said that more work experience and better careers advice would help them find the right future. Following that overwhelming response, can the Secretary of State assure us that the National Careers Service will be enabled to support the delivery of careers advice and guidance in schools to the betterment of our entire population?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is important to stress that we need to ensure more work experience opportunities for all young people, which is why we have changed how children are funded when they enter post-16 education to make it easier to offer the appropriate work experience. I also agree that we need to ensure that careers advice for young people is suitably inspiring and to see whether the National Careers Service or other institutions can help. In particular, it is important to work with businesses to ensure that young people have the opportunity to see and hear from the role models who will ensure they make the right choices in the future.

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

Will the Secretary of State confirm that under his plans, students who study only the English language GCSE will be excluded from studying the great works of English literature?

[Michael Gove]

No, they will not be excluded from studying anything.

[Tristram Hunt]

The Secretary of State is not aware of his own GCSE reforms. He has introduced the soft bigotry of low expectations into our education system. He might have enjoyed studying the works of Jane Austen and Wilfred Owen, but he is denying England’s pupils the same access to our national canon if they take only the English language GCSE. If it was all right for him, at Robert Gordon’s college, why is it not okay for kids in Harlow and Blackpool today? Will he now urgently review the changes to English GCSE, or will he continue to dumb down our syllabus?

[Michael Gove]

Tragically, when I was a student at Robert Gordon’s college in Aberdeen, I was not able to take English GCSE, because I was in Scotland and GCSEs were not on offer at that time. As a historian, the hon. Gentleman could perhaps do with studying geography rather more.

Under our new accountability system, which I urge the hon. Gentleman to study and which his colleague, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), welcomed, English will not count unless students study both English language and literature, and the English baccalaureate, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) supports, will be conferred on students only if they study both English language and literature. He talks about Jane Austen. One of the tragedies about the current English GCSE is that fewer than 1% of students who sit it actually read a word of Jane Austen. Before he asks another question in the House, may I recommend to him one particular text of hers—“Pride and Prejudice”? A knowledge of both things would certainly help him to be a more effective Opposition spokesperson.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

T4. What precisely is being done to ensure the availability of high-quality early-years provision?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)]

We have raised standards for early-years teachers so that they have to pass the same maths and English tests as primary and secondary school teachers, and this year we have seen a 25% increase in the number of students applying for those courses, so they are proving very popular.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

T5. How is it possible to be an ardent champion of social mobility and at the same time have a close adviser who thinks that educational attainment is genetic?

[Michael Gove]

I will answer that one.

[Kevin Brennan]

Cummings is your hero.

[Michael Gove]

Thank you. The hon. Gentleman is my hero.

As I have pointed out in speech after speech—I will send them to the hon. Lady—we must always seek to ensure that accidents of birth or circumstances never hold any child back. One of the great things about education is that children can constantly surprise us with their ability. To the historians on the Opposition Front Bench, I would recommend the words of my predecessor in my role as Education Secretary, Margaret Thatcher: advisers advise, but Ministers decide.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

T6. I welcome the Minister’s earlier commitment to healthy school lunches. Will he ensure that head teachers retain the autonomy to establish high standards in the provision of these lunches and are not, because of shared contracts, left at the mercy of one particular provider?

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

We will ensure that head teachers have proper flexibility and that they see the conclusions of the school food plan, which demonstrates precisely how head teachers and schools can not only deliver free school meals in the future, but do so in a way that ensures their high quality.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

One of Labour’s greatest achievements was 3,631 Sure Start centres, such as Story Wood and Lakeside in my constituency, transforming the lives of children. At the last general election, the then Leader of the Opposition said:

“Yes, we back Sure Start. It’s a disgrace that”

Labour

“has been trying to frighten people about this.”

Since then, 566 have closed. Is not the real disgrace making a promise to our nation’s children and then breaking it?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Last week, we heard that a record number of parents and children—more than 1 million—were using Sure Start centres. In fact, we have increased the number of sites: there are 3,000 children’s centres and a further 2,000 linked sites. The hon. Gentleman is referring to where management efficiencies have been made, but more parents are accessing our centres than ever before, and I think he should congratulate the centres on their success.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

T7. Last week, I was at the launch of the Sky academy in Osterley, which includes a Sky skills studio, scholarships for emerging talent, starting-out initiatives and living for sport. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss how we can create similar initiatives in other sectors and establish a business ambassador for each school?

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. She failed to mention that David Beckham was also at that launch, which was no doubt an exciting moment. I pay tribute to the Sky academy and to the work that has been put in to ensure that people going into the media and the arts have not only the skills but the mentoring and inspiration to make the best of their lives. That is exactly what is needed if we are to see more people getting the chance and the inspiration to reach their potential.

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

Today sees the launch of Juice FM’s Knives Wreck Lives campaign in Liverpool, which aims to raise awareness among people on Merseyside of just how damaging knives can be. Will the Secretary of State welcome the campaign, and tell the House what he is doing in our schools and colleges to inform young people about the perils of knife crime?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing our attention to that exemplary campaign. I have campaigned against knife crime since before my time in the House. I worked with the widow of Philip Lawrence, who was the tragic victim of such a crime, in order to raise awareness of what could be done to tackle it in and outside schools. I also worked with two former Home Secretaries to ensure that combat knives were banned. I am delighted that head teachers in schools across the country are today using a variety of innovative methods and working with a variety of third sector groups to alert children to the dangers of carrying and using knives, but there is of course much more to be done and I look forward to working with the hon. Lady and other Members in that endeavour.

[Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

This is the first Government to use Government time and Government Bills to advance the cause and rights of carers. Having already taken the welcome step of ensuring that a whole-family approach is taken to young carers and the people they care for, will the Government consider what further steps they could take to extend that approach to parent carers of disabled children?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)]

I know that my right hon. Friend worked hard on this issue in Government, and that he set up the carers strategy, which has done much to highlight this important area. We have made progress on young carers in the Children and Families Bill, and parent carers will benefit from the changes in our special educational needs reforms. I have met the Minister for Care and Support, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), and looked at the existing legislative framework relating to parent carers. We are satisfied that there is no evidence that it needs to be changed or strengthened, but I would be happy to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss the matter further and to see what else we might be able to do to achieve the end that he seeks.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Following the abject failure of the Secretary of State’s free school experiment at the Al-Madinah school in Derby, will he now give the local education authority the ability to scrutinise the school and make it accountable to the LEA? If the school closes, will he ensure that Derby city council has sufficient resources to accommodate the children in council-run schools?

[Michael Gove]

There are certainly serious issues at the Al-Madinah free school, as we all acknowledge, but it is important to put them in context. Of the first 24 free schools to be inspected, 75% were good or better, whereas in the first tranche of new local authority schools set up in the same period, only half reached that quality threshold. It is also important to recognise that the local authority in Derby has a poor record of helping to challenge underperforming schools, and that outside providers such as Barry Day of Greenwood Dale have done far more to improve education in Derby than the local authority has ever done.

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

Primary schools in rural communities face special challenges. In our recent report on rural communities, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee urged Ministers to give back to local authorities the flexibility to spend the most on those primary schools in the greatest need. Can we have that flexibility back?

[Michael Gove]

There is flexibility in the current approach. There is a lump sum attached to every school that ensures that smaller schools that are doing a great job can continue to provide high-quality education for children in rural areas, but the changes we are making to introduce a national fair funding formula will go even further to meet my hon. Friend’s concerns.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Local head teachers tell me that Bristol city council is advising them to offer funded early education in just the mornings or just the afternoons so that they can avoid the cost of providing free school meals to eligible children. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that these children are missing out on their school dinners and that statutory guidance to offer education at times that best support the child’s learning is being breached?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing that to my attention. I would love to have a chance to know more about the particular situation that she rightly raises. It is important that all children get the nutrition and the education they deserve.

[Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD)]

Some 1.2 million children living within the Government’s own definition of childhood poverty do not get a free school meal. Why do the Government consider it a higher priority to give free school meals to all five, six and seven-year-olds, 1.3 million of whom can perfectly well afford to pay?

[Michael Gove]

I am pleased to be in a coalition Government when the Deputy Prime Minister has made a commitment to the extension of free school meals to five, six and seven-year-olds. We should never make the perfect the enemy of the good. Let me take this opportunity to praise Liberal Democrat colleagues who worked with us in order to ensure that more children have the opportunity to enjoy high-quality lunches. Let me say, too, to the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), with whom I normally agree, that on this occasion I have to part company with him and say that his leader has done the right thing, with which I am delighted to be associated.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has said that circumstances should never hold any child back. How, then, does he plan to respond to this week’s Institute for Fiscal Studies report that showed that grammar schools are five times less likely to admit poorer children than their state counterparts?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. The introduction of academies and free schools is making sure that more children have the chance to attend academically excellent schools. For those living in areas where there are grammar schools who feel that the quality of education they enjoy is not good enough, we are providing choice through the growth of academies and choice through the growth of free schools. Through the pupil premium we are investing £2.5 billion for the very poorest children—a commitment to social justice of the kind to which I know Mr Speaker believes we should all be committed.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct. That is quite a convenient way of trying to keep onside when time is pressing.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Is it appropriate for either teachers or pupils to wear the full-face veil in the classroom, and if the answer is no, what regulations are in place to proscribe the wearing of such?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Matters of school uniform are rightly questions that head teachers should decide on, or college principals should be responsible for. I hope it is clear that the wearing of any item that impedes effective teaching or effective learning is something that we should all ensure does not happen in the classroom. I am working with both the chief inspector of schools and officials within the Department for Education in order to ensure that schools and individuals receive an unambiguous message about the vital importance of ensuring that cultural or other barriers do not impede the capacity to learn of children from whatever community.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree with his most trusted adviser that “real talent” is rare among the nation’s teachers. If not, was it an error of judgment to give him free rein over education policy?

[Michael Gove]

I agree with all my advisers that real talent is rare on the Labour Benches, which is why it is so important that we ensure that this Government are re-elected in a few years’ time.

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

May I be assured that the asbestos in schools steering group will continue, given the importance of developing a clear, up-to-date policy and strategy regarding asbestos?

[Mr Laws]

We are still looking closely at the important issue of asbestos in schools, and we are beginning a review of this subject very shortly. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend has a full opportunity to contribute to the review.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise to colleagues, but we must move on.

Speed Limit in Elterwater, Cumbria

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I wish to present a petition on behalf of residents of Elterwater, in Cumbria, in the Lake district. The petitioners are particularly concerned about the speeding through the Lake district village of Elterwater.

The petition states:

The Petition of a resident of the UK,

Declares that the Petitioner believes that the current speed limit of 60mph in Elterwater, Cumbria, is hazardous for local residents.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to change the speed limit in the area to 20mph, and introduce traffic calming measures.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001287]

Housing Development off Hillside Close (Bozeat, Northamptonshire)

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

It is a great pleasure to present a petition from the residents of Bozeat in my constituency, where an outrageous planning application has been put in which would destroy the nature of the village. The lead petitioners are Graeme Sutherland, Denise Moth, Leo Knight and Lucy Gardiner.

The petition states:

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

The Humble Petition of the residents of Bozeat, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,

Sheweth,

That the proposed housing development, application number WP/2013/0332 on the land off Hillside Close, Bozeat, is unacceptable because the scale and location of the development is out of character with the village and would extend the village boundary

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Borough Council of Wellingborough to work together to ensure that this development does not occur.

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

[P001289]

Point of Order

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

15:34

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Exceptionally, I shall take the point of order before the statement.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am most grateful to you for making an exception in this case, Mr Speaker. As you are aware, Lord Triesman gave evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee as part of our inquiry into the 2018 world cup bid. During his evidence, under parliamentary privilege, Lord Triesman made specific accusations of corruption against four named members of FIFA’s executive committee. In the subsequent review conducted by the Football Association, Lord Triesman was careful to say in answer to questions from James Dingemans QC, who was conducting the review, that he invited him to rely on the evidence that he had given to the Select Committee, and that he did not wish to add to it. In January 2013, one of those accused, Mr Makudi, brought an action for defamation against Lord Triesman, which was struck out. However, in June this year the Court of Appeal granted leave to Mr Makudi to appeal.

This matter goes to the heart of the privilege afforded to Members of Parliament and to witnesses who give evidence to Parliament. If witnesses to Select Committees cannot be confident that their evidence is covered by absolute privilege, and that if they do not repeat the allegations outside Parliament they are fully protected against legal action, that will severely damage the ability of Select Committees to obtain the information that they require. I should therefore be grateful, Mr Speaker, if you would consider what action you, or Parliament, can take to defend the principle of parliamentary privilege, which is a fundamental right enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Culture, Media and Sport Committee with great skill, for his courtesy in giving me notice of his point of order.

I have followed these matters very closely, and the possible implications give me cause for grave concern. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the matter is awaiting determination by the Court of Appeal, so I will not of course comment on the substance of the case; but I will say to the hon. Gentleman, and to the House, that I consider these matters to be of such importance for the House and for its Members, and to the protection of free speech in our proceedings, that written submissions have been made to the court on my behalf by Speaker’s Counsel. I shall of course be following developments closely, as, I know, will the hon. Gentleman. I am extremely grateful to him.

Iran and Syria

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

15:37

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on developments in the Iran nuclear negotiations, and on our work to bring together a peace conference on Syria.

I returned yesterday from E3 plus 3 negotiations with Iran in Geneva. This was the third round of talks in the last month, and it began last Thursday at official level. On Friday and Saturday, E3 plus 3 Foreign Ministers joined the Iranian Foreign Minister at the negotiations.

The threat of nuclear proliferation in the middle east is one of the greatest dangers to the peace and security of the world. That is why we must build momentum behind the Geneva negotiations, and why we and Iran must ensure that the opportunity of making progress does not slip away in the coming weeks.

We had two days of intensive negotiations with Iran, which finished in the early hours of yesterday morning. These were complex and detailed discussions, covering every aspect of Iran's nuclear programme. Our aim is to produce an interim first step agreement with Iran that can then create the confidence and space to negotiate a comprehensive and final settlement. The talks broke up without our reaching that interim agreement, because some gaps between the parties remain. While I cannot go into the details of the discussions while the talks continue, I can say that most of those gaps are now narrow, and many others were bridged altogether during the negotiations. As we concluded the negotiations on Saturday night, all six E3 plus 3 Foreign Ministers presented the same united position to Iran, which provides an extremely strong foundation for the next round of talks on 20 November.

I pay tribute to Baroness Ashton and my Foreign Minister colleagues, including Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif. He is a tough but constructive negotiator, who displayed a sincere and open approach throughout the talks. He and I took the opportunity to discuss further the bilateral relationship between Britain and Iran, and today both our Governments have formally appointed our new chargé d'affaires. I expect the new UK chargé to make his first visit to Iran this month.

The Government are firmly in favour of reaching an interim agreement with Iran, as an essential step towards a comprehensive settlement. But given the extensive nature of Iran’s programme and the history of its concealment, the detailed terms of any agreement matter greatly. An agreement has to be clear and detailed, cover all aspects of Iran’s programme, and give assurance to the whole world that the threat of nuclear proliferation in Iran is fully addressed. Such a deal is on the table, and there is no doubt in my mind that it can be reached. I am convinced that the agreement we were discussing would be good for the security of the entire world, and we will pursue it with energy and persistence.

An interim agreement would involve offering Iran limited, proportionate sanctions relief. In the meantime, however, we will be vigilant and firm in upholding the international sanctions which have played an indispensable part in creating this new opening with Iran. Sanctions are costing the Iranian economy at least $4 billion a month and this cost will be maintained until we reach an agreement. Until such a moment, there is no question of our relaxing the pressure of sanctions in any way. We are determined to take every opportunity to reach a diplomatic settlement to the Iranian nuclear crisis, because the alternatives—nuclear proliferation or conflict—could be disastrous for the peace and security of the world, including the stability of the middle east.

That stability is being severely undermined by the deepening crisis in Syria. Our objectives there remain to reach a political settlement to the conflict, thereby also protecting UK national security, to alleviate the desperate humanitarian suffering, and to prevent the further use of chemical weapons. On 22 October I hosted a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the 11 countries of the core group of the Friends of Syria, as well as the president and senior leadership of the Syrian National Coalition. We gave our united support to the UN-led Geneva II process, which should establish a transitional governing body with full Executive powers, formed by mutual consent. There was unanimous agreement that Assad and his close associates can play no role in a body formed by mutual consent. We also agreed to provide the National Coalition with additional political and practical support to give the Geneva conference the best chance of success, and urged the Coalition to commit itself to taking part in it. It has now done that, which I strongly welcome. Last night, its members agreed by consensus at a general assembly to attend the Geneva II talks, on the basis that this meant that Assad and those with blood on their hands would have no role in a transition. They also rightly called for humanitarian access and the release of detainees ahead of Geneva II. We continue to push for a date for a peace conference to be agreed, and UN and Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi has reiterated that he is still trying to convene a conference before the end of the year.

In the light of this decision by the Coalition, we will provide practical and political support to help it prepare to lead the opposition delegation. I will shortly lay before Parliament a proposal to increase our non-lethal support to the supreme military council of General Idris. This life-saving equipment will take the form of communications, medical and logistics equipment. There can be no peaceful settlement to the conflict in Syria without a strong role for the legitimate, moderate opposition. I also welcome the vote last night by the National Coalition to confirm the inclusion of the Kurdish National Council in its ranks, which adds further to its broad representation of Syrian people.

We are also particularly determined to ensure that the peace talks include a direct role for women’s groups, in accordance with Security Council decisions on women, peace and security. It is vital that women participate fully in the future Government and institutions of Syria, as they have an indispensable role to play in rebuilding and reconciling Syrian society. We are ready to work with Mr Brahimi, his team, international NGOs and other countries to make this a reality. We will also work with the UN and its agencies to ensure that we give the women’s groups the support they need to participate effectively. In addition, we are encouraging the Syrian National Coalition to include women members in its delegation.

So far we have committed over £20 million to support opposition groups, civil society, human rights defenders and media activists in Syria. This ranges from training and equipping search and rescue teams to providing up to £1 million to help survivors of sexual violence gain access to justice, and we will develop this assistance further.

The humanitarian situation in Syria is one of unimaginable distress and suffering. Well over 100,000 people have died, and 11.5 million people—more than half of Syria’s population—are now in desperate need of assistance, either inside the country or as refugees in the region. The UN estimates that 2.5 million people are trapped in areas in Syria that aid is not reaching, including an estimated half a million men, women and children living under siege conditions. Severe acute malnutrition is emerging among children, and polio has reappeared, 14 years after the country was certified free of the disease.

Appalling human rights violations are being committed, including the use of incendiary bombs against civilians, torture, rape, massacres and summary executions, and attacks on hospitals, schools and aid convoys. The regime has shown that it can facilitate access to chemical weapons inspectors when it wishes, and it could do so for humanitarian relief if it showed a shred of humanity and wished to do so. We need to address this crisis to save lives, and also to improve the prospects for the Geneva talks. On 2 October, we helped to secure a UN Security Council presidential statement which said that humanitarian aid must be able to reach all Syrians. That statement is clearly not being implemented. I spoke last week to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov urging his Government to try to persuade the regime to stop blocking the delivery of aid, and we would like to see stronger action in the UN Security Council, including a resolution, if necessary.

In the Security Council, and through all other avenues available to us, we will press for: full humanitarian access and freedom of movement for trapped civilians; the evacuation of civilians from besieged areas; safe passage for medical personnel and convoys; the creation of hubs for the delivery of aid; cross-border assistance; and the lifting of bureaucratic burdens imposed by the regime. We will also work with the Coalition to improve access to aid in areas under its control. The UK is contributing £500 million to relief efforts, much of it to assist neighbouring countries, and the international community has provided $3 billion in funding for this year. But the fact that the existing UN appeal for this year is still nearly $2 billion short underlines just how extreme the humanitarian crisis is, and we call on all countries to do more.

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has confirmed that the destruction of Syria’s declared chemical weapons production, mixing and filling equipment is now complete. But some warheads and all of the bulk chemical agents and precursors remain, and must be eliminated. The UK has provided £2.4 million of support to this process, and we will continue to support the mission until Syria’s chemical weapons capability is eradicated.

Diplomatic progress on all of these issues often seems intractable and difficult, but it is vital that diplomacy succeeds, and we will persist undeterred by the frustrations and delays. At the same time, we will strongly support the middle east peace process, which remains central to international peace and security. We do not underestimate the challenges, but firmly believe that if Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas show further bold leadership, a negotiated two-state solution is possible. We are working with European partners to provide practical support to both sides, including bilateral assistance to the institutions of a future Palestinian state.

We are likely to face a long period of turbulence in many areas of the middle east in the coming years, and if we do not succeed in diplomatic solutions in these three crucial conflicts and potential conflicts, the outlook would be dark indeed, for the region and for the peace and security of the world. In the coming weeks, we will maintain every possible effort to succeed.

15:48

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

May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it this afternoon? On Iran, may I echo the tribute he paid generously to the efforts of Baroness Ashton, who played a crucial role in driving forward these latest talks, and pay tribute to the clear commitment shown by all the P5 plus 1 Ministers in attendance at Geneva? I admit that I was somewhat perplexed to see the Foreign Secretary here at 9.30 am on Friday, but he was right then to make the journey to Geneva.

Labour remains of the view that a nuclear-armed Iran poses a real threat, not just to Israel, but to regional and international security. Therefore, we believe that the United Kingdom Government should continue to pursue the twin-track approach of sanctions and diplomacy. President Rouhani campaigned, and was subsequently elected in June, on a platform of taking the necessary steps to ease the pressure of the sanctions that are currently putting the Iranian economy under strain, so I do believe that sanctions have been effective and continue to be important. However, alongside continued sanctions sustained diplomatic engagement remains key, so I welcome the news of the Government’s announcement that a chargé d’affaires has now been appointed and hope that the British embassy in Tehran will be reopened as soon as it is safe and practical to do so.

The Foreign Secretary said that he cannot go into the details of the negotiations while talks are ongoing, so today I will focus my questions on the outcome of the talks rather than the substance of the deal under discussion. Reports emerging over the weekend described a French veto that prevented any deal from being signed, yet Secretary Kerry was quoted this morning as saying:

“The French signed off on it, we signed off on it, and everybody agreed it was a fair proposal…Iran couldn’t take it at that particular moment; they weren’t able to accept.”

In the light of the somewhat conflicting reports, will the Foreign Secretary set out whether there was unity among the P5 plus 1 and say a little more about the basis on which he has just told the House that such a deal is on the table and that there is no doubt that it can be reached?

It is inevitable and, indeed, understandable that as the outline of such a deal begins to emerge it will increasingly be called into question by those parties that have so much at stake. In the light of that reaction, will the Foreign Secretary set out what assurances have been offered to regional partners, particularly Israel, who are concerned that the principle of an interim deal will, by definition, not provide sufficient guarantees that Iran will cease all activity that could contribute to it developing a nuclear weapons capacity?

Let me turn to the issue of Syria. The humanitarian situation in Syria remains desperate and continues to deteriorate. Clearly, the most effective way to ease the suffering in Syria is to end the war, but while efforts to broker a peace deal continue it is vital that the international community lives up to its responsibility to protect those most in need. I welcome the important work that the UK Government have been doing, but despite the UK’s contribution, the UN appeal is still less than half-funded. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore set out what steps the Government will be taking to try to help ensure that other donors deliver on their unfulfilled pledges?

Since the last time the Foreign Secretary addressed the House on the issue, the OPCW has confirmed that Syria’s declared equipment for producing, mixing and filling chemical weapons has now been destroyed. Syria now has until mid-2014 to destroy the remaining stockpiles of chemical weapons. Given that the OPCW team confirmed that it was not able to visit two of the 23 chemical weapons sites in Syria, as they were simply too dangerous, will the Foreign Secretary say what assurances are being sought for the protection of OPCW personnel who are due to carry out further work in conflict zones across the country?

The biggest breakthrough that is needed to most improve the situation on the ground is a diplomatic initiative. As the Foreign Secretary stated, women will have a key role to play in peace talks and in rebuilding and reconciling Syrian society as the conflict concludes. It is welcome that the SNC has today voted to accept the invitation to attend Geneva II as the representative of the Syrian opposition, but that acceptance is, as the Foreign Secretary has just told us, conditional on Assad and those with blood on their hands having no role in a transition and on the provision of humanitarian access and the release of detainees ahead of the conference being convened. In the light of those specific conditions, will the Foreign Secretary set out his assessment of the likelihood of those conditions being met according to the timetable of the year’s end set out by Lakhdar Brahimi?

In the light of his most recent discussions with representatives of the Iranian regime, will the Foreign Secretary also tell us the British Government’s policy on Iran’s participation in any Geneva II conference before the end of the year? Geneva II still offers the best prospect for securing a more stable future for the people of Syria, so the Government will have the Opposition’s support in their efforts to try to bring about this long-delayed but much-needed conference.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s overall support for our twin-track approach on Iran and our efforts to ensure diplomatic success in bringing together a peace conference on Syria.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about the Iranian nuclear negotiations. It is not right to speak of any veto on the negotiations by any of the E3 plus 3, or P5 plus 1, countries. The position put to Iran by all of us together in the final hours of the discussions on Friday and Saturday had been amended in the light of comments from various of the parties concerned, but it is entirely permissible for members of the E3 plus 3 to put forward their own comments, amendments and positions. There are six sovereign nations involved—as well as the Iranians, who will put forward their positions, of course. A completely united position was put to the Iranians at the close of our discussions, so reports of vetoes by one country, or of obstruction by any country, should be seen in that light. We were all arguing for the same position and the same deal.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what assurances we had given to other countries, and referred to Israel’s concerns about the concept of making an interim deal, rather than going straight to a comprehensive final settlement. We have discussed that. During the talks, I spoke to the Israeli Minister responsible for international relations and security, Mr Yuval Steinitz, and this weekend, the Prime Minister spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu, to give them our assurances and state our confidence in this kind of agreement.

It has to be faced that attempts to go straight to a comprehensive final settlement would be dramatically more difficult than even this process, and it is quite evident from events over the weekend that this process is difficult enough. An interim agreement would be designed to give us the time and space to negotiate a comprehensive final agreement—time during which Iran would take concrete actions in relation to its nuclear programme, in order to give greater assurance and confidence to the international community, and we would offer proportionate and limited sanctions relief in return, but the pressure would still be there to conclude a comprehensive final settlement. There are concerns about this, but all of us in the E3 plus 3 countries believe that this is the most effective and practical way to reach a settlement with Iran.

On the question about humanitarian relief, the UK has been very active, as the House knows, including through the meeting that the Prime Minister convened at the G20 and all our diplomatic efforts around that, in getting other nations to step up their humanitarian assistance. About $1 billion of additional assistance has, one way or another, been associated with the efforts that we have made. We will continue to make those efforts, but that appeal is $2 billion underfunded for this year, and of course we are in the middle of November and approaching the time for another UN appeal. We will strongly support the donor conference that has been called in Kuwait for the middle of January. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who was in the Chamber a moment ago, is working very hard to help bring that together.

The chemical weapons inspectors have now, one way or another, inspected all 23 sites, but of course their security during the continuing work is important. That has to be taken into account in the decision that the OPCW executive council needs to adopt by 15 November —this Friday. The decision is still under negotiation, but it is expected to set out the detailed requirements, including intermediate milestones, for the complete elimination of chemical weapons in Syria in the first half of 2014.

On the stipulations made by the National Coalition regarding their support for the Geneva II process, I do not believe that they need to be obstacles to assembling a Geneva II peace conference. The statement—it is a view that we share—that Assad cannot be part of a transitional authority formed by mutual consent is not surprising. Any authority formed by mutual consent in Syria is unlikely to include those whom the other side regard as having very extensive blood on their hands. The calls for humanitarian assistance and humanitarian access, and for prisoners to be released, are calls that we should all be able to support in any case, so I do not think that those things should be seen as making a Geneva II conference more difficult. We now need the regime to respond in the same spirit.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the inclusion of Iran in the talks. We believe that the starting point for a Geneva II conference is the outcome of Geneva I last year, and that all parties to the talks should be able to accept that. I continue to urge Iran to adopt that position; it would make it much easier for the rest of the world to embrace it in the talks.

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

I welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend in respect of both these difficult issues, but may I invite him to return to the question of refugees? Is he aware that the refugee camp on the Jordanian side of the border with Syria is now the fourth largest city in Jordan, and that there are reports that within a few months medical services in Jordan may simply collapse under the weight and impact of the refugee problem? Does my right hon. Friend understand that if irreparable damage is done to Jordan, it is in no one’s interests, particularly not the United Kingdom, because Jordan is a very important ally of ours in the middle east? Will he give the House an assurance that the particular issue of Jordan and other neighbouring countries is within the contemplation of those with whom he is discussing Syria?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, absolutely. My right hon. and learned Friend is quite right. Of the assistance that we have allocated so far, £175 million has been allocated for the neighbouring countries, and the largest single slice of that goes to Jordan. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the middle east was there last week, and visited some of the affected areas. My right hon. and learned Friend is right that the refugee camp of which he speaks is now the fourth largest city in Jordan and the second largest refugee camp anywhere in the world. That is the scale of what we are dealing with. I discussed the position with His Majesty the King of Jordan two weeks ago. We regularly say to the Jordanians, “Is there anything else that we can do to assist?”, and we will continue to provide additional assistance as they need it.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that although his hard-headed but constructive response to the Iranian negotiations is the right one, if they do not succeed and the Iranians go back to Tehran without a deal, that will strengthen the Ahmadinejad-type hawks in Iran, so every opportunity must be taken to get that agreement while preserving the vital interests at stake? May I also ask about the Syrian situation? I worry about an apparent veto in advance as a precondition being struck by the opposition. Yes, they are willing to take part, but they seem to have imposed a precondition on that. Whatever the transition agreed—if there is one—I find it inconceivable that there will not be some elements of the existing regime in place, like it or not, in order to get an agreement.

[Mr Hague]

On the latter point, let us remember that what is envisaged in the communiqué of Geneva I is a transitional authority formed from the opposition and the current regime, but by mutual consent, so when the right hon. Gentleman refers to elements of the regime in a transitional Government, yes, that is accepted in the transitional Government, but the composition has to be by mutual consent. As I was just saying to the shadow Foreign Secretary, I do not believe that the opposition, in setting out their view of that, are setting preconditions or an unreasonable position ahead of Geneva. It would be very, very surprising if they adopted any position different from that in the run-up to these negotiations.

On the first part of the question, I do agree broadly that there is a window of opportunity here for negotiations with Iran to succeed. That is why we are maintaining this pace of negotiations. With three meetings in the past month and another one planned for next week, we are not losing time in pursuing these negotiations.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is setting out a degree of progress with the Iranians that would have seemed very unlikely just a few short weeks ago, and we should not miss the significance of what has happened. However, he will be aware that the nuclear file is not the only issue with which the international community has problems in relation to Iran. In his bilateral conversations, did he get any inkling from the Iranians that they understood the problems caused by their sponsorship of international terrorism, their participation in Syria and their appalling human rights record? Will this be addressed as a matter of urgency by our new chargé d’affaires?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, My right hon. Friend is quite right that the sort of constructive meeting that came even close to an interim agreement at the weekend would have been hard to envisage a few months ago. That represents an important diplomatic advance. It is not, of course, good enough to have nearly got there; we have to really get there, but it is a big change in the atmosphere. My right hon. Friend is also right that we have many other difficulties with Iranian policies. I referred to those in my opening meetings with Mr Zarif. Certainly, our newly appointed non-resident chargé will be approaching all these issues across the full range of our relations.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

May I first thank the Foreign Secretary personally for the efforts that he has made to improve the bilateral relationship, which is crucial, both for our direct relations with Iran, but also in facilitating this kind of negotiation?

On the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), there is a danger, which I saw myself some years ago, that negotiations quite close to a deal lose momentum, and it is not only the hard-liners in Tehran who then get in on that, but, bluntly, those in Israel and in Washington, of both parties, and I think now in France, who start to undermine the pace and substance of those negotiations. May I offer the right hon. Gentleman full support, as my right hon. Friend has done, in resisting those clarion calls, for example from some elements in Israel, and some in Washington, which will have the effect of undermining the best chance that we have had for decades to secure a proper deal with Iran?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, we will remain very much committed. The right hon. Gentleman can hear from what I am saying that we are very committed to maintaining this momentum. It is a pity that we did not secure agreement on an interim agreement this weekend, because even losing 10 days implies some loss of momentum here. But as the right hon. Gentleman can gather, we will pick that up as quickly as we possibly can. We have scheduled another meeting immediately. It is important for everyone when they think about this to understand that the pressure is on all of us to reach an agreement—it is on Iran, because the sanctions are really biting and having a very serious impact on it, but it is on all of us if we want to see an agreement on this before the Iranian nuclear programme passes further very important stages in its development. We all have to bear that in mind. That means that an interim first step agreement is in the interests of the whole world.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

On Iran, no deal is better than a bad deal, and I wish my right hon. Friend well in bringing the Iranians back to the negotiating table. On Syria, as we are witnessing complete deadlock, does he agree now that the danger is the break-up of the region’s national boundaries, established after the first world war, as the different entities compete for territory and resources and build alliances along ethnic and cultural grounds?

[Mr Hague]

That is one of the dangers, yes. That is absolutely correct. There are many dangers here, but the conflict in Syria becoming more sectarian in its nature and then exacerbating such tensions in neighbouring countries, with a greater and greater disregard for national boundaries, is absolutely a central danger here. That is why it is so important that we give the support to neighbouring countries, including the support that we give to the Lebanese armed forces, which I have described on other occasions, and it is the urgency behind the efforts to come to a political solution to the conflict before it does even greater damage to the entire region.

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

The situation in Syria is indeed appalling, and everyone will endorse what the Foreign Secretary said and the need for humanitarian aid. On the talks with the Iranian Foreign Minister, is it not a fact that the Israeli Prime Minister has been very active in trying to gather opposition, including hard-line elements in the United States? Is it not essential that, despite such efforts to undermine what could be a great achievement for peace and security, the talks should succeed?

[Mr Hague]

It is important that the talks should succeed. It is very important that we pursue a steady course through this to an agreement that is demanding, of course, and which gives the necessary assurances and brings about concrete actions in Iran’s nuclear programme. We should not be surprised that in different countries people have different opinions about this. That is what we have to deal with as politicians and Ministers. We have to persuade other countries as best we can. We will continue to be very active, talking to Israel and other countries with concerns, not being at all surprised that people have concerns, but putting the case for what we think is right.

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

Hard-liners in both Iran and the west, including Israel, will want the talks to fail. Given their historic nature, if successful they could lead to other talks on a range of issues in the middle east. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that any move by Congress to increase sanctions would be counter-productive and could scupper the talks before they finish?

[Mr Hague]

The US Congress will make its own decisions—it does not necessarily do the bidding of the US Administration, let alone the UK Administration, so I will not lay down what it should and should not do. It is currently debating further sanctions against Iran. I think that it is very important for the Iranian authorities to understand that there will be pressure for greater sanctions, or an intensification of sanctions, unless an agreement is reached on these matters, so they need to be fully aware of that pressure.

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

As we edge towards a deal, albeit an interim one, on the nuclear issue with Iran, will the Foreign Secretary underline for the House the fact that this country will in no way shrink from standing by Iran’s neighbours, and Israel, against threats and state-sponsored terrorism, either now or in future, because there are bound to be concerns about that, as the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) mentioned earlier?

[Mr Hague]

Those are very serious concerns. As the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) have mentioned, it is important to keep up the momentum in addressing the nuclear programme, but that does not mean that we do not have other disagreements. The state sponsorship of terrorism and, in particular, the heavy Iranian involvement that is exacerbating the Syrian conflict and supporting a regime that is perpetrating such murder and abuse of its own people are malign activities in the wider region, but that should not deter us from trying to solve the nuclear issue.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on re-engaging with Iran, which could play an important role in bringing peace, particularly to Syria. It would be helpful if he could enlighten us on his discussions with the Iranian Foreign Minister on what critical path the Iranians see to bringing peace in Syria and, on the flip-side of that coin, what conversations he has had with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, which still seem to be supplying Jabhat al-Nusra, ISIS, ISIL and other jihadis who are already preventing peace in the region.

[Mr Hague]

On the question about Saudi Arabia and other states, those countries are part of the core Friends of Syria group and among the 11 countries that came to London at my invitation a few weeks ago. I discuss the situation regularly with His Royal Highness Prince Saud, the Saudi Foreign Minister, and we have all agreed that our support should go through the supreme military council of General Idris and the Syrian National Coalition. Those 11 countries have agreed that we should not support other groups in Syria, particularly extremist groups, so we look to our partners in the group to live up to those commitments. On the question about Iran, our discussions on Syria have been centred, as I mentioned earlier, on Iran supporting the outcome of Geneva I as the basis for a political settlement in Syria, but it has not yet given that support.

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

Of course it is important to prepare for peace and useful to talk about mutual agreement, but right now there is a civil war in Syria. Given that we have clearly stated that President Assad and those close to him will have no role in that future, what incentive is there for Assad not simply to fight to the bitter end?

[Mr Hague]

This is not a position that we have just adopted in this country. The Geneva I communiqué of June last year sets out plans for a transitional authority formed from regime and opposition, as I pointed out earlier, and by mutual consent. It therefore does not exclude everyone in the current Syrian regime, but it would clearly be impossible—on the basis not only of Geneva I, but of any practical political consideration—to unite Syria again around an Administration centred on President Assad. After so much blood has been spilled and after a country has become so divided, it is inconceivable that that could happen. This is only the practical politics of the matter, and that is something that needs to be faced up to.

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

But if there is no sign that the opposition will be able to overthrow President Assad, is not what the Government are doing and proposing rather unrealistic? Would it not be more practical, in terms of helping to stop the suffering, to try to negotiate a ceasefire between both sides without any preconditions?

[Mr Hague]

Neither we nor other members of the Security Council would be opposed to a ceasefire, but my hon. Friend is aware of the history of these things in Syria. If it were possible to negotiate and enforce a ceasefire, it would be possible to do a great many other things as well. We are not even able to secure humanitarian access to areas at the moment, let alone negotiate an agreed ceasefire, so I do not think it is unrealistic to try to assemble a peace conference, based on a communiqué that all the permanent members of the Security Council and many of the regional countries were prepared to support last year, and to get a process going on that basis, which of course could include ceasefires, if we could only sit down and start deliberating on these things together.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there will be a warm welcome for his statement, particularly on Iran, and great support for his robust and positive attitude towards the negotiations? He paid a warm tribute to the Iranian Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javid Zarif, and he will recall that a similar opportunity arose back in 2005—my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), the then Foreign Secretary, will recall this very clearly—but it was torpedoed by elements on our side, particularly in America. We know there are difficulties, but clearly it is important that Zarif is given the chance to succeed. Given that he is obviously a man we can do business with, we wish him well in concluding that business.

[Mr Hague]

Absolutely. He is a tough negotiator. I do not want anybody to think anything other than that, because he represents his country very ably and very frankly. He does not hold back from telling us when there is a serious problem. Those are all hallmarks that one would expect from a good negotiator. Yes, we will continue to work closely with him, knowing that he has to keep, or win, the full confidence of the Iranian system, just as we have to maintain confidence in western and Arab nations and in Israel that we are doing the right thing.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s policy of vigilance towards Iran. May I suggest that it is extremely desirable that any eventual agreement with Iran leaves it standing nowhere near the threshold of becoming a nuclear armed power, because that would be very bad news for the region and for this country and the rest of the world?

[Mr Hague]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is totally right about that. Of course, the purpose of our negotiations is to ensure that concrete actions are taken, even as part of an interim step, to give necessary assurances to the international community and to then allow us to negotiate a comprehensive settlement of this issue. That, of course, means dealing with all the concerns about what the International Atomic Energy Agency calls the “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear programme.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that his strategy and that of the other allies around the table is for a nuclear weapon-free middle east? Is it not odd that in a very long statement he did not mention that Israel actually possesses nuclear weapons and a delivery system? Does he envisage a conference on a nuclear weapon-free middle east that will include, obviously, Iran and other countries, but in particular Israel? Otherwise, it would simply make no sense at all.

[Mr Hague]

I do envisage such a conference taking place. I did not mention that in my statement because there were many new things to report, but we have often discussed it in the House. We argued that there should be such a conference during the non-proliferation treaty review in 2010. There has been a small amount of progress in preparing the way for that in the past couple of weeks. I hope that we will have more to say about it in the next month or so.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend’s position on Iran and wish him well on that. I also congratulate him on the work in Lebanon and Jordan. What discussions has he had with Foreign Minister Lavrov about the peace process? Where do the Russians stand on the pre-conditions that we have set out for the ultimate goal of that process?

[Mr Hague]

I have had many discussions with Foreign Minister Lavrov. The Foreign Ministers of all five permanent members of the Security Council, including Russia, agreed in New York at the end of September to use our best efforts to bring a Geneva II peace conference together. As the House has heard, we are working hard on our side of that agreement to bring the opposition, the national coalition, to Geneva. We look to Russia to use its influence to bring the Assad regime there on the same basis, which is to work from the Geneva I communiqué. That involves a transitional authority formed by mutual consent.

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

Last year, there were 200,000 Syrian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq; there are now more than 2 million. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the Arab League on the growing crisis?

[Mr Hague]

That is very much something that we discuss with the Arab League and its individual members. When we are looking for greater contributions to humanitarian support, it comes bilaterally from the individual Arab nations. Many of them are substantial contributors to humanitarian assistance, although not always through UN channels. We will encourage them to do more. The fact that Kuwait is holding the next donor conference in the middle of January is a strong signal of the commitment of Gulf states to assist. Of course, we will encourage that hard over the coming weeks.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

May I commend the Foreign Secretary for his efforts to normalise relations with Iran? How much support does he think there is for the Syrian National Council among the Shi’a, Christian and Alawite minorities? Does he agree that, without their support, no future Government will be stable?

[Mr Hague]

The Syrian National Coalition represents many groups, communities and political persuasions. For instance, I mentioned in my statement that the Kurdish National Council will become part of the national coalition. The coalition has Christian representatives, not only among its membership, but among the leaders of the national council, which is a component of the national coalition. It has to be said that most Alawite support in Syria sticks with the Assad regime. However, I believe that it is important for Alawites to see that a political solution, along the lines of a transitional Government, is necessary for progress to be made.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

It has been announced in Tehran and confirmed in Vienna that a framework agreement has been reached between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran on recent nuclear activities. Will the Foreign Secretary give some background on that agreement and confirm that it is a good sign that diplomatic progress can and will be made?

[Mr Hague]

Absolutely. That happened just this afternoon, after my statement went to press, to be printed for the House. The International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran have agreed this afternoon

“to strengthen their cooperation and dialogue aimed at ensuring the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme”.

We welcome that agreement. It is another positive sign, provided that the verification activities that have been agreed allow us to resolve all the past and present issues that have been raised by the IAEA. It is important that Iran addresses the substance of the agency’s concerns over what it calls the

“possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme”.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Twenty-one years ago, I was ordered to take a British force under United Nations command into the Balkans. There was no ceasefire; we acted under a United Nations mandate. Is there no possibility that the Security Council might pass a mandate suggesting a humanitarian mission into Syria, even though the present Government do not agree to that? That would definitely encourage the present Assad Government to approve it.

[Mr Hague]

Realistically, there is unfortunately no prospect of the Security Council agreeing a mandate for any military mission into Syria, as that would undoubtedly be resisted and blocked by Russia and China. I hope that, if this situation continues, they will at least agree to a resolution in the Security Council, requiring the Assad regime to comply with presidential statements issued by the Security Council and therefore greatly increasing legal and diplomatic pressure on the Assad regime. I think that is the next step that will become necessary on current trends.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Further to the Foreign Secretary’s earlier exchange with the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) about state-sponsored terrorism, will he perhaps go a little further and agree that it is both unacceptable and counter-productive for the Iranians still to sponsor Hezbollah?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I do agree with that. Close Iranian links with Hezbollah are one of the reasons Iran sends such active and enormous assistance to the Assad regime, because that is the physical connection with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Such support does not contribute—far from it—to international peace and security. I hope that in due course we will address all those issues together, but the right hon. Gentleman will understand that we must first take on the nuclear programme.

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

Despite last month’s UN Security Council presidential statement, the Assad Government are still blocking aid to Syria. During the Foreign Secretary’s discussions last week with the Russian Foreign Minister, did the Russian Government make any firm commitment to put pressure on the Assad Government to allow humanitarian relief into Syria?

[Mr Hague]

Russia has not made new commitments to secure such humanitarian aid. Russia is in favour of the presidential statement agreed at the Security Council; we could not have passed it as a presidential statement had it not been. Russia agrees in principle and is signed up to what we are all saying to the Assad regime and opposition groups in Syria, which is to permit humanitarian aid to go to badly affected areas. We would like to see Russia put the Assad regime under greater pressure. I hope that will happen, but so far I have not received a commitment that it will do so.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I, along with others, welcome the approach taken by the Foreign Secretary. On humanitarian aid, I understand that £90 million of Syrian assets are in banks in London. Other EU countries have used such assets in their countries to pay for humanitarian aid. Will the Foreign Secretary speak to the Chancellor to see whether we can also access that money to supply more humanitarian aid to the people of Syria?

[Mr Hague]

We are looking at that and at related issues. We are making a huge contribution to humanitarian aid, but our biggest difficulty is getting the aid through, even if it can be financed. On the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman, there can be considerable legal difficulties, as well as the additional difficulty of ensuring that, if aid is passed to various groups, it really goes for humanitarian purposes. We are looking at such issues, however, and I will undertake to update him about them.

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

The Foreign Secretary will be aware of national coalition statements that President Assad can have no role to play in the transition. The Foreign Secretary will also have seen a recent statement from the regime, which says that it will attend the conference “in principle” but will not negotiate with “terrorists”, referring to the opposition. The regime also says that any political solution will not involve Mr Assad’s departure. In the light of those comments, how optimistic is the Foreign Secretary about the success of Geneva II? Finally, he says that the six countries in Geneva had different opinions on Iran. Out of those six countries, which one had the greatest reservations about Iran’s concessions?

[Mr Hague]

To be clear on the six countries, I have said that they presented the same united position to Iran. I pointed out that they are entitled to put forward their views and amendments and so on, but the end product was that all six countries put the same united position to Iran. It is important that the House bears that in mind.

My hon. Friend’s points on a Geneva II conference on Syria illustrate the formidable difficulty of bringing such a conference together. That difficulty is widely acknowledged. It would be unrealistic to expect that the parties to the conflict will arrive at Geneva II stating similar positions. The regime will of course say that approaching negotiations does not imply that President Assad will go, and the opposition, when their people are suffering so much at the hands of Assad, will of course say that, in a transition by mutual consent, he will have to go. It would be absolutely astonishing if either said anything different from that.

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

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and E3 plus 3 Foreign Ministers on getting Iran to the negotiating table and on getting as far as they have, but would it not have been better to get the E3 plus 3 together before meeting the Iranians to get a united position, rather than letting the Iranians negotiate differences between the six countries and ending up with the failure in discussions that we currently face?

[Mr Hague]

The E3 plus 3 meets regularly. The round of negotiations that we have just had is the third one in the past month. We also met as Ministers in New York. When there are new developments in proposals on the table, they must be discussed. As I have said, the E3 plus 3 is six sovereign nations, so of course there must be such discussions, but the end product of this weekend’s negotiations was that all six nations put the identical deal to Iran. When one considers that that includes Russia, China, America and the three European countries—we have put forward an identical position—one concludes that it is a remarkable degree of international unity. We should see it that way around.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s report that the Syrian national coalition will participate in the Geneva talks and that it will reach out to national minorities. That is important. Will he expand on what more we can do to support, both inside and outside the negotiating chamber, the moderate Syrian opposition, who are opponents both of the murderous Assad regime and of al-Qaeda and its local allies?

[Mr Hague]

We can do more to support the moderate opposition. I mentioned in my statement the £20 million-worth of support we have committed to them and civil society groups so far. I have also mentioned that I will be laying before Parliament a proposal to give additional assistance, particularly life-saving equipment, including communications equipment, which will help them. We will also help them practically and politically to prepare for Geneva II in terms of their ability to administer such a process and organise themselves for a very large and complex international conference. We will provide the expertise that helps them to do that as well as the practical, material support that we are already giving them.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

May I pursue that point? The Secretary of State said that he intends shortly to lay before Parliament a proposal to increase non-lethal support. What is the timetable and will Parliament be expected to vote on it?

[Mr Hague]

It will happen soon. I cannot be specific on the day, but we are working on the details. When I say “lay before Parliament,” I mean notifying the relevant parliamentary Committees of the assistance that we will provide. That is our normal procedure, and the Committees will have a number of days to consider the proposals before such assistance can be provided. We will be doing that in the normal way, the way that we have done it for previous blocks of support to the opposition.

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

I welcome progress on negotiations with the Iranians, but does the Foreign Secretary agree that it would be wrong for us to proceed towards an agreement with Iran without taking into account the legitimate concerns of our allies in the middle east, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, about Iran’s regional ambitions and hegemony?

[Mr Hague]

We must take into account the concerns of other nations. That does not mean that we will always agree, but we must take them into account. We must be able to assure them that any deal is worth while and will achieve its objectives—we have to be confident of that. Any deal has to be detailed and extensive and has to cover all aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme, so that such concerns can be satisfied.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Foreign Secretary tells the House that it is unrealistic to believe that we can convene a Geneva II conference on Syria on any basis other than the Geneva I communiqué, yet many hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that it is even more unrealistic to try to base it on that wording for the reasons that we have discussed this afternoon. The situation in Syria is getting worse and the polarisation of both sides is intensifying. Is it therefore not incumbent on the British Government and the international community to do everything that they can to bring the parties together for a peace conference?

[Mr Hague]

That is incumbent on us and the rest of the Security Council, and I hope the hon. Gentleman has gathered from my remarks that we are doing that. That was the purpose of assembling the Friends of Syria group here and of all our work in recent weeks with the Syrian National Coalition. However, when he questions whether the basis of Geneva II should be the Geneva I communiqué, I have to tell him that if we did not have that as our starting point we would lack any common baseline. We would be going well back in our negotiation of a peace in Syria. The communiqué was agreed by Russia, as well as by the UK and the United States. At various stages, even the Assad regime said that it supported it, although that has not always been clear. If that cannot be the basis for peace negotiations, we would struggle to assemble any alternative. It is therefore important that we try to build on the Geneva I communiqué.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Iran’s supposed rapprochement with the international community could be nothing but a ruse to give it diplomatic cover to buy more time to complete a nuclear warhead. The ultimate test of any agreement, whether an interim agreement or a complete agreement, is whether the Israelis and the Saudi Arabians believe it. If the Israelis do not, they will contemplate a military strike; and if the Saudi Arabians do not, they will buy nuclear weapons from Pakistan. What can the Foreign Secretary tell the House to give us the confidence that this is not a ruse by Iran?

[Mr Hague]

We should never be surprised by scepticism about Iran’s intentions. Indeed, we should often share a good deal of that scepticism, given its past record of concealment of large aspects of its nuclear programme and its defiance of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN Security Council. We should always have a great deal of sympathy with such scepticism, but our answer has to be that we will be able to make a deal—a first step deal—with Iran provided that there is real substance: if concrete actions are taken, those actions are visible and verified, and their absence cannot be concealed from the international community. We would then have a deal in which we could have confidence and which we could recommend to other countries, including Israel and the Gulf states.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary rightly pointed out in his statement that 500,000 people were living in siege conditions in Syria. Of course, more resources need to be mobilised, but will he say a bit more about how we can get resources to people, specifically children facing severe malnutrition?

[Mr Hague]

We are working hard to get resources to them, and DFID is succeeding in getting resources and help to all 14 governorates of Syria, so aid is reaching all parts of Syria. In those siege conditions, however, aid is effectively being blocked, predominately by the Assad regime, so we need political pressure to be applied on it, including by Russia and other countries in the region. We will keep up the demand for that pressure, as well as supporting the effort to meet the needs of children that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development announced and the work of the World Health Organisation in, for instance, vaccinating against polio.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

How many nuclear weapons does Israel have?

[Mr Hague]

Three years ago, it was my initiative to declare for the first time the number of nuclear warheads possessed by the United Kingdom, but I am not in a position to declare the number possessed by any other country.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Go on, have a guess!

[Mr Speaker]

There is no obligation on the Foreign Secretary to have a guess, especially as the statement is about Iran and Syria, so the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), even by his own standards, has been exceptionally cheeky.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Foreign Secretary has expressed a determination to see a direct role for women’s groups in Syrian peace talks and has stated that he will work with others to support such participation if it can be realised. Is he encouraged about the prospects, and how is the Syrian National Coalition responding to his encouragement to include women in its delegation?

[Mr Hague]

I am encouraged by some of the response, and I pay tribute to the work already done by the Government of the Netherlands to push this idea; we will work closely with them. I think that there is a lot of support for this at the UN, and we will be very determined about it, so yes I am encouraged by some of the initial reaction. Now that the Syrian National Coalition has made its decision in principle about attendance at the Geneva II talks, we will start going into these sorts of issues in more detail with it.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary referred in his statement to the re-emergence of polio 14 years after its eradication. This terrible and entirely preventable disease is a threat beyond international boundaries, so surely it is in Iran’s self-interest to support access for humanitarian and, crucially, medical aid across Syria. Will he reassure the House that that point will be stressed in his ongoing negotiations with Iran?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I will. That is a very good point, and we will certainly pursue it with Iran and all other neighbouring countries. A comprehensive polio response, led by the WHO, is intended to reach 22 million across seven countries in the next seven months, and a regional polio control centre is being established in Amman in Jordan, but we need all the countries in the region to contribute, including Iran, and we will pursue that point with it.

Personal Statement

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

16:44

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

On Monday 11 November, the Committee on Standards published a report on my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests which concluded that I had breached the rules relating to how I registered information. Mr Speaker, I wish to apologise to the House fully and unreservedly for what was a genuinely inadvertent breach of the rules, with which I have at all times sought to comply.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for that statement.

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Mr Speaker]

The amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.

16:44

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

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

I should like to start by offering an apology to the House and to you, Mr Speaker. I shall not be able to be here for the wind-ups at the end of the debate because, in my role as Lord Chancellor, I have to take part in the formal proceedings of the Lord Mayor’s banquet this evening. I have written to the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) and to the Chairman of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), to explain the position.

I have read with interest the reasoned amendment tabled by the Opposition, and it might be helpful to explain to the House what the Bill will do, and what it will not do. It will make reforms to the sentencing framework so as to bring to an end the situation in which a prisoner can walk out of the prison gates with £46 in their pocket and with no one to meet them, no one to plan for their release, and no one to ensure that they do not return to the same streets and the same people and commit further crimes with no one to try to stop them. The Bill will not make any changes to the probation service.

It is the plans to put an end to prisoners walking out of prison with no support that the Opposition are planning to vote against tonight. They are planning to vote against our plans to end the situation in which drug addicts serving short sentences are simply stabilised on methadone for a few weeks because the prison staff know that they will not turn up for rehabilitation when they leave and therefore think that it is not worth starting it. We also want to put an end to the situation in which a young person freshly out of care finds themselves in our criminal justice system and has no help or guidance to sort out their life when they are released. The Opposition are planning to vote against that proposal tonight.

Despite what is suggested in the completely flawed amendment, which is supported by the Opposition in the other place—and which on one reading would make it impossible for even the current probation trusts to alter their local delivery units without parliamentary approval—the Bill will do nothing to reorganise or restructure our probation services. It is not about probation. The changes that we debated two weeks ago are not part of the Bill. They are about our decision to put into action the reforms set out by the Labour Government in their Offender Management Act 2007, which provides us with the legal basis for our probation reforms. This Bill is not about those reforms.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

What will be the additional cost of the Government’s proposals?

[Chris Grayling]

The proposals contained in this Bill will be delivered within the existing budget for our probation services.

In saying that they want to oppose and destroy the Bill, the Opposition are actually trying to set back for years the task of dealing with our biggest criminal justice challenge. That would simply create more and more victims of crime, which could have been prevented. Their short-sighted wrecking strategy will get them absolutely nowhere.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. I declare an interest in that I published a book last year entitled “Doing Time”. I support the Bill. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy being proposed in the Bill was originally put forward in the previous Government’s custody plus programme, which was derived from the Offender Management Act 2007?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Labour has argued for this, legislated for it and U-turned on it. The shadow Secretary of State has stated endlessly over the past few months that the Opposition now support the principle, but they are going to vote against it tonight. That is a sign of how poor an Opposition they are, how unfit they would be to govern, and how out of touch they are with the criminal justice challenges in this country.

It might assist the House if I started by summarising the issues facing short-sentence offenders. Many need housing; 38% of them need help finding a place to live when they are released. Many are out of work; only 30% have found employment within two years of being released, while 83% will have claimed out-of-work benefits in the same period. Huge numbers of them need help with education, with work-related skills. A fifth had a mental health or an emotional problem, a third self-report as having a drugs problem and 65% have used illegal drugs in the four weeks before going into prison custody. Those are the people who Labour Members want to leave prison with no support at all.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that the reforms in the Bill will avoid what happened to my constituent’s son, who after serving nine months in prison was released with £16 in his pocket, a travel card and nothing else, putting him in danger of committing another offence because he lacks accommodation and the long-term support that he needs?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I cannot understand why Labour wants to vote against providing 12 months of supervision support for everyone who leaves prison, which should ensure that they do not reoffend.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

There is one reference in the Bill to the controversial changes to the probation service—found in the new clause 1, which was introduced by our noble Friends up the corridor. Will the Secretary of State reassure those of us who are reassured by that precautionary clause that no change to it will be attempted?

[Chris Grayling]

The problems with the precautionary clause are twofold. First, it is worth saying that this House voted for the reforms by a substantial majority last week. Secondly, the precautionary provision would prevent any change whatever to the entire probation service from being made. The clause is completely flawed. It would prevent any kind of restructuring or reorganisation within an individual trust, let alone any other part of what is proposed. I am afraid that we will therefore seek to overturn that amendment in Committee because, as I say, it would make it impossible to run the probation service, even in its current form.

We are talking about people who have offended before, some of whom are often highly persistent offenders, and far too many of them go on to reoffend. In 2011, about 50,000 adult offenders were released from short prison sentences. Nearly 60% of that group went on to reoffend, committing a total of 85,000 crimes. That is 85,000 crimes too many—a depressing merry-go-round of offending, blighting the lives of men, women and children in all our constituencies.

Labour Members have talked about us taking risks with public safety, so let me tell them what really is taking risks with public safety. It is leaving the situation unchanged. Those 85,000 crimes include some of the most serious crimes that our society knows—thousands of them each year, including hundreds of serious sexual and violent offences. Yet we are leaving the people who commit those crimes to go on and on unsupervised.

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

The probation service, of course, has never been asked or required to supervise that group of offenders before, so is there any reason why the Justice Secretary could not give the public probation service the opportunity to carry out this supervision when the legislation passes?

[Chris Grayling]

I refer to what Labour said in 2010—that it could not do that. The hon. Lady and her colleagues said very clearly that they could not afford to proceed with custody plus—the scheme that they brought forward that would enable the probation service to provide supervision for these offenders. We have come up with a way of doing that. Labour said that in 2010—just before the last election. That is the reality of what we are dealing with. We are talking about people who go on and on and on committing crimes, unsupervised. I see that as the real public safety scandal; it is a flaw in our system that I want to solve and Labour Members seem not to want to solve.

Sadly, it is no surprise that reoffending rates for this group are so high. The average time served in custody for that group is only nine weeks—not nearly long enough to tackle these issues while in prison. After that, they are released at the halfway point with £46 in their pocket and little or no support. Some engage with voluntary rehabilitation programmes after their release, but at the moment there is no mandatory period of supervision in the community. That is what this Bill changes. The core of the change in this Bill is the delivery of 12 months of supervision for those people.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

The 35 probation trusts across England and Wales have been judged either good or excellent. Why is it not right that they cover serious and persistent offenders who have served short sentences? The right hon. Gentleman feels that this change can be done within the current £8 billion decade budget for the probation service, but how can there be no cuts to probation and such an extension into short-term sentences unless the task remained with the probation service? Otherwise, probation services would have to be cut.

[Chris Grayling]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady has not understood what we are seeking to achieve. The Select Committee observed, in a good piece of work, that the present system was far too bureaucratic, and that only a minority of probation time was spent on working with offenders. We are seeking to create a simpler system in which we give much more professional freedom to those on the front line. We want to deliver an environment in which we can mentor and support people, and we want to bring together the best of the public, private and voluntary sectors, not only to make the system more efficient but to deliver high-quality mentoring.

The hon. Lady raised the question of performance. The probation trusts are currently hitting many targets, but there is one simple reality at the heart of all this: reoffending is currently increasing, and I do not think that that is good enough.

Let me explain some of what the Bill will actually do. Clause 2 provides for this group of offenders to spend the second half of their sentences subject to licence conditions in the community, like all other prisoners. Clause 3 creates an innovative period of additional supervision, which is added to the licence to make a total of 12 months' mandatory rehabilitation and support after release. I think that that is the least that we should have in our system; it is extraordinary that we do not have it already.

The supervision period is there not to punish offenders, but to help them to move away from crime. We want those who work with offenders to try new, innovative approaches to rehabilitation. I look forward to seeing the voluntary sector, for example, playing a much larger role. We all see good work done in that sector, and I want to see more of it being done in our formal systems.

A range of flexible requirements can be imposed during the supervision period. They are set out in schedule 1, and include participating in rehabilitative activities including restorative justice, being tested for drugs, and attending appointments to address drug misuse. Those requirements are designed to give those who work with offenders the ability to steer them during the months after their release from prison. The freedom to innovate will be critical to the driving down of reoffending rates in this group.

We are focusing particularly on drug use, which is common among offenders who are serving custodial sentences. Two thirds of those who are serving sentences of less than 12 months have used class A drugs, while three quarters have used class B or class C drugs. Drug use among prisoners is also strongly associated with reconviction on release. The rate of reconviction among prisoners who report having used drugs in the four weeks before custody is more than double the rate among those who have never used drugs. That applies to drugs in class A, class B and class C.

Clause 12 expands the current power to test offenders for drugs while they are on licence to include class B as well as class A drugs. Schedule 1 creates an equivalent testing condition for the supervision period that will follow the licence period. All that is an essential part of trying to ensure that when people come out of prison, we do all that we can to move them off drugs as quickly as possible, in a regime in which they are obliged to take part.

Let me now explain what will happen if an offender does not engage with supervision. Breach of any of the supervision requirements will be dealt with by the magistrates courts, and there will be an important new role for lay justices and district judges. Clause 4 provides a flexible set of sanctions that magistrates may—not must—impose if a breach is proved. They can impose a fine, between 20 and 60 hours of community payback, a curfew with an electronic tag, or committal back to custody. There is no “escalator” approach requiring a more onerous sanction to be used if a lighter-touch one has been imposed before.

The Bill also makes reforms to the two types of sentence that are served in the community—suspended sentence orders and community orders. Reoffending rates following those sentences are less stark than those following short prison sentences, but it is no less important for us to address them. Nearly everyone who ends up in our prisons has previously served a community sentence, and many of those people experience problems similar to those experienced by short-sentence offenders: problems involving mental health, alcohol consumption and drug misuse. Clause 15 creates a new rehabilitation activity requirement to mirror the new supervision condition that will be available for offenders who are released from short prison sentences. As with the top-up supervision period created by clause 3, that will provide maximum flexibility for those working with offenders, enabling them to instruct them to attend appointments or participate in activities.

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

I have a question concerning the flexibility in the new rehabilitation requirements. Can the Justice Secretary give me an assurance about the current 2003 requirements, in particular the mental health, alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirements that have not yet come into force, and where there is a real need for the courts to ensure that the orders are carried out? I know from my own experience that, sadly, orders have not always been complied with. Can he assure me that those powers will still remain even though there will be that flexibility?

[Chris Grayling]

The powers will certainly remain. What will be different is that having a 12-month supervision period—a period of mentoring—for people once they have left prison, or for those going through a community sentence, will provide much more of a pressure-point to get them to turn up for rehabilitation and go for mental health treatment, because there will be someone working alongside them who gets to know them and to understand them, and who can cajole and encourage them.

It is worth highlighting the experience we have had so far in Peterborough. There has been a huge drop in the relative level of reoffending; the number of crimes committed by the cohort going through the Peterborough trial is much lower than that committed by their equivalents in other parts of the country. The overall reoffending rate has fallen as well. That is a success story we should build on, and we will build on it.

[Guy Opperman]

It is not just Peterborough, is it? There is also Doncaster prison, which is the flagship of modern prisons—and I should say that it was set up in its present form under the Labour Government, and rightly so. It has also seen drug-use figures fall. Some 80% of the prison intake was drug addicted or committed drug crimes, and that figure is now down to approximately 30% upon release, under the current programme. Does the Justice Secretary agree that that is a good thing?

[Chris Grayling]

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work being done in Doncaster. There is good work being done in many parts of the prison estate. The Doncaster model is slightly different from what we are looking to deliver across the whole of the justice system, but it is equally delivering reductions in reoffending and that is to be welcomed and supported. Anything we can do to bring down reoffending rates has to be the right thing to do.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend mentions the situation at Her Majesty’s prison in Peterborough. Is not the moral of the story there that non-state actors can have a very important role to play in driving down recidivism? Indeed, both Peterborough prison as a private prison—with male and female co-located—and the social impact bond in Peterborough were pioneered by the former Labour Government, and it is sad that Labour seems to have engineered a U-turn on what is, and was, a very good initiative.

[Chris Grayling]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The sad thing is that a partnership of the private sector and the voluntary sector and the state has been proven to work in many cases. In Peterborough it is working really well. When the Labour Government passed the Offender Management Act in 2007, they talked extensively about the benefits to be gained from such a partnership. It is sad that they are now seeking to block such a partnership in other debates, and today they are using that as an excuse to try to block a measure that they themselves say they support. Frankly, they are all over the place.

The other part of what we are looking to do involves the creation of a proper through-the-gate system. It is a key part of a wider programme to transform how we rehabilitate offenders. The providers that we will bring into the system will offer a resettlement service for all offenders in custody before their release of the kind that is being provided in Peterborough. It is important that we align the prison system and the geographic areas for release afterwards to make sure these reforms can be as geographically synchronised as possible. The changes we are making to our prison system to create a network of resettlement prisons will ensure that, where possible, the same offender manager will work with offenders in custody and continue their rehabilitation work in the community. I believe that can make a significant difference and can help reinforce the measures in this Bill.

[Mrs Moon]

There are no prisons for women in Wales. All women offenders sentenced to a prison term serve their sentence outside Wales. How will that be managed if we are looking at offender managers working from prisons and back in the communities? The majority of offenders are men, and the probation service has a proven track record of working well with women. How will the Justice Secretary ensure that the private sector does not just look at offenders as male, but has programmes designed specifically for women returning to Wales?

[Chris Grayling]

Clearly, we will see the same level of support provided for women and men. The hon. Lady will, of course, have seen in the document we published recently on women offenders that our direction of travel is clearly towards creating smaller units close to where women live, so that we can maintain the family ties. We are trialling a new approach at HMP Styal in Cheshire, whereby we will have a hostel under the wing of the Prison Service, but outside a prison institution, with open conditions. We are looking to see whether we can deliver a different kind of model for the detention of women offenders that can make a genuine difference to them. Successive Governments have wanted to achieve support through the gate for short-sentence offenders, and we will seek to achieve it for men and women alike.

[Mr Burrowes]

The model of good practice on through-the-gate mentoring is the transitional support service, the longest-running and largest mentoring service. G4S, which delivers the service, does get a bad name, but when one looks at the results and the evidence from the evaluation, one finds that this is a very effective practice model which works alongside the public and voluntary and community sector organisations to deliver through-the-gate mentoring for men and women. That example needs to be followed in Wales—[Interruption.] This is all about women in Wales. [Interruption.] That is exactly what the transitional support service does.

[Chris Grayling]

Of course, new Labour believed in public and private and voluntary sector partnerships, but those days are long gone. Such partnerships can make a real difference. Large swathes of Wales have no prison capacity at all, and this Government are seeking to address that by building a major new prison in north Wales, so that many prisoners currently detained elsewhere can be detained in Wales.

Successive Governments have wanted to achieve support through the gate for short-sentence offenders, and this Bill will finally deliver it. This Bill will provide rehabilitation to a group of offenders who desperately need it; it will give those working with offenders the freedom to innovate and tailor their interventions to what each individual needs; and it will stop the cycle of reoffending that creates so many victims in our communities. Its provisions should command the support of hon. Members from all parties. The fact that the Labour party wants to destroy it is just a further sign of how far that party has moved back to its political roots and away from a world of common sense. If the Opposition have their way, the losers will be victims of crime up and down this country and young people whose lives will be wasted.

Let us finish by reminding Labour Members what they are voting for tonight. This Bill does not reform the probation service—it does not create a new structure for the probation service. It simply provides support for people who get short prison sentences for 12 months after they leave prison. The Labour party has always said that it supported that and has said so all year, but tonight, in this House, Labour Members are to vote against it. I think that that is disingenuous to say the least.

17:04

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I beg to move an amendment:

“That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] because the implementation of the proposals in the Bill depends on the Government’s proposed restructuring of the Probation Service; believes that this proposed restructuring will see the abolition of local Probation Trusts, the fragmentation of supervision of offenders on the basis of their risk level and the commissioning of services direct from Whitehall; further believes that the Government has failed to provide any costings for their proposals; notes reports that suggest the Ministry of Justice’s own internal risk register warns that the Government’s proposals could result in a high risk of an unacceptable drop in operational performance; and further declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill on the grounds that none of the Government’s proposals has been piloted nor independently evaluated, potentially resulting in an unnecessary risk to the public’s safety.”

We support many of the Bill’s objectives, despite that awful speech by the Justice Secretary. The first part of the Bill, consisting of clause 1, was inserted by the other place because of its concerns about controversial plans to reform and restructure the probation service. Clause 1 requires any change to the structure of the probation service to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. We note that, so far, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) supports clause 1, but we will see as the evening progresses and as the votes transpire how he moves his position, and whether he decides to vote with conviction or do what the Conservative Whip asks him to do. I will return to clause 1 later.

The second part of the Bill, clauses 2 to 13, deals with the supervision of offenders released from short custodial sentences. All offenders released from sentences of less than two years would be subject to at least 12 months’ mandatory supervision in the community. It has always been a ridiculous anomaly that short-sentence prisoners, the group with the highest rates of reoffending, are the ones left to their own devices when released from prison. As the Justice Secretary just read out, the previous Labour Government tried to address that with the custody plus proposals. I will come back to those later—accurately, rather than by rehashing history in the way attempted a short while ago. Nevertheless, extending supervision to those who serve less than 12 months in custody should play a part in reducing reoffending.

The Bill would also put on a statutory footing the requirement to have regard to the special needs of female offenders when making supervision arrangements. We are grateful to Lord Woolf for his important contributions on that matter in the other place. For the avoidance of doubt, we also welcome the introduction of the new drug appointment requirements and the expansion of the categories of drugs that can be tested for. The third part of the Bill, clauses 14 to 18, would amend the community sentencing framework.

As much as the Justice Secretary would like us to do so, however, we cannot read the Bill in isolation. It is a smokescreen for fundamental changes to the way in which probation works in England and Wales. The motivation that the Justice Secretary relies on in public is his frustration that reoffending rates are too high, which he says means that something bold and radical needs to be done. He is in serious danger, however, of doing something that, bold and radical as it is, might make matters worse and increase the risk to the public.

We know that probation works, as those under supervision are less likely than those who are not to go on and commit more crimes. The MOJ’s figures for the most recent full year show that among those who received a sentence of between four and 10 years who were released and supervised by probation, 30.7% reoffended; among those who received a sentence of between 12 months and four years who were released and supervised by probation, 36.2% reoffended; and among those in custody for less than 12 months who were released and not supervised by probation at all, 58.5% reoffended. By the by, it is a shame that the Justice Secretary is not suggesting payment by results for the public probation service. However, I welcome the fact that he appears, at least on this particular aspect, to want to follow the evidence and to use it to inform his policy making. Offenders who receive probation support do better than those who do not. That must be why he wants to extend probation to those who receive a custodial sentence of less than 12 months. But why does he want completely to dismantle our probation service?

We can all agree that too many people are stuck in a cycle of reoffending. Just over a week ago, on a visit to the Justice Secretary’s flagship Oakwood prison, I met one young man who had previously been in prison six times and who could not have been more than 25 years old. It is precisely that group of people whom we need to get to grips with. It is not only a waste of taxpayers’ money, although we know that on average it costs £40,000 a year to keep someone like him in prison. There is a cost to society, too, as crime is estimated to cost the country £12 billion a year as well as creating, as the Justice Secretary said, needless victims of crime, heartache and misery. It is also a waste of human potential for people to spend their time locked up behind bars when, if properly reformed, they could contribute more meaningfully to society. Nobody would disagree with the need to address the offending behaviour of those individuals, but we do disagree with dismantling probation.

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

Is there not a competition among various Secretaries of State to see who can privatise the most? The Secretary of State is advocating a policy that was pursued the last time the Conservatives were in government, when the solution to all problems was either privatisation or banging people up.

[Sadiq Khan]

If the Justice Secretary was saying that he had evidence that privatising probation worked or that it would save money, he would have an argument. He is saying neither, which is why we suspect that this is all about ideology rather than the evidence of what works. Although we agree with the broad objectives of the Bill—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I can hear chuntering from the Lib Dem Whip, the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), which is quite distracting. I am not sure whether she is trying to persuade her hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham to vote with her, or to put me off my stride—[Interruption.] She is certainly better than the Justice Secretary at trying to put me off my stride.

Although we agree with the broad objectives of the Bill, there are some major areas of difference between us and the Government and some big questions remain unanswered. Those questions are so fundamental that they cast a shadow over the Bill and call into question whether its objectives can be implemented without taking a serious gamble with public safety as a result. The Bill has been brought forward against a backdrop of upheaval and change—change that is not informed by evidence or statistics, but driven by recklessness and ideology.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

rose—

[Sadiq Khan]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman before making progress.

[Steve Brine]

I am sorry to distract the shadow Secretary of State, but I want to ask him a question. We discussed this subject in an Opposition day debate recently, and we agree on the broad objectives of the Bill, as he says. So that I am clear, will he tell me whether, if he is Justice Secretary in 18 months’ time, he will repeal the Offender Management Act 2007, which paves the way for much of the Bill and for what I presume, all things being equal, will become the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2013 or 2014? Will he repeal both those pieces of legislation?

[Sadiq Khan]

The 2007 Act was permissive. It gave the Justice Secretary powers that could be used if probation trusts were failing. Probation trusts were supposed to commission services; I will come on to how the Act works in practice. As far as the Bill is concerned, if I were in a fit of pique, I would be an ideologue and do what my gut told me, but I look at the evidence on what works. That is what I will look at when I become Justice Secretary on 8 May 2015.

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

For the record, it was made explicit in debates on the 2007 legislation that it would allow the flexibility to introduce the voluntary sector in particular, not the wholesale privatisation of the probation service.

[Sadiq Khan]

My hon. Friend reminds me that there are examples of probation trusts around the country that work with the private and voluntary sectors, and with charities. What the 2007 legislation was not about was a control freak Justice Secretary deciding from his desk in Whitehall who runs probation in different parts of the country. That is why there is a reasoned amendment in my name and the names of other right hon. and hon. Members. If the Justice Secretary has his way, in less than a year, there will be a system in place to deliver the measures in the Bill that is massively different from today’s. As the House will know, there is considerable alarm among experts, management, staff, the police, and MPs in all parts of the House at the proposed restructuring of the probation service.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has repeatedly said that the Opposition support the supervision of short-term prisoners; will he explain to the House how he intends to ensure that that happens within the existing probation structure, without undertaking any kind of reform?

[Sadiq Khan]

I will; I will come to that in my speech, if the hon. Gentleman gives me time, but as the Justice Secretary would know if he got out of his office, some probation trusts supervise short-term prisoners now, within their budgets, because they believe that it is very important to do so.

On one side of the debate, there are at least three probation trust chairs warning the Justice Secretary to delay probation privatisation or risk deaths: the chief inspector of probation warns that the plans will lead to

“an increased risk to the public”;

The Economist magazine calls the Justice Secretary’s plans half-baked; and probation staff warn that the fragmentation of the service goes against everything that we know about what works in supervising offenders. The Ministry of Justice’s own risk register warns that there is an 80% risk of an unacceptable drop in operational performance; with regard to dealing with offenders, that can only lead to higher risks to public safety. [Interruption.] The Justice Secretary is saying “No.” Will he publish his risk register?

[Chris Grayling]

Will the shadow Secretary of State remind the House how many times the previous Government published risk registers, which are, after all, only a management tool?

[Sadiq Khan]

Let’s make a promise: if the Justice Secretary publishes his risk register now, when I am Justice Secretary, should I do what he is trying to do —God forbid—I will publish the risk register. He crosses his arms, but he cannot deny that his risk register says that there will be an 80% risk of an unacceptable drop in operational performance. That is playing fast and loose with public safety. He is not willing to publish his risk register.

I have not finished listing those who are on the first side of the argument. I have mentioned the probation trust chairs, the chief inspector of probation, The Economist, probation staff and the Justice Secretary’s risk register. The former chief inspector of prisons, Lord Ramsbotham, said that the Bill was “being rushed through”, and that “Many…questions remain unanswered”. That is not all. The former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, has said:

“I am afraid it is obvious that, because they are…in a hurry, the preparations that the Government have made for the introduction of this scale of change are very modest indeed.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 May 2013; Vol. 745, c. 653.]

[Mr Burrowes]

I want to understand the position. The right hon. Gentleman has at last accepted that there was an anomaly for 13 years under the previous Government. They failed to provide proper statutory supervision for offenders with shorter sentences. Is he saying that he will urge all hon. Members today to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading and to decline to give any empowerment to ensure such supervision, which he recognises is needed? He is playing politics and will be letting down offenders, victims and taxpayers tonight.

[Sadiq Khan]

One cannot will the ends without the means. It is nonsense to suggest that simply pulling a lever will make that happen. It will not happen. We tried to do it, and I will shortly come to our efforts to put in place custody plus.

On the other side of the debate are a few loyal Back Benchers and the Justice Secretary who is purposely not bringing before Parliament his plans for restructuring probation, thereby avoiding proper scrutiny and debate, and is rushing ahead at breakneck speed in implementing these plans, not interested in whether there is any evidence that his plans will work, dismissing expert evidence and instead basing his decision to roll his plans out on his gut instinct—the same gut instinct that brought us the failing Work programme in his former role.

[Guy Opperman]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sadiq Khan]

One last time. I must make progress.

[Guy Opperman]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. He talks about breakneck speed, but does he recall that in May 2006, when the Labour Government were still planning to introduce custody plus and a large proportion of the measures that we see today, in the House of Lords the noble Lord Bassam of Brighton, the Justice Minister, said:

“We estimate that, in 2007–08, 49,400 offenders will be starting custody plus orders”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 May 2006; Vol. 681, c. 566]?

Why does the right hon. Gentleman not now back a plan that has been in the offing for more than 10 years, which has finally been produced by this coalition Government?

[Sadiq Khan]

Because if done properly, it would cost £194 million a year. We could do it on the back of an envelope, as the Justice Secretary wants to do, but I do not want to do that. It is a risk to public safety.

Let me remind the House that at the same time the Justice Secretary says that he wants those who receive less than 12 months’ custody to receive probation supervision. Instead of supporting probation, as he should, what are his plans for it? Those plans are: abolishing local probation trusts and instead commissioning services direct from his desk, in Whitehall, on behalf of local communities; splitting responsibility for offenders on the basis of their risk level, despite risk not being static in 25% of cases; handing responsibility for serious and violent criminals to G4S, Serco, Carillion, A4e and the like; imposing an untried and untested payment-by-results model on providers; and, as I said, all at breakneck speed, adding up to a half-baked, reckless reorganisation of probation, without any evidential base—a monumental gamble with public safety.

Let us be frank. The Justice Secretary has wanted to keep all the major changes he is making to probation below the radar, purposely avoiding bringing those plans before Parliament. If not for the Opposition day debate, MPs would never have had the chance to debate them. He said in the Chamber 12 days ago that he was not afraid of debating his plans, but he left the Chamber almost immediately after his speech, not staying to hear any of contributions from worried and concerned MPs in all parts of the House. That is not debate in anyone’s book. Instead, it shows a disdainful arrogance towards Parliament and towards genuine concerns at his proposals. If he had stayed, he would have heard in the time-limited debate l8 MPs from all parts of the House express concern. More MPs wanted to speak, but there was insufficient time. Just three Members spoke in favour. I can see that he has done a better whipping operation today than he did 12 days ago. Many MPs, stakeholders, prison and probation staff and charities are labouring under the false impression that this is the privatisation of probation Bill. It is not. The Justice Secretary is trying to use the 2007 Act to do that.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sadiq Khan]

I want to make some progress, then I will give way.

The Bill does make specific mention of the probation service, and I pay tribute to those in the other place for their work in trying to get proper scrutiny of the Justice Secretary’s plans. Clause 1 says that no changes may be made to the probation service without the approval of both Houses. That was the result of a successful amendment tabled by Lord Ramsbotham in the other place, not of anything that the Government did. It has taken almost five months since the Bill’s Third Reading in the other place for us to have a Second Reading debate today. Could the reason for that delay be that the Justice Secretary was desperate to begin the tendering process by which privatisation could occur before this important clause could be debated, because he was afraid of Commons scrutiny?

We understand why the Justice Secretary wants to get on with his plans and avoid proper scrutiny. Just two years ago, the Ministry of Justice—none of its then Ministers are now in post; all have been sacked—published a comprehensive competition strategy for probation services, and proposed

“the commissioning of six new PbR pilot schemes to carefully develop and rigorously test PbR for reduced re-offending”.

Note the phrases “pilot schemes” and “rigorously test PBR”. The Ministry of Justice knew that the Peterborough pilot, which was designed by Labour and began in 2010, was a very different beast altogether, and its results are not directly comparable with the Government’s probation plans.

In March last year, the Ministry published a further paper, proposing

“a stronger role for Probation Trusts as commissioners of probation services and a stronger emphasis on local partnership working”.

Note the reference to “probation trusts as commissioners”, not abolition, and to “local partnership working”, not control freakery from Whitehall. I have got to honest: we agreed with that approach.

[Chris Grayling]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, something like 3,000 serious, violent, sexual and similar crimes were committed by people who received sentences of less than 12 months and were released unsupervised last year. He talks about testing. Given that situation, how many years would he wait before he introduced a scheme that supervised those offenders?

[Sadiq Khan]

If the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to speak to the probation trusts, he would know that in Manchester, for example, the trust is already working with the voluntary sector, the private sector and charities to address those who receive sentences of less than 12 months. If he had spoken to those in Avon and Somerset, he would know that the probation trust is already doing that. If he had spoken to the South Yorkshire trust, he would know that it is already doing that. If he took the trouble to speak to them, rather than G4S and Serco, he would know what works and what does not work. Instead, he wants to give contracts to untried, untested private companies, with no experience in criminal justice. If I were the Justice Secretary, I would have consulted the probation trusts. What does he do? He does not wait for any evidence or trials. Forget testing or rigour; he cancels the pilots and does a complete somersault, hoping that no one will notice either his change of mind or the fact that it is being done without any evidence, taking huge risks with public safety and reoffending rates.

Another important issue is how the plans will be resourced. A number of Back Benchers, reading the script, have asked about resources, and how we will we do this in the public sector and not use G4S and Serco to save money. As I have already said, extending supervision to those on short sentences is to be welcomed, but this cannot be taken as a resource-free commitment. An additional 50,000 offenders on top of the current 250,000 a year would need support and supervision. The impact assessment is of no help at all in shedding light on this issue. It says that

“the cost will be dependent on the outcome of competition”.

So, basically, the Government are asking for Parliament’s support, but will not say what the cost implications are of implementing the plans. Call me old-fashioned, but I would like to know how much it will cost before I decide to vote for it.

That is important for two reasons. First, if it is the case that there is going to be a considerable additional resource demand for these plans, but the Government do not want to commit more money—they may indeed wish to save money—existing resources will have to be spread more thinly. So while the Justice Secretary refers to the 3,000 short-term offenders committing offences, that could increase exponentially, because medium and low-risk offenders will be supervised less well because of his plans to increase supervision without proper resources. There are implications for the quality of supervision, and it is important that Parliament debates this.

Secondly, if the Government need to commit more resources, it is only right that Parliament should scrutinise those plans. Either way, the Justice Secretary must be honest with Parliament about the cost of the plans he wants us to vote for today. I find it hard to believe that the Ministry of Justice has not done any number crunching on those issues. Why is it not being made public?

That is all the more pertinent given the excellent contribution my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) made in the Opposition day debate 12 days ago—I am not sure whether the Secretary of State was still in his place, but the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), was. My right hon. Friend pointed out that Labour had a similar scheme for extending supervision called custody plus, which a number of Back Benchers who have read their Whips’ briefing have referred to. He said, because he is an evidence-based politician:

“Ten years ago, it would have cost £194 million a year”.

That would have been for 50,000 offenders, the same figure the Government are proposing. My right hon. Friend went on to attack the lack of costings for the Justice Secretary’s similar plan—he will forgive me for embarrassing him—stating:

“I can put a figure on it, but he cannot. All we are told is that it will be paid for by the savings generated by the competition for low and medium-risk offenders. Frankly, I just do not believe it. Either that supervision will be inadequate or the existing provision will be weakened and reduced in quality.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 1003.]

The Justice Secretary, who is still here for a change, has an opportunity today to respond to that stinging criticism from a respected and senior Member of this House with considerable experience in this area, because so far he has failed to do so. I know that he has a supper to go to, but he still has some time to respond to that point before he leaves.

The Justice Secretary’s incompetence is compounded by his calculations on other matters. According to the MOJ’s impact assessment, extending supervision to prisoners serving less than 12 months will lead to around 13,000 offenders being recalled or committed to custody, increasing the number of prison places needed by around 600, at a cost of £16 million. Where will that £16 million and those additional 600 places come from? Last Friday we were told that there were only 658 prison places left in England and Wales, and next March he will close a further four prisons, with the loss of a further 1,400 places. That is from the Government who cancelled our prison building programme. He will forgive me if we lack confidence in his plans for probation.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

rose—

[Sadiq Khan]

The hon. Gentleman has been very patient, so I will give way.

[Mr Jackson]

The right hon. Gentleman will have to do a little better than this speech if he wants to be Labour’s candidate for Mayor of London, because he does not have much of a tiger in his tank—that is after he has been Secretary of State for Justice, obviously. I admire his brass neck and chutzpah on this issue, given that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) said, six years have passed to right this anomaly, three of which were under his Government. May I press him again very succinctly to answer this question: if the circumstances have changed and independent evidence shows that the Government’s proposals are working, would an incoming Labour Government still repeal the Act?

[Sadiq Khan]

Well, I lost the trail of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention after the third minute. His party has been in government for three and a half years. It has had three and a half years to change the way probation trusts are measured. According to his measurement, every trust is either good or excellent. What is his policy solution? It is to abolish them. Call me old-fashioned, but that seems absurd, bearing in mind the evidence. Why not speak to the probation trusts and say, “Listen, we want to try to supervise those people who are not currently receiving supervision, so are you going to consider doing that?”, rather than taking forward back-of-the-envelope policies that all the evidence suggests will not work.

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Gentleman’s policy appears to be to ask the probation trusts whether they would consider supervising people sentenced to less than 12 months. Will he say very clearly before the House whether or not, if this country is unlucky enough to have a Labour Government after the next election, he will commit to providing supervision for those prisoners sentenced to less than 12 months?

[Sadiq Khan]

If the Justice Secretary has his way, within the course of 12 months those who receive a sentence of less than 12 months will be supervised and we will have to wait and keep our fingers crossed that there will be no risk to public safety. If there is no such risk and the Justice Secretary finally oversees a rehabilitation revolution, of course we will not stop that supervision—that would be ridiculous. The Justice Secretary’s problem is that he cannot tell us how much it will cost, how much reoffending will go down by, or how many fewer crimes will be committed. That is the big flaw in his plan. It is not evidence-based. It has been worked out on the back of an envelope. The last time he tried to do that was the Work programme, which was not a huge success.

[Kate Green]

Of course, one of the problems is that whoever undertakes the supervision activity will have to meet the requirements imposed by a sentencing court, which will be predetermined and come with an element of unbreakable cost. Is it not, therefore, something of a distortion to suggest that these are payment-by-results contracts when a substantial proportion of the cost will, in effect, be determined by the sentence passed by the court? Surely the Justice Secretary could tell us now what costing he has made of that.

[Sadiq Khan]

My hon. Friend has more optimism in the Justice Secretary’s competence than I have. The Social Market Foundation showed recently that it is possible for private companies to still make a profit based on the fee for service, without relying on the PBR element. The Justice Secretary has not even worked out what percentage will be PBR. Will it be 5%, 7%, 10% or 15%? He has no idea. He is the most incompetent Justice Secretary in history.

While I am on the subject of extending supervision, I should say that I, unlike the Justice Secretary, have met probation trusts and they have said that they would be up for taking on those on sentences of less than 12 months if only the Government would let them. They were never asked to do so by this Justice Secretary. Instead, he would rather trust G4S, Serco and the like. In fact, some probation trusts already work with the most prolific offenders in this group, even though they do not get the money to do so. They just see it as the right thing to do.

Instead of abolishing probation trusts, why will the Government not give them the chance to prove their mettle with those on short sentences? Why has the Justice Secretary decided that the existing local structures, which have a proven track record in reducing reoffending, are to be ignored in favour of organisations with no track record in this area? Why have probation trusts been barred from bidding for the contracts to supervise low and medium-risk offenders?

Before I conclude, I need to address the issue of payment by results. The Justice Secretary is pretty good at briefing journalists that his reform of probation will mean that private companies will be paid only if they rehabilitate offenders. Who would not be in favour of a system that pays private companies only by result? However, the Justice Secretary does not brief journalists with the small print. We have absolutely no idea what percentage of the contract payment will be dependent on results—and neither does the Justice Secretary.

I want the House to be clear about what we do and do not support. We support attempts to reduce reoffending. We support extending supervision to those in custody for less than 12 months. We support attempts at through-the-gate support for those leaving prison. We will only support policies that are grounded in evidence of what works and that will not put the public at risk. We cannot afford to undermine public confidence in our criminal justice system with ideological leaps in the dark that could risk public safety.

It is mendacious of the Justice Secretary to attack those who do not subscribe to his particular approach as being in favour of the status quo. The “you’re either with me or against me” approach does not wash. We do not subscribe to the Justice Secretary being judge and jury about what works without waiting for any evidence. We do not support him ignoring experts whose knowledge in this area is at a level he will never be able to match. Placing tabloid headlines ahead of what really works is a dangerous game.

If our reasoned amendment fails, we will table amendments in Committee and on Report to try to address the very serious concerns of experts in the field. We believe it is possible to work with the public, private and voluntary sectors, and that it is possible to reduce offending without taking a risk with public safety.

17:40

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

There should be no disagreement about the key objectives and features of the Bill in respect of through-the-gate supervision. However, there is plenty of scope for disagreement and concern over the mechanisms that the Government are setting up, the timings and the unlimited nature of the Bill. That is a consequence of the fact that they have readily available legislation upon which to build this structure, which was passed by the previous Government.

The Justice Committee will tomorrow take further evidence from organisations and individuals with expertise in this field because it is considering the implications of the probation changes. Further evidence sessions are planned. I do not want to prejudge the Committee’s conclusions. Several members of the Committee are present for this debate. However, I will convey to the House some of the concerns that the Committee has expressed on previous occasions that are relevant to the Bill.

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

rose—

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sir Alan Beith]

I give way first to my hon. Friend.

[Roger Williams]

When my right hon. Friend takes evidence, will he focus on rural issues, because dividing the service between high risk cases and medium and low risk cases might make it uneconomic to deliver because the number of offenders in rural areas is so low?

[Sir Alan Beith]

My hon. Friend would be surprised if I did not take rural issues into account, given that I represent the most sparsely populated areas of England.

I give way to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who is a member of my Select Committee.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I look forward to the evidence session tomorrow morning. Would it not be far better if the Secretary of State delayed further consideration of this proposal until after our Committee has examined the issue and produced a proper report on it so that there is an evidence base for the legislation?

[Sir Alan Beith]

It is our intention to report quickly on these aspects of the probation changes. There has been a considerable delay since the Bill completed its passage through the Lords, as was referred to by the shadow Secretary of State. Although the process for implementing the Government’s changes is fairly rapid, the consideration of the Bill has been relatively leisurely by parliamentary standards. It is my intention that the Select Committee will still influence the shape of what emerges.

When the Justice Committee reported on the probation service in 2011, we said that a more seamless, through-the-gate approach to dealing with offenders was vital and that less of a probation officer’s time should be wasted on bureaucratic processes that do not involve direct engagement with offenders. We saw potential in payment by results, but some dangers as well.

We also wanted something that the Government do not intend to give us, which is local commissioning. That would enable decisions about what is provided to be taken in the context of local circumstances so that we no longer have the absurd position whereby prison is a nationally provided free good, in that it does not engage local authorities through the provision of any expenditure. It is a national expenditure, whereas almost all other kinds of provision have to be financed and funded locally.

The Justice Committee reported earlier this year on women offenders. I welcome clause 11, which relates to the concern expressed in our report that the system was designed to meet the needs of male offenders and must make appropriate provision for women offenders. The argument is not that women who commit criminal offences are less guilty than men who commit criminal offences, but that the circumstances that generate the offences committed by women and the means by which women can be guided towards not committing further offences are often different. That is another area in which we have given advice that is relevant to the Bill.

There are some important questions about the Bill and the structure of the probation service that will be necessary to support it that must be considered. The first is whether there is a market out there. Are there enough potential providers that could take on the contracts and that could engage, as is necessary, with the wide range of charities, voluntary organisations and other bodies in which there is expertise? [Interruption.] I heard a reference from the Labour Benches to G4S and Serco, and the contracts of both those companies, which were brought about under the previous Government, are now the subject of serious fraud inquiries. One implication of that is that a number of companies may effectively be excluded from the bidding process. We must await the outcome of the inquiries as we cannot reach conclusions at this stage, but even were the process still going on, it would exclude at least two major companies working in that field.

[Mike Wood (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

In view of those allegations, does the right hon. Gentleman think it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to withdraw or suspend those companies from the bidding process until the matters are resolved? So far he has refused to do that.

[Sir Alan Beith]

There are complex legal reasons that I will not try and go into now, but I cannot imagine that this House would want a company that is currently the subject of a serious criminal investigation to be awarded a criminal justice contract. Both companies, of course, have contracts in criminal justice in other areas of activity or other parts of government, and they have perfectly satisfactory ratings on some of those. It is a difficult issue to deal with.

[John McDonnell]

As the right hon. Gentleman said, we should be clear about satisfactory ratings. He should refer to the press this morning because G4S has been referred for prosecution as a result of the forgery of documents that allowed the deportation of a prisoner.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I think I have made myself clear about what view the House would take if a company that was the subject of a serious fraud inquiry were to be awarded a bid in those circumstances. I do not think Ministers are in any doubt on that point.

My point about the market was generally much wider because we must take proper account of whether the Department has the capacity to manage that market. Indeed, it has been said on at least one occasion that the Department wants to draw new entrants into the market and cultivate new capacity, but has it got the capacity to do that? We must consider that important question.

On finance and timing, the Government have not made publicly available any assessment of the financial risk of not delivering the programme to the agreed time scale, quality or cost. The risk register apparently suggests there is a 51% to 80% risk that the reforms will fail to deliver the promised scale of savings.

[Sadiq Khan]

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask to see the risk register from the Ministry of Justice, bearing in mind the important report he is preparing?

[Sir Alan Beith]

We may do, but I expect to get the same answer as we would have got from the previous Government.

[Sadiq Khan]

rose—

[Sir Alan Beith]

I think the right hon. Gentleman has made his point and I have given my response. The Ministry of Justice has not provided an indication of how much it would additionally need to save to afford the cost of implementing the proposals, or said how quickly those savings would be realised. That puts my Committee in a difficult position when assessing the viability of the proposals.

There are also difficulties of risk management. The public probation service will have to assure itself about the risk management of up to 200,000 offenders for whom it has no direct responsibility, and we will need to ask many questions about how information will be passed between the public probation service, the police, and private sector providers. At the moment, transfer of information is relatively easy, but under the proposed arrangements it will become more complex and difficult. I hope the Minister will say something about that. That also affects other areas. I had a discussion with a victim liaison officer who is concerned about how far information of the kind she is able to get now will flow when reassuring victims about restrictions being placed on an offender, and whether that information will come so readily through the system the Government propose.

There are key confidence issues about how the proposals can be made to work. There is a confidence issue for the police on sharing intelligence. If police officers feel inhibited about sharing intelligence with the provider of these vital services, the effectiveness of the whole process will be impaired. There is a confidence issue for magistrates when considering how they can rely on a community sentence—a significant part of the Bill is on community sentences. We want magistrates to be able to pass community sentences confident in the knowledge that they will be carried out effectively. There is a confidence issue for those who deal with victims and, currently, for probation office staff, who are uncertain as to where they will end up. If they take no definite action to locate themselves in the new system, will they finish up in the public probation service or the private sector? Which way should they go if they want the opportunity to exercise their skills?

[Guy Opperman]

I echo the concerns the Chairman of the Justice Committee outlines and accept their validity, but the idea that there is no example of partnership between charitable organisations and the police is surely negated by the St Giles Trust—the Committee has looked at the trust in great detail. The trust is a charitable sector organisation that works throughout people’s time in prison and outside in partnership with the prison, probation and all other services. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the St Giles Trust is a good example of how things can be done?

[Sir Alan Beith]

There are plenty of good examples—my Committee has looked at a number of them—but no one should start from the presumption that the existing system is the only way of managing prolific and frequent offenders. On the contrary, the reoffending figures should tell us that we must do something differently. We must harness the talents that exist in the charity and voluntary sectors, which may also exist in the private sector.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Alan Beith]

No, I will conclude because many hon. Members wish to speak.

Elements of the Bill will provide the opportunity to realise the Justice Committee’s vision of how we can reduce crime through more effective use of taxpayers’ money. Currently, we waste taxpayers’ money in not dealing effectively with reoffending. That must change. However, there are significant risks in the pace at which the Government intend to implement the programme. We must ask questions about that, and my Committee will do so.

17:52

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

Despite what the Justice Secretary tried to argue at the beginning of his speech, the Bill is part of a wider programme that changes probation services as well as how the offenders with which they deal are handled. As such, it is important to understand the background of the Bill in order to understand its intent, the provisions and the wider programme.

To do that, it is necessary to look at the policy routes of the consultation reports that precede the Bill. The coalition’s first criminal justice consultation—“Breaking the Cycle”—was in December 2010. It promised to open up probation services to the market. The second report, of July 2011, proposed six new pilots of a payment-by-results method and at the same time pledged not a comprehensive rehabilitation strategy for offenders, nor a comprehensive reoffending rates reduction strategy, but a

“a comprehensive competition strategy for…probation services”.

There is an obsession with the market, competition and privatisation. This is not the means to an end; it is the end. It is the purpose of the Justice Secretary’s programme—that and perhaps burnishing his credentials with the wilder right-wing of the Conservative party for the future.

If the policy end was to reduce reoffending rates for short-term prisoners, the means are in place—probation trusts, which have been responsible for overseeing falling reoffending rates for those they have supervised for 13 years.

[Rehman Chishti]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Healey]

I will finish my point and then give way.

If the end or purpose of the policy was better value for taxpayers without compromising professional standards or public safety, the means are in place with probation trusts, which have made savings of around 20% over the past five years and helped to reduce crime rates and maintain protection for the public.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Healey]

I will give way to the Minister and then to the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti).

[Jeremy Wright]

I am following the right hon. Gentleman’s argument closely. He was a member of the Government who passed the Offender Management Act 2007. If, as is his contention, the previous Government believed that probation trusts could do all those things themselves, why did the Act allow for competition? Why did it not prescribe that all probation work should always be done by probation trusts?

[John Healey]

The Minister was in the Chamber for the Opposition day debate last week and will have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who was the Minister responsible for the 2007 Act. In July 2007, he mentioned

“trusts remaining public-sector based and delivering services at a local level”.—[Official Report, 18 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 354.]

Essentially, the 2007 Act was not about abolishing local probation trusts, nor about trying to commission services from the centre from a desk in Whitehall; it was about using local partnerships and local professional expertise to secure the best mix of support that offenders needed and that the public required to keep them safe and protected from harm.

[Rehman Chishti]

I infer that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with rehabilitation being the end product. A key element of the Bill on rehabilitation and reoffending is clauses 12 and 13. Compulsory drug testing for class B drugs expands existing provisions, and clause 13 introduces compulsory attendance at appointments on licence for drug treatment and testing, which did not exist before. The key part is helping people who need help. The ones who are addicted to drugs are the ones who continue to go in and out of the criminal system. Clauses 12 and 13 deal with rehabilitation on that basis, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will at least agree with me that those clauses are the right way forward.

[John Healey]

There are some useful provisions in the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) has said that the Opposition do not object to some of the Bill. Additional requirements as part of supervision orders are sensible. Extending the supervision requirement to those who are released from custody after short-term sentences is sensible. My argument is that the legislation is part of a wider programme, the policy purpose of which lacks evidence and justification, but not the ideology that drives the Justice Secretary. That purpose—that end—is the privatisation of our probation services. It is not about the means to a better probation service or better protection for the public.

Let me develop my argument. I have mentioned the first and second coalition consultation reports. To be fair, the third report—“Punishment and Reform: Effective Probation Services”—which was published in March 2012, restated the intent to open up the market for the supervision of low-risk offenders. However, it also proposed a stronger role for probation trusts and a stronger emphasis on partnership working. The report states:

“We intend that there will be a stronger role for public sector Probation Trusts as commissioners of competed probation services…We will devolve to Probation Trusts the budget for community offender services”.

At that time, the Government said:

“Trusts are best placed to work with courts and with local partners to design and commission services jointly…We will support the joint commissioning of services for offenders between probation and key partners such as local authorities, health and the police.”

[Andy McDonald]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current proposals run the risk of dispensing with excellent services in the not-for-profit sector, which Government Members say they want to preserve? Will the proposals not leave that door open, because such charitable organisations do not have the critical mass to enable them to bid for the contracts or withstand a payment-by-results mechanism?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right. One of the real worries about this so-called reform programme is that it borrows from the Work programme, which the Justice Secretary introduced when he was Minister of State for Employment. Frankly, many of the failures, flaws and potential fraud in the Work programme could be replicated in our probation service.

Returning to probation trusts, I quoted from the March 2012 consultation report. What has changed since then? The Justice Secretary has changed. He has stopped the pilots; he has added medium-risk offenders who have served a custodial sentence, and those on community sentences and suspended sentences, to the list of offenders who will be handed over to the private sector; and he has issued the invitation to contract for £450 million of services before the Bill has even had its Second reading in this House. There has been no testing, no costing, no evidence to support such sweeping changes and no backing from any serious professional probation voices.

Clause 1 was inserted by the Lords as a vote of no confidence in the case that the Justice Secretary has been making. That was not a party political move, as it was led by Cross Benchers and a former chief inspector of prisons. Clause 1 was introduced and approved because there are still too many doubts about the Bill and the programme of privatisation—doubts about the viability, accountability, affordability and safety of services under a new, largely privatised system. How much will it cost? How much will it save? How will it be more effective? How will it reduce reoffending? How great will the risk be in putting serious offenders in the hands of private companies? How much money will be offered up front? How much will be held back and paid via payment by results? How will the repeated failures of the Work programme be avoided? How will the fiasco and fraud we have seen before be avoided in the Ministry of Justice’s management of contracts?

To justify the proposed legislation, the Justice Secretary has to address those concerns, and he has not. He has to be able to demonstrate that his plans are better than building on what is already in place. He cannot do that because all 35 probation trusts in England and Wales have been independently judged either good or excellent. All 35 probation trusts are hitting all the targets they have been set. Reoffending rates for those under their supervision have been falling every year for more than a decade. Imagine the credit the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government would take if all local authority children’s services were judged good or excellent. Imagine the purring pleasure of the Secretary of State for Education if all schools were judged good or excellent. Imagine the huge relief of the Secretary of State for Health if all hospitals were judged good or excellent. No other part of the public sector performs so consistently, and to such a high professional standard, as the probation service.

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

I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s argument. Is he suggesting that none of the 35 probation trusts should apply for mutual status, which would allow them to carry on their important work? Is he advising against that?

[John Healey]

That is a red herring. Unbelievably, probation trusts are prevented from putting forward proposals to bid for contracts to do the job they have proved they can do so well. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman comes across to south Yorkshire and looks at our probation trust, which is one of the best-performing trusts in the country. In the past five years, it has been top-ranked almost every year in reducing reoffending.

[Sadiq Khan]

I have been to south Yorkshire and, with the excellent police and crime commissioner, visited various projects that are examples of the probation trust competing with local charities to get the best possible project to rehabilitate offenders. What does my right hon. Friend think the probation trust would say if it was told, “We can guarantee seven to 10 years of funding, with a three-year contract extension, if you are allowed to bid for this contract”? What does he think its response would be if it was allowed to bid for the contract that the Government will allow G4S, Serco and Uncle Tom Cobleigh to bid for?

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Probation trusts want to do the work they already do, including with offenders who serve custodial sentences of less than 12 months. They require all their officers to be qualified to work with medium-risk offenders—the group the Government want to put out to the private sector—which is one reason why the results for reduction in reoffending have been so good in the past five years. I see no reason why probation trusts should not be able to bid to provide the service my right hon. Friend talked about. Ministers say, with a sweep of the hand, “They cannot possibly deal with the uncertainty of payment by results,” but that is not the case.

[Jeremy Wright]

rose—

[John Healey]

Let us hear from the Minister why probation trusts should not be allowed to bid under their own terms for the work he wants to put out to contract.

[Jeremy Wright]

I think the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what the answer is. A probation trust, as a wholly public body, cannot compete under a payment-by-results system, because that would put public money at risk. Of course he understands that.

[John Healey]

That is absolute nonsense. Public bodies, like local authorities, have reserves to deal with uncertainties. Why does the Minister not take a look at the legislation passed by his Government on local authority funding, which is based increasingly on business rates and contains an element of risk? Good, prudent public authorities can manage those risks, and there is no reason why probation trusts should not be able to bid for this work and do it as well as they do the work with the offenders they are already responsible for supervising.

[Kate Green]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what the Minister has just said is Kafkaesque? The Minister is saying that he would rather contract out, with risk, to unproven private companies than retain in-house quality services without risk.

[John Healey]

To which I might add that the probation trusts have a proven track record—certainly in south Yorkshire—of dealing with the group the Minister is rightly most concerned about: offenders who have served less than 12 months in custody. That work is already done in south Yorkshire by the probation trust, with multi-agency teams including the police, drug workers and housing officers. The Justice Secretary’s plans will split up those cases and break the relationships on which such excellent work is dependent and currently undertaken.

[Sadiq Khan]

I am terribly sorry to intervene again. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concept of justice reinvestment? Manchester probation trust, for example, has excellent intensive alternatives to custody, and rather than being used to pay dividends to shareholders, the savings that are made are reinvested in other schemes that reduce reoffending even more. This is an example of a win-win situation, with public sector experts reducing reoffending and the money saved going to projects that reduce reoffending even more.

[John Healey]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I was not aware of that. He is an excellent shadow Justice Secretary, and I am interested to hear what he says about Greater Manchester. I suspect that the point is the same with regard to south Yorkshire: the Government’s proposed changes are all about taking on the extra work that is already being done effectively. Many of the 35 probation trusts are now saying, “Give us the challenge and the opportunity to do this extra work and we will do it without the extra cost.” I ask the Minister: why destroy this local probation service, which the combination of privatisation and the Bill will do? Why dismantle the working relationships in place with partner agencies? Why privatise out of existence the people with the proven expertise and dedication to help the short-sentence offenders, whom he, in the Bill, rightly wants to support? Why run the terrible risk to the safety of the public with these changes?

The risk that Ministers talk about does not relate simply to the original crime committed. With these offenders, the risk changes, often rapidly and in response to personal circumstances—their stopping taking medication, breaking up with a partner, or suddenly falling into a circle of old friends and bad habits. Last year, one in four offenders moved, one way or the other, between the high and medium-risk categories. They are exactly the group that the Government want to see moving between the public and the private sectors—between the probation service and the contracted services. These individuals are likely to yo-yo between agencies, which will result in extra cost, paperwork and risk. The chief inspector of probation said:

“Any lack of contractual or operational clarity between the public and private sector providers will, in our view, lead to systemic failure and an increased risk to the public.”

In other words, there will be increased risk as a direct result of the Bill.

I turn briefly to parts 2 and 3 of the Bill. Like my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, I broadly support some of the provisions in part 2, including the ones that seek to reduce the reoffending rate among those who serve less than 12 months in custody, for whom the probation trusts do not have supervisory responsibility at the moment. That reoffending rate is around 60%. It is too high and the Government are right to want to tackle it, but this could have consequences for a rising prison population. First, the courts might well choose to make more use of short custodial sentences with this extra 12 months’ supervision added by the Bill. Secondly, if the new licence conditions available under the Bill are too tight, more people might breach them and be sent back to custody. The Justice Secretary has not answered, and cannot answer, such concerns—as he cannot the other concerns—because he will not test his plans in practice.

Finally, I turn to the amendment of the definition of “responsible officer” in part 3. It is being made so that the staff of private companies or charities can do the job that probation officers currently do. I wish to put on the record the words of a probation officer from Rotherham who can describe more forcefully and eloquently than I can how complex and tough this work is—it does not simply comprise a set of tick-box tasks. I received an e-mail late last night from this probation officer explaining that they and their colleagues averaged up to 60 cases in their case load. Typically, one third of their clients will be in custody, half a dozen or so will be high-risk and the others will be deemed low or medium-risk—exactly the group Ministers want to transfer to private contractors. They wrote:

“The job is one of constant juggling demands brought about by working with individuals who lead often chaotic lives. IT systems regularly freeze or crash… Another key service we provide is detailed reports to the Courts and Parole Board to aid sentencing and release considerations.”

I have not heard a word about such considerations from the Justice Secretary. They continued:

“Staff routinely work through their lunch breaks to ensure that work is completed in a timely manner and to exacting professional standards. Staff are known to work late”

and

“come in at weekends on a regular basis. This is true dedication and professionalism.”

The probation officer described a recent case:

“I arrive at the office at 8.00 completing administrative tasks. I have arranged to see my first case at 8.30 so as not to impact on the individuals work commitments. 9.30 I interview a person for a Court Report. I have not been supplied with the details of the offence by the crown Prosecution Service despite numerous attempts. I contact the individual’s solicitor who because they have respect and trust in the publicly run probation service sends me a fax copy of the documents. The individual…is distressed”

and

“discloses that they have a…plan to end their life… The pressing matter is to stabilise this person. I contact my colleagues in the Criminal Justice mental health liaison team. They arrange to see the person immediately after my interview with them. I contact a housing organisation with expertise in debt issues. They establish phone contact with that person later on in the day and arrange to see them the following day. My role is not just about undertaking the bare minimum but trying to assist people from the first point of contact regain control over their lives. In this case the individual was not classed as being a client of our service as they were awaiting sentence.”

This probation officer highlighted one other case concerning exactly the category of offender who will be put in the hands of private companies under the contracting and privatisation provisions:

“In another case the individual is being supervised for an offence of driving whilst disqualified…for drunk driving. He is assessed as presenting a low medium risk of harm, as there have been previous concerns relating to domestic abuse. In one incident he returned home intoxicated by alcohol and proceed to put his steel toe cap boots on and kick the family dogs to death in front of his young children. I become increasingly concerned about his behaviour. He informs me that he has missed an appointment with me because he had to take his 4 year old son”

to hospital

“with a broken collar bone”

that he said was the result of an accident. The probation officer had seen the “over-chastisement” of the child when the offender had come to the office the previous week. They continue:

“I share my concerns with social services. I begin to receive regular incident bulletins from the police of incidents they have been called to but no evidence of violence used. I assess his risk to be high. Eventually after his partner receives treatment for 3rd degree burns to her back, which are explained as accidental. Social services intervene. During this process I have been undertaking work behind the scenes to promote the safety of the child and partner”

while also

“undertaking work…with the client to challenge his behaviour and attitudes to alcohol.”

Probation officers deal with people who are often chaotic, volatile and vulnerable, and whose lives are constantly shifting; and these probation officers constantly have to juggle their priorities. Private companies will not have close relations with, or the confidence of, other agencies. Their staff will not go that extra mile, but will be under pressure to do the bare minimum.

[Gareth Johnson]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Healey]

I want to finish on this point, because other Members want to speak. The hon. Gentleman could have intervened earlier, but he did not.

At the end of his speech, the Justice Secretary talked about common sense. Common sense says: pilot these changes, pilot the provisions in the Bill and pull the proposed privatisation programme. To do otherwise would be totally unjustified; it would run a reckless risk with the lives of vulnerable offenders to whom we owe a duty of supervision, and a reckless risk with the safety of the public.

18:18

[Gareth Johnson]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey).

As a practising solicitor, I accept that a very good relationship exists between the probation service and defence solicitors, for example—I have been privy to that on many occasions—but it would be wrong to suggest that a very good relationship does not also exist between defence solicitors and private companies, such as Serco, which often run the jailing operations within our magistrates courts. I submit that, yes, there is a very good relationship between the probation service and other organisations, but there is no reason on God’s earth why there cannot also be a very good relationship between private companies and other organisations.

I want to move on to the meat of the debate. The current system of tackling reoffending is not working, and we all need to accept that it requires fundamental change. The reforms represent one of the most important and effective developments in the drive to reduce reoffending that we have seen in this country. It has been fundamentally wrong to leave those on short-term sentences without support for so long, and I am delighted that we will see changes in that area. For years, people have claimed that short terms of imprisonment do not work, and they have held up reoffending rates as proof of that assertion. The reality, however, is that short terms of imprisonment can work, but they are less effective if there is no support for the prisoner on release.

The probation service does some fantastic work. I have worked with it on many occasions and observed at first hand its dedication to the job. Its members work particularly hard to try to rehabilitate offenders, whom they refer to as clients. They do all that they can to ensure that those individuals are rehabilitated back into society. That does not mean, however, that they are the only people who can help to reduce offending, and it is right that we are going to open up this work to others, bring in other expertise and allow other people to assist in the battle against reoffending.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the probation service in my patch, in York and North Yorkshire. Is it not right to ensure that the expertise and skills in the existing probation service are fed into and used in any new system that we put in place?

[Gareth Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point.

The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) mentioned the fact that charities were already working hard to help to reduce reoffending. That illustrates the kind of excellent work that is being done by others working with probation officers. No one is trying to remove probation officers from the job of helping offenders. We are trying to enhance the present system to ensure that more people benefit and get the support that they need.

[Sadiq Khan]

At the moment, the local probation trusts set up the contracts with the charities. Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that, as a consequence of the Government’s plans, it will be the Justice Secretary in Whitehall letting those contracts? The evidence from the Work programme is that big companies get the contracts, rather than the small ones that are doing such a great job locally.

[Gareth Johnson]

Central Government are trying to help probation officers to create mutuals. They are working with the Cabinet Office to ensure that they can bid for the contracts, so that they can continue to provide the assistance that they now give. What is missing from the Opposition’s argument is the fact that the changes will enable us to help 50,000 more people. Surely, we should all be proud of that.

[Kate Green]

The Greater Manchester probation trust has been highly innovative in developing programmes with the private and voluntary sectors, and it has developed a successful programme called Achieve, which involves getting offenders back into employment. It has scored much higher outcomes than the Work programme. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the trust, having prepared to take that programme forward and to bid for one of the new contracts in a mutual, co-operative structure, was told that it would not be allowed to do so?

[Gareth Johnson]

It is above my pay grade to give information on why a probation trust has been refused a contract. I find it heartening, however, that so many of the examples given by Opposition Members involve charities and other organisations outside the probation service working successfully with offenders. I welcome the fact that the Bill will roll out that programme to ensure that more people get that kind of assistance.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Is it not true that whoever works with offenders, whether they are from a private company or a trust, will have to be qualified and prove that they can do the job?

[Gareth Johnson]

It is highly unlikely that the Ministry of Justice would give any kind of contract to an organisation that it did not regard as fit and proper to provide those services.

I repeat that charities and private sector organisations are already involved with administering some unpaid work requirements and drug treatment orders. This can, and often does, work extremely well, and we should certainly not turn our back on it. I fear, however, that the genuine help that charities and private organisations can provide will not be made available if the instinctive rejection of the private sector by some Members results in the Bill being voted down. Some Members oppose the Bill simply because they do not want the private sector to become involved in state affairs, regardless of whether that would reduce crime.

Let us not lose sight of the central argument: the public are screaming out for less crime. I believe that the Bill will achieve that. It matters not to a burglary victim whether the perpetrator is helped to stop offending by an organisation in the private sector, the charity sector or the public sector. What matters to that victim of crime is that there should be less crime, and that they will not be the victim of further offending.

[Mike Wood (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman suggests that the public are crying out for a reduction in crime. Will he tell us by how much serious crime has been reduced in the past 20 years?

[Gareth Johnson]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, since this Government took over, we have seen a reduction in crime of some 10%. We should be proud of that. We have achieved that through Government initiatives as well as through initiatives involving the police and, yes, the probation service, but there is so much more that could be done, particularly for those serving short sentences. Prisoners who serve sentences of under 12 months are the most likely ones to reoffend and push up the crime rates, and we must use that knowledge to ensure that we reduce crime by supporting those people. The Bill will help that to happen.

The probation service is good at what it does, but it does not have a monopoly on wisdom in tackling reoffending. We have heard some rash statements today to the effect that the changes will jeopardise the safety of the public and put them at risk, but it is the current system that puts the public at risk, not our reforms. Under the Bill, the causes of lower-level and more serious offending will be tackled for the first time. Tackling the causes of crime will lead to the success of the measures.

It makes complete sense to give private providers the opportunity to help to reduce reoffending and, if they succeed, to reward them financially. It makes sense to ask the taxpayer to pay for what works, rather than for what does not. Payment by results is hardly a new concept. Tendering out has taken place right across the public sector for years, and there is no evidence to suggest that it has not worked in the criminal justice system. I see no reason why the tendering out of these services should not be a success.

The Opposition have said that they support the supervision of short-term offenders, but they also say that they do not support fundamental reform of the probation service. I cannot see how those two statements can be reconciled. How can we help 50,000 new offenders simply by asking the probation trusts to take on a few more clients? That simply would not work. The Opposition’s stance of supporting extra help for many prisoners without making changes to the system simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

The changes will help some of those who are in the greatest need of help—the perpetual reoffenders who appear before the courts again and again. I am not suggesting that it will be easy for any contractor to help those people, but it is absolutely right that they should try. For years, we have worked on the assumption that we could lock someone up for a short period of time and expect that, miraculously, on release, they would not reoffend. We now know, of course, that that theory was completely misplaced, so if we want to tackle reoffending rates, these reforms are not only overdue, but vital.

I maintain that this Bill represents one of the most significant and important provisions that the Government have put forward since I became a Member of Parliament, so I sincerely hope that it will receive its Second Reading.

18:30

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson). I am sure he will be pleased that he seemed to evoke a range of responses from different parts of the House.

Whether the Justice Secretary likes it or not, we are debating two issues here this evening. First, there is, of course, the Bill itself, whose central aim would, I think, be broadly welcome, although a number of important questions have been raised that the Minister will need to address in his response; I am sure he will. The second issue is the fundamental change to the probation service that Justice Ministers are bringing about. It is all very well for the Justice Secretary to say that all this is being done under legislation brought in by the previous Government. He cannot deny that some elements of what he proposes for the probation service relate directly to this legislation, not least to the extension of supervision, which is the principal aim of the Bill.

The link between the two issues has been made explicit in two ways—first, by the amendment tabled by Her Majesty’s Opposition and, secondly, by clause 1, which was thoughtfully introduced by the House of Lords, and under which there should be no reform of probation without the approval of both Houses. I was surprised by the rather dismissive attitude of the Justice Secretary towards clause 1. If, on the one hand, there is growing concern among those who lead and deliver the probation service, the police and crime commissioners and many others, while on the other hand Ministers have real conviction that their approach will work, what does the Justice Secretary have to be afraid of? If he cannot put his proposals with confidence to both Houses, subject them to scrutiny and gain an affirmative vote from both Houses, he should not be bringing these proposals before us at all. If he is so convinced that his proposals will be so successful, he should get behind clause 1 and be supportive of it.

We have a conscientious prisons Minister, but in truth Ministers must be becoming increasingly concerned about the implications of the scale of the reforms they are seeking to introduce. They know that their proposals are unpopular; they know that there is widespread concern about the changes they want to make; and, frankly, they are running out of road. This headlong rush to introduce a wholesale change to probation has to be achieved within a year’s time in order to fit the political timetable of getting it done before the general election. Frankly, I think this is a recipe for a car crash; even now, I would urge Ministers to reflect further on that.

Opposition Members are not the only ones making this point. As I have mentioned and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) mentioned in his speech, senior representatives of the probation service are making it clear that these changes could bring about a major threat to public safety. There are serious concerns, too, about this false separation between low and medium-risk offenders on the one hand and high-risk offenders on the other. That flies in the face of the professional experience of those who deliver the probation service. We know that risk is dynamic—it changes over time and there has to be a way of managing it—but it seems to me that the Government’s proposals do not cater for that level of dynamic risk.

It is interesting and instructive to look at the figures put out over the weekend by the Justice Secretary himself to justify the changes that he is making. In 2011, according to him, 356 adult offenders released from prison sentences of less than 12 months committed serious violent offences, while 2,482 offenders serving the same term came out and committed serious acquisitive crime, including robberies, which are serious crimes against people. Those are serious crimes carried out by people who sound to me as if they might be—no, must be—high-risk criminals. Unless the Minister is going to correct me, under these proposals, when such individuals come out after serving their short-term sentences of less than 12 months, they would be among the low and medium-risk group, not the high-risk group. It looks as if the Minister is going to correct me, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

[Jeremy Wright]

I can help the right hon. Gentleman and correct him on that. When those people are released, they will be subject to a risk assessment by the national probation service, and the NPS will make a judgment as to whether they are high, medium or low-risk offenders—and they will be allocated accordingly.

[Paul Goggins]

That is reassuring to an extent, but my point is that risk is dynamic—it changes—and that the assessment carried out prior to release might be different from that carried out a month after release or six months after release. There is not the fluidity in the system that would allow the management of that risk among the different groups. That is my point, which I hope the Minister will reflect on further.

[Sadiq Khan]

My right hon. Friend is an expert in this area. I would like to remind him that the definition of medium risk in the offender assessment system is that

“there are identifiable indicators of risk of serious harm. Offenders may include those sentenced for domestic abuse, violence, sexual offences, possession of firearms. They may be in gangs, have serious mental health problems and/or drug and alcohol problems.”

The Justice Secretary claims to be concerned about the small number of serious offenders with sentences of less than 12 months, but on the other hand he is allowing those sorts of offenders to be “supervised” by the likes of G4S, Serco and Uncle Tom Cobleigh.

[Paul Goggins]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. The truth is, of course, that because the Justice Secretary started with a model of how he wants effectively to privatise 70% of what the probation service currently delivers, he has to squeeze all that risk into that larger majority of the work. This top-down model simply will not relate to or reflect the kind of risks that many offenders pose.

[John McDonnell]

The point made by probation officers —my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) identified it, too—is the issue of professionalism in identifying the trigger that takes place and pushes the risks to a higher level, even from those on shorter sentences.

[Paul Goggins]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who is a great expert on this issue. I am happy to admit that he and I have not always agreed on every point about probation over the years, but he well understands that service, what happens on the front line and the difficult judgments and assessments that probation officers have to make when faced with people who can often be dangerous and difficult in the context of the chaotic lives that many of them lead. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention.

Reference has been made to the concerns of police and crime commissioners. This is interesting, because these are the new people elected under this Government’s reforms, yet they, too, are expressing concerns. They are doing so because they understand the importance of local partnerships for reducing crime and managing offenders. They are deeply worried that this Government’s proposals will erode those relationships, weaken them and put public safety at risk. That is why they are expressing their concerns.

Another major issue is that two of the major private sector providers, which are the most likely bidders for the work on offer from the Ministry of Justice—G4S and Serco—are under criminal investigation, following allegations of their over-charging for services that they are already contracted to provide for the MOJ. I give credit to the Justice Secretary, because when he found out about this, he came to the House to make a statement and has taken appropriate action since then. I commend him for that, but the implication of his robust approach is that these two companies should be sidelined from the process of contract allocation at this stage. I say that not as someone who is ideologically opposed to the private sector having a role in this sphere—quite the reverse.

[Mr Burrowes]

What the right hon. Gentleman has just said prompts me to suggest that it is important to have a sense of proportion. It is true that an investigation is taking place in relation to G4S and Serco, but both the right hon. Gentleman and I are firm advocates of restorative justice, and G4S has done great work in that regard at, for example, Altcourse prison near Liverpool. The 70,000 G4S employees who are involved in the programme there are likely to be concerned about their own future, but many of them are working extremely hard to provide support and rehabilitation, and, not least, restorative justice.

[Paul Goggins]

The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed those issues in Committee and in the Chamber, and I know that he speaks genuinely, but the crucial question relates to who commissions the service. If a local probation trust that understands the local need asks G4S to do the job, fair enough, but that is not what is on offer in this instance. What is on offer is that the Ministry of Justice down here in Whitehall will decide which private sector organisation should do the job, whether it be in Greater Manchester, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, or elsewhere. That is what concerns me.

As I was about to say, I am not ideologically opposed to the provision of a role for the private sector. During the recent Opposition day debate, I referred to a report from Lord Carter of Coles which advocated greater contestability and a greater diversity of providers. I supported that report, and I still support it. I think that good work can come from the public sector, the private sector and the voluntary sector. What I am critical of is the straitjacket approach that the Secretary of State is imposing on the whole probation service.

Members in all parts of the House have already raised a number of important questions, even before we have dealt with the question of the untested payment-by-results model that the Secretary of State seeks to impose. I support innovation in the criminal justice system. We should be determined to lower reoffending rates, and we should be looking for new ideas in that regard. The Peterborough and Doncaster pilots are interesting pilots, but that is all that they are: interesting pilots. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) noted from a sedentary position earlier, they are voluntary. Only two thirds of those who are eligible to take part in them actually do so, and they are likely to be more motivated than others when it comes to cutting risks, stopping offending, and getting back on to the straight and narrow.

The Secretary of State has said that the results of the pilots so far are very encouraging, and we should take account of that, but I urge Ministers also to listen to the critics and experts who say “Let us be a little more cautious before jumping to national conclusions based on two local, voluntary pilots”—especially because those who have served short sentences often have the most chaotic lifestyles, are the most likely not to have jobs or homes, and are the most likely to reoffend. They are the most challenging group.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) made an interesting and wise observation earlier when, in an intervention, he spoke of the role of the voluntary sector in a payment-by-results system. Such a system ought to present an opportunity to voluntary organisations, but the danger is—and I have heard this fear expressed—that the context and culture of payment by results will deter and undermine the many voluntary organisations that are doing great work in helping to turn people’s lives around, and they will lose a role rather than gaining one.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting pointed out earlier, the Secretary of State has form when it comes to payment by results. I have looked at the latest payment-by-results figures relating to the Work programme. The September figures confirm that, even now, the system is not meeting even the minimum expectations of the Department for Work and Pensions. Indeed, three providers have already been penalised for poor performance.

It is instructive to look at what the Work programme has been doing for offenders, which is highly relevant to today’s debate. Of the 19,800 offenders who were released in 2012 and referred to the programme, only 360 had been found a job by June this year. I think that Ministers should be extremely cautious, rather than over-bullish and over-claiming, when it comes to the results of the Work programme and of payment by results.

There are obviously many questions to be answered, and that is before we have dealt with the practical issues of appointing staff, transferring cases, getting the IT up and running, sorting out the offices, renegotiating contracts, and ending existing contracts. All that must be done not in five years, but in five minutes; or, at any rate, in the weeks and months that lie ahead. Serious Ministers—and I include the prisons Minister in that class—should pause to reflect on precisely where things are at the moment. The prisons Minister should do what he has been asked to do—certainly by Labour Members, and, I suspect, by Government Members who have serious concerns—and organise a proper pilot that is properly evaluated. If he is right, that is fine, but if aspects of the model are not correct, he should think again. In other words, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting said, he should be led by the evidence and not by ideology.

As I have said, I think that the central ambition of the Bill is a good one, and in principle I support it. I said the same during the Opposition day debate a few days ago, and I was grateful to my right hon. Friend for quoting from my speech earlier. I wanted to implement custody plus, and I was frustrated by our inability to introduce it when we were in government, because—for all the reasons that have been given today—the people whom we are discussing are the very people who need help, supervision and support the most. The obstacle was the £194 million a year that it would have cost to introduce custody plus: I am happy to admit that, and to express my frustration about it.

[Sadiq Khan]

I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is aware that custody plus was still on the statute book until the former Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)—who knows about finance—removed it via the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. He realised that the cost was exorbitant, whereas the current incumbent clearly does not.

[Paul Goggins]

Indeed. It is regrettable, in a way, that the Government took custody plus off the statute book rather than trying to build it up, and even work on a cross-party basis.

We are told repeatedly that the cost of supervising the 50,000 offenders who leave prison having served short sentences will be met from the savings generated by the competition that will take place for the rest of the work that has been allocated. I said two weeks ago that I did not believe that, and I say the same today. The maths itself tells the story. The Government propose that the private and voluntary sectors should be given 70% of the current probation work load: that is to be the deal. Some 220,000 offenders are currently being supervised by the probation service; 70% of 220,000 is roughly 150,000—and the private and voluntary sectors must find the resources to supervise another 50,000 on top of that.

When I go to the supermarket, I am used to seeing “Buy three, get one free”, but I am not used to seeing that when it comes to planning and paying for the supervision of some problematic offenders. It just will not wash. Ministers keep saying that they will not give us the figures because the information is commercially confidential and is all to do with competition, but they know that the figures will not add up, and they really ought to come clean about that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) made an important point about the potential for an unintended consequence in the sentencing of offenders. There is a danger that, as a result of the Bill, more people will be subject to short-term prison sentences and the value of community sentences will be undermined. I am not saying that that is what Ministers intend, but there is a danger of it, and it is spelled out in the impact assessment: Ministers accept that there is a risk of so-called uptariffing—that people will get a more severe sentence than might otherwise have been the case.

We know that there will be 600 extra prison places as a result of the numbers of offenders who will be recalled to prison, but there is a risk of a change in the behaviour of sentencers, too. It is common sense that if a sentencer is being offered a choice between a package of community activity and supervision and, as an alternative, that package plus some prison beforehand, they will be tempted to go for the belt-and-braces approach. I would appreciate it if the Minister would tell us in his winding-up speech what discussions he has been having with the magistrates and the Sentencing Council to make sure that we do not see an overuse of short-term custody as a result of his changes, and an undermining of community sentences.

There is also a real risk that certain vulnerable groups will not be helped if the Bill’s provisions are interpreted in, as it were, an automatic way, because that will lead to more supervision and stronger sanctions. A higher proportion of female than male offenders receive a short custodial sentence, and many of them come out of prison to chaotic lives and with abusive relationships to deal with. If things break down, it may not be appropriate for them to go back to prison automatically. That worries me, and I would like the Minister to say more about the flexibility in the system he is introducing, so people do not too automatically go back to prison when their needs are rather different.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for mentioning women offenders. Does he agree that there is a problem with payment-by-results contracts in that, because there are fewer women offenders and unit costs are therefore higher, and because their needs are often more complex, they are often more expensive to supervise and therefore may be particularly unattractive to private providers?

[Paul Goggins]

That is a very real concern and I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the chance to put that point on the record and introduce it into the debate. Groups with specific and additional needs—vulnerable female offenders or mentally ill offenders, for instance—will not be an attractive proposition to people who are looking to do things at the lowest possible cost.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the voluntary sector has done some extraordinarily good work in giving opportunities to women offenders, and if we can integrate what we are talking about here with women’s centres around the country, there is a possibility of real improvement?

[Paul Goggins]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who is an excellent Select Committee Chair. I hope Ministers will still be listening to him and his Committee colleagues when they produce their report following the inquiry they are currently conducting. Many women’s centres are facing cuts at a time when we need them more than ever, so there is a very real difficulty, but I think all the points that have been made about women offenders are well made. I hope Ministers are gradually getting the message that they have to do something specific and different in relation to women offenders.

I mentioned offenders who are mentally ill. The Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health have made a very impressive commitment to do more to try to help people with a mental illness who get caught up in the criminal justice system. The national liaison and diversion scheme, which was introduced following a recommendation by our noble Friend Lord Bradley, who has done some fantastic work in this area, is very welcome. Again, however, I put it to the Minister that there are real dangers of the policy he is trying to introduce in this Bill running headlong into the more positive policy towards people with mental illness that he and the Department of Health are trying to introduce. Again, I am looking for reassurances about flexibility in the way people with mental illness are treated at the point where consideration may be given to returning them to prison, which might not be the most appropriate thing.

Finally, I have a concern about care leavers. Some young people in care might go into prison as a child and come out as an adult and a care leaver. That could produce additional difficulties, because who will have the prime responsibility? Will it be the private provider of the supervision that comes after a prison sentence, or will it be the local authority which has continuing responsibilities for those who leave care beyond the age of 18?

These are matters of detail, but they are important matters which must be addressed if the Minister is to get this legislation into the best shape possible. Then again, if the Minister does get this Bill into the best shape possible, he still cannot walk away from the context in which he is seeking to deliver it. Even though I agree with the core aim of the proposed legislation, I am deeply worried that introducing it into the turmoil of change that he and the Justice Secretary are planning is a recipe for disaster, and that is why, regrettably, this Bill is unsupportable at this point.

18:55

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship for the first time.

I want to pay tribute to the wide experience we have across the House in relation to criminal justice. There are criminal defence solicitor practitioners such as me and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), there is the Justice Committee Chairman, who has served in this House for 40 years, throughout that time championing the cause of rehabilitation, and there is the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), who has a good track-record as a Minister. It is a great shame, however, that we cannot unite cross-party around offender rehabilitation.

Members are saying that they agree, in their different ways, with the principle and substance of this Bill, but we cannot unite on it. Everyone who has been involved in this area, whether as a criminal defence practitioner, a Minister, a Select Committee Chairman or a constituency Member, will know what to make of what the shadow Justice Secretary referred to as an anomaly, which was the closest he got to an apology for the previous Government leaving this huge area unreformed. At long last we have a Government who are making offender rehabilitation the centrepiece of a criminal justice Bill.

Every year Members spend time in this House and in Committee scrutinising yet another criminal justice Bill and putting more offences on the statute book, responding, perhaps, to popular––or populist––demand, but not getting to the crux of the problem, which is offender rehabilitation and sky-high reoffending rates. What a shame that we cannot unite today to give a Second Reading to this Bill even though we agree on its main principle, which is tackling short-term sentencing and ensuring that rehabilitation is mandatory.

I pay tribute to the probation service, and many concerns have been expressed on its behalf. I know it well, as representatives of the service have come to see me recently, and I also know from my 20 years as a criminal defence solicitor about the excellent and diligent work done by probation staff. We have heard about the long hours they work, and how they deal with complex cases and issues. They cannot just tick a box to get someone out of the cycle of crime, and probation service staff are willing to go the extra mile and engage with non-criminal justice services to ensure someone gets into work, restores family relationships and addresses all the other areas that we know serve to drive down reoffending.

Although we must ensure that we keep those skills in the service and that the measures in this Bill support that, we must also recognise something we have not heard enough of: what members of the public, both victims and taxpayers, think when they see reoffending rates in respect of short-term sentences of 58%. That is failure. That is 58% service failure, and if any other service or business—although some people do not like talking too much about business—had a 58% product failure rate, people would say, “We have to do something about this.”

This is a catastrophic failure by the previous Government, not merely an anomaly. This is a massive gap in the previous Government’s policy in relation to criminal justice, despite the best efforts of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. Although they put custody plus on the statute book, they failed to implement it and ensure we could provide a better service to our constituents. They are the people who have had to live with and put up with—sometimes as victims—people coming back and repeating crime, as a result of that failure.

It is all very well saying, “We failed because of cost. We don’t have the cost”, but we heard no answers from the Opposition as to what they are going to do about that, apart from making this political point about clause 1. All they could say was, “We tried to put it on the statute book. But we did not do anything about it—we did not implement it—and we could not do it because of cost.” That is not good enough—it is not good enough for all those people are the recipients of that 58% failure rate—and we must do more. Whenever there is a 58% service failure, there is a need for change. There is a need for leadership change, and we have got that, because we now have a Secretary of State who is willing to be bold and radical, and wants to do something about the situation. That is why I applaud the principle of this Bill, which is about offender rehabilitation. However, we also need to change how we do that.

What is the bottom line here? Sadly, we have a dividing line, which is going to become evident at the Division, between those who support the Second Reading and the principle of the Bill—those who say that the status quo is unacceptable—and those on the side of the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who says, “The status quo is acceptable. We are just going to have to talk to the probation service.” He is going to talk, but what more? He is saying, in effect, that we should sideline this issue of service change for another 18 months and not get on with the job. We can talk about the issues of implementation and about how we need practically to carry out the principle of the Offender Management Act 2007, but why is he wanting to have dividing lines at this stage?

All hon. Members would like to see more mentoring to ensure that people actually get “through the gate”. I understand that 65% of offenders say, “If I had that mentor who took me through the gate, it would have a dramatic effect on my offending.” We cannot just have the status quo. As I mentioned in an intervention, there are cases where the private, voluntary and public sectors provide mentoring, but they are all too infrequent and the mentoring is voluntary, not mandatory. At its heart, the Bill is saying that there will be mandatory supervision, and that is about mentoring. We will not just have the same situation, whereby what people see through the gate is not that mentor who takes them into rehabilitation, but the drug dealer waiting for them, or their mates who are going to get them back into the same cycle of crime. For the sake of these people, we are not going to put up with the status quo tonight.

Sadly, 62% of these offenders will not get into employment after their release, and that status quo is also unacceptable. They are going to go on jobseeker’s allowance, and attempts will be made to get them back into work through the Work programme and other schemes. All too often, they get back into the only career they know, which they have learned all too well in prison: a repeated career in crime. That is not acceptable.

Nor is the status quo acceptable in terms of drug misuse, which, as we all know, is prolific. We know that 64% of prisoners will have taken drugs in the four weeks before going into prison. We can intervene and do all we can in prisons, and good work is going on in rehabilitation wings. RAPt—the Rehabilitation for Addicted Prisoners trust—and other agencies are doing good work trying to ensure that we turn people around in the captive community of prison. However, what we need to do is ensure that when they get out of prison they are released into the hands of drug treatment providers and have the appointment that is going to be mandated in this legislation. That matters greatly and it shows why the status quo is not acceptable for these people, too. Too often, not only are they not getting off drugs, but they are getting more addicted to them in prison. If we cannot sort these people out in prison, we need to do more to ensure that we get them off drugs when they get out.

We have not heard so much about families in this debate, but 200,000 children in England and Wales have a parent in prison. That is extremely significant, as is the fact that at least 40% of these prisoners say that if there was that family support—those visits from family—when they are in prison and, crucially, continued support when they are released, it would have a dramatic effect on whether they reoffend. The status quo is unacceptable not only for the offenders, but for their families—their children. The evidence of intergenerational crime is growing, and for those children it is not acceptable for us to sit and argue around the edges today; we must take a stand and say that the status quo is unacceptable.

I declare an interest as a criminal defence solicitor. In some ways, I have a perverse interest in not voting for the Bill’s Second Reading tonight. In many ways, my trade has an interest in this reoffending cycle continuing, my filing cabinet being full, with lots of new clients coming through the system. In many ways, it is not in my interest to vote for Second Reading, but it clearly is because I have a duty to ensure that we do all we can to prevent reoffending. I will be on the side of the public and victims, who want to do more.

We have the framework in the 2007 Act that enables us to put in place the contestability to allow proper rehabilitation. In some ways, what I heard in some of the speeches from Opposition Members is a throwback to the olden days, but if they listened to what their colleagues said many years ago, they would hear very different things. If they had listened to the speeches made by the then Home Secretary in 2006, they would have heard the following words:

“There is only so much that internal reform of the probation service can achieve”.

They would also have heard:

“There is no need for all of these jobs to be done by the same agency…we need to match appropriate skills to appropriate tasks to free up professional probation officers to focus on the most serious criminals in the community.”

Those words were a precursor to the 2007 Act. How things have changed in the Labour Opposition’s rhetoric now; they are certainly going against the principles behind the 2007 Act.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

On that quote from the debate around the 2007 Act, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that those words were aimed at the establishment of probation trusts and not at their abolition, which is what this Bill will lead to?

[Mr Burrowes]

The quote’s focus is on matching appropriate skills to appropriate tasks. We must ensure that the skills of probation staff are properly matched, not only so that they can deal with serious criminals, but so that we can use the best people around to secure rehabilitation for short-sentence offenders. Of course probation staff are going to be needed. They are going to be in the front line, because they are the experts, to ensure that the new organisations that are working to deliver payment by results are going to do the job. Of course, they are not going to ignore these skills, but we need to focus on how we can match the appropriate skills to the demands we face.

We face new demands, because we have recognised that there is unfinished business here. Dealing with offenders on short sentences is unfinished business that we cannot simply ignore by saying it is a matter of costs. We need to find a way, a model, to deliver rehabilitation to these people. Payment by results has been mentioned, so I will go into a little more detail about that mechanism because I have some experience of it. We should not ignore the value of paying for success. It may provide an opportunity and, indeed, a profit for some companies, but success will be measured by a mechanism of ensuring that offending is reduced, but that has a dramatic effect on people’s lives, on rehabilitating the individual and on the public, the victims and the taxpayer.

Taxpayers hearing this debate will think the current situation extraordinary. They will say, “Is it the case that in law we do not have to rehabilitate or supervise released prisoners who were serving less than 12 months? When we look at the cohort of the most prolific, who are causing the most damage in our community, is it not extraordinary that it has taken this long, and this amount of debate on and scrutiny of different criminal justice Bills, for us to have, at last, a principle that we must mandate supervision of this category? Why was this never in place before?” They may then even ask the Opposition, who want to divide the House on Second Reading, why they are trying to stand in the way of progress and of the principle of rehabilitating this cohort.

Clause 1, which took up some time while being scrutinised in the other place, is relevant in the sense of dealing with implementation, but it is impractical to suggest that we must come back before the House when any change is made to the probation service. To my mind, although I respect the experienced people who moved clause 1, it is more in line with an early-day motion to which people can sign up to make a political point, to make a noise and to show concern. It does not have practical value. We must get serious about how we can implement our approach practically.

I agree with the principles of the Bill. It is properly focused on the taxpayer, who has not had much of a mention, on the victim and, indeed, on the offender, to ensure that we consider the results and outcomes so that we do what we all want to do—that is, reduce offending—whether the work takes place in the private, public or voluntary sector.

We must be careful in how we approach the private sector. G4S and Serco are bandied about as though we were going to throw out the private sector from any relationship or involvement with rehabilitation, but it is also important not to trash the 70,000 G4S employees or those employed by Serco. I do not understate the serious investigation into some of the contracts, but we are also dealing with contracts on rehabilitation, getting people through the gate and mentoring. I mentioned the transitional support service in Wales, which deals with women and men. It has been evaluated independently as a most effective model, which is producing great success. The problem is that the system is voluntary, whereas the Bill is about making it mandatory, as well as the schemes operating around the country.

We have work in prisons; for example, Altcourse prison has an employment programme that provides 40 hours’ work in prison. Years ago, many a Minister would have dreamed about that and it happens through G4S and the private sector. We must recognise that those contracts must happen in partnership with those in the public and voluntary sector so that we can deliver and upscale the good schemes, as we are now mandated to.

I want to refer to some of the requirements on drugs and alcohol rehabilitation. I particularly welcome the mandated requirement for drug rehabilitation appointments. That is needed and should happen for appointments not just in the statutory service but in the voluntary service. The great hidden army delivering rehabilitation—the “Anonymous” groups—would also welcome such a move. That happens in other countries: they specify directionally that requirements should include an appointment at an “Anonymous” group. I would welcome that.

I welcome the flexibility in the Bill on rehabilitation activity requirements but, as I said in my intervention on the Justice Secretary, it is important that we also recognise the value of the specific requirements under previous legislation, not least those on mental health and alcohol and drug rehabilitation. Indeed, the alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement is still in force and is being piloted, and I would not want us to lose that valuable measure. I want an assurance that we will be able to do that properly.

The court also has a crucial role. Drug rehabilitation requirements have been ordered in some cases and, for one reason or another, have not been delivered on the ground. The court has had to come back and say that they are a requirement of the court that must be delivered. There must be reviews by the court, which has a crucial role. Yes, we need flexibility for those delivering rehabilitation, but the courts have an important part to play.

Finally, we must consider implementation carefully. I recognise the concerns that people have raised about payment by results, but we have already been there. The Work programme has been mentioned, but I want to mention the drugs recovery pilots. I have had a particular role in helping to model those pilots and in seeing how they have worked out, particularly in my patch, Enfield. It is important to recognise that this area is complicated, that such schemes take careful local design and that the matter must be handled with care. I recognise that, but it is also important that we are not fixated on the price mechanism, the amount that is paid and whom it is paid to. One lesson learned from the pilots has been that the service has been transformed. They have linked together not just the drug treatment providers but those who want to support people into housing and employment. The service change brings those organisations together under a payment mechanism.

[Jenny Chapman]

I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying about payment by results and drugs initiatives. He is right that lessons are being learned through piloting. Is he not concerned that the 70% sell-off of probation to be delivered by payment by results is being done with no piloting whatsoever?

[Mr Burrowes]

My point is that there have been many different pilots in the past few years that have considered different ways of ensuring that we are more driven by outcomes than by process. One of the great failures of the previous Government, not least on drug treatment, was that it was all based on process and on ticking a box. Indeed, the so-called payment by results was payment by activity, driven not by rehabilitation and outcomes but by the numbers of people getting into treatment. That is why it is important to recognise that payment by results has a crucial role to play across all public services, but will vary from service to service. We must therefore handle with care how we deliver payment by results on criminal justice.

I want to offer some advice on the LASARS, or the local area single assessment and referral systems—we are all into acronyms when we have service changes. They have had a particularly good effect, not least because they are locally based. They are also based on single assessments and many of us involved in the criminal justice system will be all too aware of the repetitive assessments throughout the system that lack continuity and delivery of change. LASARS allow a single assessment in the criminal justice and non-criminal justice worlds. Payment by results offers us the opportunity to get away from the criminal justice mindset in that regard. Public health interest concerns, mental health concerns and educational concerns must be dealt with under a wider remit than that simply required by a criminal justice model. That is why we need to make the most of the opportunity offered by the LASARS, which would help refer people to the right places through a single assessment.

Co-design is also important and we must recognise its value. One such example can be found in London, where the Mayor, Boris Johnson, has helped pilot Project Daedalus, which focuses on the rehabilitation of young offenders through the resettlement wing at Feltham. That cohort had appalling reoffending rates at 70%, yet through the scheme he did so much better. The project was radical in that there was a resettlement broker who could negotiate with employers, accommodation providers, drug rehabilitation providers and others to try to ensure that rehabilitation was delivered.

[Mike Wood]

Is the vast improvement at Feltham the reason that the Government plan to close it?

[Mr Burrowes]

The hon. Gentleman will note the welcome fall in the number of young people in custody, for which the Government can take credit. Feltham is a good example of new models and new ways of doing things. The old Feltham, based almost on a borstal-type approach, is past its sell-by date in many ways—

[Mike Wood]

Why close it?

[Mr Burrowes]

The hon. Gentleman comments from a sedentary position, but I ask him to allow me to finish. If the number of people going into an institution is in decline, one must reconsider the question of value for money. I encourage him to consider the consultations on secure colleges, with the opportunities for us to upscale what has been lost in Feltham. We talk about training and education, and we should try to ensure that we have more intensive rehabilitation that, although it takes place in custody, does not take place in custody on the same model as at Feltham. I agree that Feltham is another example of an institution that is past its sell-by date and needs change and radical overhaul, but that is why we recognise that we cannot go on with the status quo of the Felthams of this world or with the status quo for those people who come out of Feltham and other institutions and do not get the rehabilitation they and the public need.

Project Daedalus was very much focused on such a goal and was able to reduce reoffending, as I understand it, to 53%. That was an encouraging rate. The lessons learned from that project, which I saw from an early stage, are important. The brokerage system is important, but so are the connections back to the London boroughs. That relationship is important. I recognise that some partnerships are working now, such as the offender management programme in London, which brings together the offending management teams. Those relationships need to be continued under payment by results. We learned from the drug recovery pilots that the way to do that is to ensure that the co-design process brings local authorities along with it. It is important that there is accountability, too.

The importance of LASARs lies in their independence from providers and, in some cases, commissioners. They provide some accountability in the system, independent of the provider, and ensure that there is an advocate. We know that offenders will not all go in one direction; when they go in different directions, the advocate will make sure that there is a proper referral system that works all the way through a reoffender’s rehabilitation.

[Paul Goggins]

I have been listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I will give him the benefit of the doubt—perhaps he can clarify this—but I hope that he is not suggesting that he and his colleagues are in favour of change and innovation, while Opposition Members simply want the status quo. If he is, I urge him to reflect on that. He has just spoken in great detail, and with great knowledge, about the complexity of local relationships. Given that complexity, the introduction of the new model of payment by results needs to be done carefully. It might help to have a proper, thorough pilot, and to evaluate it properly and thoroughly, before rolling the model out across the country.

[Mr Burrowes]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I am not suggesting that he is completely on the side of not having innovation and progress, but the reality is that we have to make a decision in this place. The Bill sets down the principle of mandatory supervision of those sentenced to under 12 months, and that is an important marker. There are issues relating to implementation and the timetable—much concern has been expressed about that—but they can be worked through; they are not good enough reason for voting against the Bill on Second Reading.

Clause 1 tries to create an artificial dividing line when all of us are very much on the same side in wanting rehabilitation. It has been so many years since we last had the opportunity to put centre stage the rehabilitation of offenders, particularly those with short sentences; we should not let down the public.

We have heard a number of interesting speeches. Concerns were raised about justice reinvestment. Justice reinvestment does not go completely against the principles of the Bill—far from it. There are different models of payment by results that can ensure that, as I suggested, we continue local links and partnerships, and make sure that savings are reinvested in the local area. The more we involve local groups—small and, yes, large—in this enterprise, as I believe we will have to, the more the local area will benefit. I look forward to the contracts that are awarded involving a partnership of private sector bodies—large or small—the voluntary sector and the public, and ensuring that reoffending rates are driven down.

Today, having raised concerns, our task is not to argue unnecessarily about implementation points. We have a simple choice tonight. We can do nothing. We can follow the path already set as regards short-term sentences —they were legislated for once under custody plus—and do nothing as regards implementation. We can allow that 58% rate of reoffending to continue, without any idea of change. We can decline to give the Bill a Second Reading. Or we can grasp this opportunity to get to grips with what has perhaps been on the too-hard-to-do pile, and give the Government credit for being willing to tackle the issue. We do not have everyone in our constituencies saying to us, “Please, please, do this,” but we know that the issue affects our constituencies through crime rates. We should give offenders a second chance of getting through the gate, having a mentor, getting into employment or rehab, and getting back in contact with their family. We should be on the side of victims and taxpayers. For those reasons, I urge hon. Members to give the Bill a Second Reading.

19:24

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time. It is also a great pleasure to participate in such a well-informed debate.

I listened with great interest to a number of the contributions, particularly that of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), with whom I found myself in considerable agreement at many points. The difficulty is that he believes that we should take on trust the need to proceed with the terms of the Bill, and give the Bill a Second Reading, when so many questions have been raised and left unanswered in this debate and the debate that took place in the Chamber a week or so ago. That might not matter if we felt that there was time, during the passage and implementation of the legislation, to undertake careful scrutiny of those concerns, and time to research and implement the measures necessary to address them, but the proposals are being rushed through by the Government.

Already, shadow structures are being set up, the bidding process is under way, and local probation staff are being asked to begin to think about their future under the changed structures. There will be an incredibly rapid approach to trying to implement what a number of my colleagues have rightly described as rather half-baked legislation. If I believed that, if we gave the Bill a Second Reading tonight, the time would be taken to address all the concerns properly, I might be prepared to vote for it, but the problem is that we know that Second Reading will be followed rapidly by the final stages of the Bill and implementation, and a series of major concerns will be left unanswered. That is a real worry.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Has my hon. Friend observed that under the programme motion, we will complete the Committee stage by the beginning of December? It is highly unlikely that any further reports can be prepared by then, and that we can have an informed discussion on the issues, before the whole Bill is disposed of.

[Kate Green]

The timing is of serious concern, and is driven more by electoral imperatives than a desire to make sure that we devise a system that is effective and right.

There is much to welcome in the intentions behind the Bill. Like many others who have spoken, I warmly welcome the wish to introduce post-release supervision for those serving short-term custodial sentences. As many have said, there has been a gap in our system up till now, and it is good to begin to explore ways in which it could be filled. I am also pleased to see a provision in the Bill on considering the needs and circumstances of women offenders. We have been pressing for that since Baroness Corston’s excellent report; it is approaching five years since it was published. It is welcome to see that making an appearance in the Bill.

However, those welcome objectives in no way justify a pell-mell destruction—a wholesale dismantling—of the public probation service that is not founded on logic, and does not appear to be founded on good or consistent evidence. That is why clause 1, with all its flaws—I accept some of the flaws that have been suggested—is important. We should not pursue these far-reaching changes without proper parliamentary scrutiny of the detail of what will be put in place. If the Minister would like to come forward with ways to improve the clause, and suggest to what degree that parliamentary scrutiny is appropriate, I would be happy to hear what he has to say, but it seems quite wrong to continue down the track of implementing the proposals when such serious concerns are being expressed.

[Jeremy Wright]

This is probably an unfair intervention, as I see that the hon. Lady does not have a copy of the Offender Management Act 2007 with her, but does she know where in that Act anything comparable to clause 1 appears?

[Kate Green]

No, that is not my point. My point is that we are going into a wholesale rearrangement of the public probation service—a service that has existed to manage the totality of risk, and take overall responsibility for it. That is what is being broken up. It is extremely important that we do not go down that track without proper parliamentary scrutiny of the implications and consequences, and that scrutiny is what clause 1 seeks to achieve.

[Jenny Chapman]

The Minister was being rather cheeky, because we had a whole Act to reorganise the probation service and establish trusts. The Government are attempting to dismantle the probation service without any parliamentary scrutiny whatever.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

There are concerns about the contracting structure that will be introduced as a result of the Bill. I want to repeat some of the concerns that have been expressed about the way in which the contracts will be priced. It has been presented by the Lord Chancellor this afternoon and more generally as predominantly a payment-by-results model which will seek to introduce new private funding into a marketplace where, within the public sector, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) pointed out, it would be difficult to find those levels of additional funding, particularly in these times of public spending constraint.

The point is that a very small proportion of these contracts, it seems, will genuinely be payment-by-results contracts. Substantial elements of these contracts will be subject to meeting court requirements, which means that there will have to be enough money in those contracts to ensure that those court requirements can be adequately met by the contractors. That, for a start, will leave relatively little room for manoeuvre in pricing a more discretionary element and an element that is about payment by results.

It is also the case, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, that within the existing spending envelope not only are these providers to manage about 150,000 existing offenders subject to supervision, but to take on board a further perhaps 50,000 within the context of the same funding envelope. That is not credible. It means either that we will have a very poor quality of intervention and/or cherry-picking, with a substantial number of those offenders receiving no support of any value at all.

I am also concerned about the way in which the pricing structures will respond to what a number of hon. Members have talked about—the changing risk profiles that we see when offenders are subject to supervision. As others have said, offender risk profiles are not static. Risk profiles can vary. Offenders can be beset by a range of external pressures and circumstances—bereavement, loss of a job, ending of a relationship, becoming homeless and so on—all of which can take a relatively stable low to medium-risk offender and suddenly catapult them into being high risk. At that point, we understand that the low or medium-risk offender would switch from being supervised by a non-statutory provider into the public probation supervision system. They would be supervised within the statutory sector.

But I do not think we have been told—perhaps the Minister will intervene on me if he has information to share about this—how that would be reflected in the pricing and the reward for the private contractor, and what additional resources would be made available to the public probation service if the risk profiles that had been assumed in the initial pricing of the contract turn out not to be what is experienced in practice.

[Jeremy Wright]

rose—

[Kate Green]

I sense that the Minister is going to offer me some information.

[Jeremy Wright]

I accept the invitation. On the first of the two points that the hon. Lady raised, in relation to what happens to the income for the provider if someone moves out of the medium and low-risk category and into the high-risk category, the answer is that that individual will stay within the cohort for payment-by-results purposes, so there is no financial incentive—that is the purpose of this—for the provider to move someone on to the public sector. On the second issue that she raised—how the public sector attracts the money to do the extra work with the extra people—the money should follow the individual.

[Kate Green]

I am not sure that I have totally understood this. It seemed that the private provider would retain any income attached to the result—the outcome—although we do not know what proportion of that overall payment to the private provider will be for the result and what will be a fixed payment for having to carry out the basics of supervision. It is welcome that the Minister says that resources will follow the offender, and therefore that if there is extra activity to be carried out in the public sector, the public sector will receive the necessary resources to carry out that work, but I am not quite clear where that funding will come from if the private provider is also to be remunerated in full for the work that it has carried out and for any ultimate outcome that may be achieved. Perhaps the Minister will be able to provide more detail as the Bill proceeds on its parliamentary passage. It would be useful to understand the cash flow and funding models in more detail.

Concerns have been expressed about the way in which prisoner risk categorisation will be undertaken. We have quite a long established system—OASys, or the offender assesment system—for determining levels of risk. It is being suggested that one of the things that the Ministry of Justice may wish to do is to revisit that risk assessment system to try to change the profile of the offender base so that more offenders can be deemed to be low or medium risk and supervised in the private or non-profit sector rather than, as would be suggested on current risk assessment tools, within the public probation service.

[Jenny Chapman]

My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to this issue. As I understand it, a new risk assessment tool will be introduced at the same time as these reforms take place. Is she concerned, as I am, that this would be the worst possible time to introduce that change?

[Kate Green]

We have clearly heard the same rumours. It is important that we understand what the new risk assessment tool will look like, what the implications will be for the overall risk profile of this cohort of offenders, and whether we can expect to see some significant shifts in the way that the level of risk is identified and assessed.

[John McDonnell]

This is getting barmier by the minute. The transaction costs need to be assessed. The transaction costs of the reassessment of offenders with the new risk assessment tool will be massive. In addition, there will be the transaction costs of monitoring the flow of money as offenders move between the risk categories.

[Kate Green]

Perhaps I am overcomplicating what is being proposed by the Government, but it seems to me that the whole financial structure and the way in which that relates to risk assessment is very unclear to Members—certainly to Opposition Members. It would be helpful, during the passage of the Bill, for the Government to make that clear to us so that we can understand the true financial as well as the risk consequences of what is proposed.

[Jenny Chapman]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kate Green]

I will give way one more time, then I want to move on to another issue.

[Jenny Chapman]

My hon. Friend is very generous in giving way and I am grateful. The problem is that we will not have the opportunity to go into these issues in more detail as the Bill progresses because none of the concerns being raised is in the Bill. That is the point of our amendment.

[Kate Green]

It is clear that we need much more time to scrutinise these proposals properly and, sadly, that is not what we are being offered by the Government tonight.

I turn to an issue that has been raised by a number of hon. Members, mostly Government Members, about the opportunities that exist for probation trusts in some form to bid for the new contracts. It is pretty clearly understood in my area that they will not have that opportunity to bid. It is baffling to me that, when they are doing such good work already, we would not want to give them the opportunity at least to compete for those contracts. They might not be successful, but surely where we have good models of provision in the public sector, we would want to enable them to put themselves forward in competition with other potential providers.

It has been said, rightly, by a number of hon. Members that there will be the opportunity for probation trusts to set up different kinds of legal structures—co-operatives, mutuals, shadow structures and so on. I am not sure why we think there is any particular advantage to the public in forcing them to go down that route. Again, I cannot help but believe that it will create extra cost and extra complexity. Nor is it clear to me that we know what these mutuals and co-operatives will and will not be allowed to bid for.

It would be helpful if the Minister commented on that in his response and told the House how he envisages these entities coming into a system when the contracting is beginning to take place already, before many of them have had any chance to get off the ground.

[Paul Maynard]

rose—

[Kate Green]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in this issue so I am pleased to take his intervention.

[Paul Maynard]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She is being most generous. Does she agree that Greater Manchester is one of the more innovative probation trusts and has had a number of very successful schemes and should perhaps be seen as a litmus test of whether the condition for mutuals is going to occur in practice.

[Kate Green]

I agree that Greater Manchester has been innovative. As I say, in my discussions with Greater Manchester, the trust was preparing for exactly this approach, at least a year ago, and had the brakes put on. It was told that it would not be able to bid in the process in the way that it had planned, so I would be interested to understand, as I think the hon. Gentleman would, what Greater Manchester and other such trusts will and will not be able to bid for, what sort of entities they will have to establish to enable them to bid and potentially to take a leading role in that bidding process, and whether there will be time for them to create those entities and put in bids, given that, as I understand it, the preliminaries of the process are already under way this month. He and I look forward to some reassurances from the Minister.

A number of my colleagues have pointed out that the Lord Chancellor’s proposals mirror the structure and approach of the Work programme, which he introduced as Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions. Leaving aside the pretty poor performance of the Work programme to date—I am prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt; it may achieve improved outcomes over time, although it is getting off to a depressingly slow start—in the light of everything that has been said in the Chamber this evening about what we have seen from the Work programme and what seems to be being replicated in these contracts, I am concerned that we will have a national top-down driven system, when what we have heard from both sides of the House, about innovative experiments in different parts of the country, is that a localised, bottom-up, partnership approach across a range of local agencies has been what has worked best.

I am concerned that the track record of some of the large multinational providers, who are likely to bid for these contracts—indeed may be the only people qualified and able to take the risk inherent in bidding for these contracts—is that they are not good at developing supply chains down the local agencies. As hon. Members may know, many voluntary and charitable organisations have complained bitterly about their experiences with the Work programme. They complain that they have been used as so-called bid candy, but have not been given any opportunity to deliver activity. They complain that they have had very few referrals, having been included on bids by the large prime contractors. There are real concerns that we are seeing a model that looks very like the Work programme in terms of top-down, Department-led contracting. There are also concerns about whether we can be confident that those problems and pitfalls will not occur in these contracts in the way that they did in the Work programme.

[Mr Burrowes]

Are not the hon. Lady’s fears somewhat allayed when she looks beyond some of the headlines and at some of the private companies? The ones that are delivering results and are effective in reducing offending, which would be paid in the system, are only those that are properly engaged at a local level with small organisations and the voluntary and public sectors. It is only when all that comes together at a local level that they will deliver results and be paid, so their every incentive is to do what the hon. Lady fears will not happen.

[Kate Green]

The same claims were made for the Work programme, but the experience has been entirely different. At the very least we must expect the Minister to give us some reassurances as to why this will be different when the model looks so very similar.

Hon. Members have talked about some of the innovative programmes in their own probation trusts. As has been said, Greater Manchester has had a number of particularly innovative programmes. One in particular speaks directly to the Government’s proposals for post-release supervision for those serving short custodial sentences. I am sure the Minister will be familiar with the Choose Change programme that was developed in Greater Manchester. It has been running for a number of years and we await its final evaluation. I hope that the Government are drawing some interesting and important lessons from that experience, on which I would like to hear the Minister’s comments tonight.

It is clear when we look at Choose Change—a through-the-gate programme, working with offenders in prison, as they left prison and on release—that it depended heavily on being a multi-agency programme in which private, public and voluntary providers were all comprehensively engaged. That included the prison and probation services, corporate partners, the voluntary and community sector, and, crucially, local authorities. I am very unclear how local authorities will fit into the model of provision in this Bill.

It was instructive from Choose Change that the range of interventions needed was extensive. They included interventions in relation to employment, education and training. Many offenders, as the Minister will be well aware, have exceptionally poor levels of literacy and numeracy, so investing in routing them to the right educational opportunities and continuing their education commenced inside prison consistently on release is an important element that will need to be designed into any provision. Income and access to financial services have been a key element of what the Choose Change programme has identified as being important for offenders on release. Housing needs are an exceptionally urgent priority for many on release, as are health needs, particularly mental health needs. It often transpires that offenders have no registered GP to whom they can turn for health care, and their engagement with the health service has been sporadic.

The need for a package of interventions, bringing together a number of agencies and players, and beginning that work inside the prison and continuing it as part of a continuing process—not a broken process whereby the prison services does this inside prison and someone else does it post-release—will be an incredibly important feature of what the Government seek to achieve. I am pleased to see the Minister nodding as I say that. I hope that he will be able to reassure us this evening that there will be a continuum of support, not a form of support that begins only as someone leaves the prison gate. There has been a lot of encouraging discussion this evening about through-the-gate models, but we need to understand how those will work within the prison as well as after release.

We also need to understand that the interventions will be made in the right sequence. Some things can only happen easily post-release. It is quite difficult to do much, for example, about housing until someone is near the point of release. But other things, such as education and preparing for employment, can be started much earlier. The sequencing of interventions inside prison and post-release will be very important, and I would be grateful if the Minister said something about how he sees that working in these new contracts.

It will also be important to know how the programme that will be put in place through the contracted provision will work with other programmes already running in the community in relation to criminal justice. That includes how it will work with prolific offender programmes, integrated offender management programmes and programmes such as Spotlight in Greater Manchester, which enables the police and other criminal justice agencies and social services to keep close tabs on those in the community, perhaps not serving sentences but known to the system. How does the Minister envisage those different community-based initiatives will be linked into what is being proposed?

The Minister will also want to look carefully at the learning from Choose Change, which shows that intervening with offenders who have long histories of offending behaviour is particularly challenging. Some offenders who are serving their eighth, 10th, 15th or even their 20th short custodial sentence will be particularly difficult to work with on release. Therefore, it would be useful to understand how the Minister envisages these contracts being able to cope with, on the one hand, those who may have had one experience of custody, where it is to be hoped that with good post-release supervision they could be quickly taken off the track of offending behaviour and we could see some effective rehabilitation, and on the other hand, those who may have 10, 15 or 20 years of offending history. The lessons from Choose Change are that that is a very challenging group of offenders to work with, and simply wrapping some fairly basic post-release supervision around them is unlikely to be sufficient to change the course of their offending behaviour.

How does the Minister envisage the contracts being structured to incentivise inter-agency working and in particular how working with women offenders will be made financially attractive to providers, which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members?

I agree with the Chair of the Select Committee—I will return his compliment by saying that I rarely disagree with him—that there are many good examples of women’s organisations and centres producing extremely strong support programmes for women offenders. In Greater Manchester we have the extremely successful Women MATTA—Manchester and Trafford Taking Action—initiative, which has worked with the Pankhurst Centre, the local authority, the probation service and so on. However, many of those women’s projects are now under severe funding pressure. They are not cheap to run. I hope that the Chair of the Select Committee agrees that women’s special needs and circumstances mean that cut pricing will not necessarily be very effective for women offenders. I am therefore keen to hear whether the Minister is confident that the structure of the contracts will reward providers for working with the especially challenging circumstances faced by women offenders and how they will be incentivised to make use of the very good practice and experience of the women’s centres across the country that have been delivering such programmes in recent years.

In conclusion, I must say on behalf of the Greater Manchester probation trust and a number of Opposition colleagues that our opposition to giving the Bill a Second Reading is not the result of wholesale opposition to introducing a mix of private and voluntary providers, which has been a feature of the effective working we have seen in Greater Manchester and across the country in recent years. We are concerned that there is little evidence that that particular approach to wholesale contracting out with an arbitrary cut-off point at the level of medium to high-risk offenders is the right way to structure the participation of private and non-statutory providers. There seems to be little opportunity for the very good programmes that have been run by the public probation service to compete effectively in a rapid time scale and continue to be major players in the provision of the services that the Government are now seeking to introduce. There are real concerns that strong local relationships and structures will be disrupted by the bidding process. Finally, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Justice Secretary said, there are real concerns about the risk consequences for the public. I hope that the Minister can offer more reassurances in that regard than we have had so far this evening.

19:52

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

The Bill will enact the provision set out in the coalition agreement to

“introduce a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ that will pay independent providers to reduce reoffending”.

It is supported by both partners in the coalition. I think that it is an ambitious Bill, and one that is sorely needed.

The offenders who are most likely to reoffend on release from prison are precisely the ones targeted in the Bill—those serving 12 months or less—but until now those people have received no help at all: they are just let out of the prison gates with the princely sum of £46 in their pocket. They need support. They need somewhere to stay, gainful employment and a dedicated professional concerned with their welfare.

The power to make contractual arrangements with any person or body to provide probation services was set out in the Offender Management Act 2007, but the previous Government never saw fit to bring it in. What a pity. How many lives could already have been turned around since 2007 if more offenders could have had the kind of support we are bringing in only now?

The basics of the Bill have already been outlined by the Secretary of State, and I certainly do not intend to go over them again. I will use the time available to address some of the concerns that have been put to me, and which I in turn have put to the Secretary of State and his team.

The Secretary of State has already explained that the provisions set out in clause 1 had already been debated and agreed under the previous Government in relation to the 2007 Act. If this Government are happy to accept those provisions, I am unable to see why, when we have consensus on both sides of the House, we need to legislate again. We are using the powers already given to us by the previous Labour Government to unlock resources from the private, charitable and voluntary sectors while opening up support to offenders who have served prison sentences of less than 12 months. Even if we were to accept the clause, I do not believe it would be particularly helpful. It is drafted very widely, and my understanding is that even if we were to accept as it as drafted, many subsequent small changes would need the approval of both Houses of Parliament.

On drug testing, I have been approached by DrugScope, which is concerned that by imposing drug testing under supervision for a 12-month period for short-term offenders we are

“setting them up to fail”,

because they will have more opportunities to fall foul of the system, be re-incarcerated and start the whole cycle all over again. That could be the case, except for two factors. First, magistrates will have a wide range of options open to them, including taking no action at all. However, drug testing will alert supervisors to the problem so that remedial help can be given. Secondly, they would normally have to fail a test several times before action would be taken against them. It is understood that drug addicts have lapses, and the aim is to help, not hinder, their progress under rehabilitation. That is already a condition of the existing licence, so it is not a material change.

Concern has been expressed about the inclusion of class B drugs in the testing regime. After all, many people who take drugs such as marijuana do not offend just to feed their habit. The fact is that there is still a strong correlation between ex-offenders who go on to reoffend and the consumption of class B drugs. For example, people might go back to their old haunts to obtain them and take up associating with other offenders. Some 48% of offenders who go on to reoffend use class B and C drugs in the month before custody, compared with 30% who never used drugs before imprisonment. Why tempt fate?

Another area of concern relates to the assessment of risk, which a number of hon. Members have mentioned. The fact is that risk can fluctuate wildly at times of chaos in someone’s life. There seems to be a belief in some quarters that community rehabilitation companies will be assessing the risk category of murderers, rapists and paedophiles. My understanding is that that is not the case. All those categories will remain the responsibility of the new national probation service. Furthermore, the oversight of all risk assessments in the low and medium-risk categories will remain the overall responsibility of the national probation service. A condition of tender acceptance is that the organisation has properly qualified people in place to assess changing risk.

Many concerns have been expressed about who will run the system, who the bidders will be and what real value they will be able to add to what is already an exceptional probation service for longer-term offenders. Let me say that now I would be dismayed if my Government contemplated considering a bid from any organisation that was under investigation for defrauding the taxpayer on other outsourced services. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is a fair question: if the existing probation service does such a good job, why introduce other players into the field? Why not just extend the existing service?

[Jenny Chapman]

The hon. Lady is making a very carefully considered speech, and the Minister has also heard her concern about G4S and Serco and their ability to compete for contracts. Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that they will not be able to bid for those contracts?

[Lorely Burt]

It is above my pay grade to comment on the Minister’s thoughts about the complex circumstances with regard to a specific contractor. He has, however, heard what I said and the “Hear, hears” of my honourable colleagues.

To return to the widening of the service, the Government’s answer is that introducing the private sector and competition to the market will drive down costs, which will release the money to widen the service to those shorter-term offenders who get little or no supervision at present. I hope that that equation will work. We are not privy to the analysis the Government have used. I am prepared to go with it, because I want this new system. I want short-term prisoners to be looked after on release and to have the opportunity to turn their lives around, and I want society as a whole to benefit from reduced reoffending.

What sort of organisations will they be? What does the private sector know about finding homes and jobs and helping ex-prisoners build new lives? My understanding is that the new organisations will probably be consortiums of private businesses, charities and not-for-profit organisations. A lot of tonight’s debate has been about whether the probation trusts will be able to tender for private sector contracts, but I understand that it is not appropriate for them to do so, because they are Government funded and such contracts involve risk. However, could my hon. Friend the Minister explain under what circumstances existing probation trusts or, indeed, existing probation officers could join consortiums, because their expertise will be in great demand and highly valued?

There are other concerns about whether the private sector will manipulate the system for gain. It is, after all, in it to make a profit. I hope that my Government have learned from the past failures of other privatised schemes under, perhaps, both Labour and Conservative Governments. I hope that grass-roots organisations will not be pushed, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) has said, into less-than-good deals for the delivery of their part of the programme.

The programme must deliver real results. We know that the best schemes of this nature have achieved up to a 12% decrease in offending rates, and I hope that consortium bids will approach that best-in-class target. The percentage of the payment at risk is also very important. It must be a substantial proportion of the fee in order to drive the consortiums into putting everything into working together so as to enable offenders who want to turn their lives around to be able to do so.

Finally, I want to dwell on the repercussions of the changes for those who work in the probation service, because they are anxious that they will find themselves either under the constant stress of having to deal with high-risk offenders or, potentially, out of a job altogether. I am assured that the need for our excellent probation officers will be greater than ever and that there will be more work for them to do, not less. Those who do not want to work with high-risk offenders will find that their skills and expertise will be welcomed in the community rehabilitation centres to which they can be transferred. Will my hon. Friend the Minister outline the scheme under which those transfers will take place? I understand that it is a Cabinet Office scheme that is at least as good as the TUPE transfer, but I would be grateful for any clarification.

[John McDonnell]

The unions involved have consistently asked that that be inserted directly into the Bill itself. Does the hon. Lady support that?

[Lorely Burt]

I understand that the Government have already done a fair amount of consultation. I am not aware of the exact way in which the unions are feeding into Government, but I know that the Government value the unions very much and will take into account their points and their wisdom.

The probation officers who elect to stay will find that not all their work will involve high-risk prisoners. Forty per cent. of their work is based in the courts and in inspecting approved premises. In some models, the work of probation officers is divided, so some of them already do the vast majority of their work in supervising high-risk offenders. As long as they are not forced into such work, that seems fair enough.

In conclusion, I hope that I have been helpful. I am listening carefully to the concerns being raised and I look forward to working with organisations associated with the probation service and with the unions in order to ensure that once the Bill has been through Committee, it will be as robust and effective as possible.

20:06

[Mike Wood (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), but I want to go back to the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who is no longer in his place. He regretted the fact—he said it was a great shame—that we could not all come together in agreement on this Bill. I would have thought, however, that by the time he spoke it was totally apparent—it certainly is now—that, on the issue of reducing recidivism, which would be beneficial to all parties and to the whole of society, there is enormous agreement on both sides of the House that supervision of and support for petty offenders should have been introduced a considerable while ago, certainly under the previous Government. I, like many others, regret that they did not find the money to do that.

I also think that there is almost a consensus that, in some cases, it would be beneficial to have extra licence requirements for those who have served sentences of up to two years. I think, therefore, that there is a great deal of consensus about what we are told is the whole corpus of the Bill. Where the consensus falls down is on the means by which to achieve those high ideals and aspirations.

None of what the Government say they want necessitates the privatisation of the probation process and the destruction of our first-class professional probation service. Indeed, as we have heard repeatedly throughout the debate, if the Government were serious about their objectives, they would be turning to the probation service, not undermining it. They would be looking to the people who have proved that they can deliver those kinds of objectives, not doing the very reverse.

The Government should be looking to services such as my own in west Yorkshire, which consistently rates among the best. I place on record my thanks to Karen Ledger and Andrew Sinclair from that service for their briefings to me, which have been extremely useful, and to Gail Wilson, a constituent of mine who wrote to remind me that in 2013 alone the West Yorkshire service has received the Investors in People gold award, is the only trust in the Stonewall top 100 employers index and has won three Butler Trust awards, and that, at the same time, between 2005 and 2013, it reduced reoffending by 14%. As we have heard, every probation trust throughout the country has met and continues to meet every target that the Government have set. The Government rate them good or better than good. That is why the consensus falls down.

[Jenny Chapman]

My hon. Friend rightly points out that trusts are consistently awarded good or excellent ratings on inspection. Does he agree that now is the time to raise the bar and ask more of our trusts, such as asking them to deal with short-term prisoners, and not to be abolishing the very trusts that are performing so highly?

[Mike Wood]

That is exactly the way forward. Were those extra requirements to be introduced, the probation service would meet them. Despite the attempt to obscure the reality of the Government’s plans, we learn that the probation service will not even be given the opportunity to do so, for some completely fallacious reason to do with not risking public money. That comes against the background of a Bill that will risk £20 billion of public money by giving it to untried and untested private companies. It is true that were the extra responsibilities and work to be offered to the probation service, it would meet the challenge.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

In my hon. Friend’s discussions with West Yorkshire probation trust, were any concerns raised about the work load of probation officers? My intuition is that it has gone up a great deal and that trusts have delivered incredible results. Obviously, the whole service is put at risk if officers are put under too much pressure to achieve the results that are required of them. The stress levels for probation officers are certainly very high.

[Mike Wood]

The large case loads of probation officers is a continuing concern. There is concern across the board about the proposals, but the work load for probation officers and probation trusts is a matter of record, as is the fact that they have in the recent past cut their costs. They have become more efficient, not less.

There are other problems with the proposals. They are untried and untested. The Secretary of State is now at his banquet and we all hope that he enjoys it enormously. In the first week that he was in post—before he even knew where his desk was—he cancelled out of hand the two planned pilots, which would have given us the evidence base by which to judge the proposals.

Payment by results, which has been lauded this afternoon, is unique in criminal justice systems throughout the world. By definition, therefore, we have very little evidence on the efficacy or potential of such a system. We do know that when it has been researched, it has not come out too well. For example, the Social Market Foundation, a cross-party think-tank, has said that even if the private companies reduce reoffending rates by more than 3% and achieve the payment-by-results reward, that would be limited to a reduction of 5% as anything more than that would require huge investment in rehabilitation programmes. It states that most companies would make their profit by cutting costs on staff and interventions, allow reoffending rates to rise by 3%, if necessary, and rely on the fee for service to produce their profits.

The myth has been perpetuated today that payment by results will have an enormous enervating and driving effect on the private companies who take part. We know that that is nonsense. The Government started with the intention that 30% of the fee should be related to results. We know that in the so-called negotiations, that was reduced to less than 10%. As the think-tank points out, the companies will earn a vast amount of their money by winning the contract. That is how they will make their profit. To extend the payment beyond that would be a bonus. Any suggestion that payment by results can have that effect therefore flies in the face of what will actually happen.

[Lorely Burt]

I admire the hon. Gentleman’s visionary understanding, because I have no knowledge of the reduction to less than 10%. I put the example of the 3% straw man to the Justice Secretary and his colleagues. That percentage was described to me as “noise in the system”. In other words, 3% either way would not be indicative of strong work. Should the targets not only not be met, but go backwards, my understanding is that there would be—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Interventions must be very short. The hon. Lady has made a speech already, and I am bothered about the time.

[Mike Wood]

The hon. Lady referred to “noise in the system” and I was beginning to understand what she meant. She has already made her speech.

I was suggesting that rather than being motivated by the wonderful new system of being paid only by results, the companies, will find a way to operate in which so-called results are unimportant in determining how much profit they make. That might be difficult for the hon. Lady to accept, but we ought to consider the kind of companies that the Government are talking to and that will be central to the new way of organising the probation service.

Many attempts have been made to downplay that point. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, among others, said that we cannot make judgments about G4S on the basis of minor indiscretions because it has 74,000 employees. Companies that engage in Government contracts and then defraud the Government, that make claims for transporting prisoners who are dead or for providing services to people who have long since left the system, and that are under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office are not the kind of companies that the Government should consider offering further contracts to. Although the Minister was offered the opportunity earlier to tell the House that the two companies that are under serious investigation will be debarred until cleared, he has failed, yet again, to give that assurance. Apparently, companies that behave in that disreputable and dishonest fashion will be considered perfectly acceptable to play a part in the new system. I find that completely unacceptable.

As recently as today, we have heard more evidence of the performance of G4S. Three of its members falsified documents and were guilty, as far as I can see, of perjury. Judge Mostyn said:

“The three officials behaved disgracefully”.

He added:

“When agents of the state falsify documents it undermines, if not fatally then certainly very seriously, the trust of the people in the operation of the rule of law. It makes no difference if, as here, the agents are private contractors to whom the secretary of state has outsourced her powers. Corruption by state officials is insidious and corrosive.”

That was this week’s horror story; last week’s was about the torturing of prisoners.

[John McDonnell]

It is important that we are aware of what happened today. The judge found that G4S had redacted papers that took out information and evidence that the person had been tortured and that therefore that person was eventually deported back to a place that had put his life at risk.

[Mike Wood]

Absolutely. We are talking about people who collude in torture, and allegations that people are torturing prisoners in their care. Apparently, however, those people are perfectly acceptable and might play a part in privatising our probation service out of existence. We could, of course, also look at Serco, which is one of the other main contenders.

In spite of what the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson)—who is no longer in his place—said earlier, the experience of Serco in managing the London unpaid work scheme is instructive. Reports from that scheme and other parties working, or hoping to work, in partnership with Serco—partnership is crucial in this area of our service—state that they have huge difficulties getting through to Serco’s helpline when they need to speak to it about any issue relating to an individual offender. They also said that Serco has failed to provide adequate information to offenders and probation staff, leading to unnecessary costs to the taxpayer through breach orders and subsequent court costs, and that previous good relations in partnerships have been destroyed by the actions of that private company. In spite of attempts to downplay such issues, those are the kinds of company that will win these contracts should they be let in the way that we are told they will be. We will have G4S responsible for probation, and Eddie Stobart responsible for legal aid.

The hon. Member for Solihull again used the R-word when she assured the House that both parts of the coalition are up for this revolutionary change. We need not revolutionary change, however, but testing, piloting and evaluation, and we need a far more cautious approach for two reasons, the first of which is the danger to the public, which has been mentioned extensively during the debate. I am in the Chamber representing 120,000 people —men, women and children—in my constituency, just as every other Member is doing. I have a responsibility to look to their safety, and these proposals will lessen that safety. My constituents will be more likely to become victims of crime as a result of dangerous, volatile, difficult-to-predict, sometimes professional criminals and offenders being supervised by untrained, unqualified, poorly paid, temporary, unmotivated, so-called probation staff. There is an enormous danger to the public inherent in and right at the heart of these proposals.

Secondly, I think that so far in the debate—I have been here since the beginning—no one has mentioned the danger to the criminal justice system. There is the idea that we can take on work with at least another 60,000 offenders a year and that the whole system will not become swamped, even though we are cutting resources at the same time—well, we are told that it will be within the same cost envelope, but that is 40,000, 50,000, 60,000 or 70,000 extra offenders a year to be dealt with within that same cost envelope. I am trying not to say that this does not add up, but it does not add up, does it?

We need a much more cautious approach because the Bill is being introduced with the lie that it is about high-minded aspirations to provide a service for petty offenders, those on short-term sentences and the like. We know, however, that the proposals are a blatant attempt to take public money and transpose it into the coffers of private companies. We also know what happens if we introduce legislation on that basis. Think of the Child Support Agency. How many years has it taken to get the CSA—which was introduced by the previous Tory Government, on a lie—back to something fit for purpose? How many lives have been ruined? How many injustices caused? Yet that is exactly what is being proposed in the Bill.

I have considerable concerns about the Bill, and to conclude I would like to place on record a few of the issues that cause me particular concern. First, the Government’s own impact assessment is one of the most vacuous documents that I have read for a long time. There is no costing anywhere in it: “We don’t have to cost it; we know what the cost will be, but we are not going to tell you. If we told you, the private companies involved might know.” There are estimates and guesstimates about the implications for the number of offenders, including those in breach of an order or going back to prison—the spectrum is so wide that it is rather like the weather report: “Tomorrow, there’s going to be weather.”

We are told that 600 extra prison places will be needed —we are talking about a new prison. We were told as recently as last month that in a prison estate of 85,000 places, there were 800 vacancies on the day in question. In fact, earlier in the debate, we were told that the figure is now down to 600. Is every one of those places to be filled by someone in breach of an order under the proposals? Surely not, yet that is the logic of 13,000 to 17,000 extra breaches leading to 600 extra prison places being needed. Any suggestion that that will be achieved by the expenditure of £15 million of extra public funds is, as again we all know, nonsense.

The proposals on drugs and drug testing deserve a debate of their own. We have heard an enormous amount of nonsense about what will be achieved by drug testing, and by the requirement to appear and private organisations that can drug test if they choose to. They will, of course, have to bear the cost, so we can be fairly sure that they will not choose to test very often. A Government Member has said that extending testing to class B drugs was to catch people who are on cannabis. That might be a laudable aim in all kinds of ways, but to what effect in terms of reoffending? The Blenheim project in London—a drug and alcohol project—has said that the measure seems

“to be based on a misplaced belief that comparatively widespread use of cannabis amongst prisoners indicates a strong link to offending behaviour”,

yet the UK Drug Policy Commission—no less—reports that

“users of other drugs have much lower rates of offending than those who use heroin and crack and are less likely to have committed a crime to get drugs or when under the influence of drugs”.

If we are not careful, petty offenders who have been released from prison on licence and who have amended, or who are coming to grips with, their offending behaviour, will be caught out by testing for cannabis. It will be found in their system and they will go back to prison. How does that save money? How does that improve the situation for that offender or for society?

If the Minister had read any one of the three volumes of prison diaries of his erstwhile colleague, Lord Archer, he would know that what happened in the prison system when it introduced mandatory drugs testing will happen outside the prison system. If a prisoner has a drug in his or her system that can be discovered for four weeks, they will move to a drug that cannot be discovered in that time. That is what has happened in our prison system where, as was reported recently, it is easier to get crack cocaine than a bar of soap. Prisoners have opted to move from cannabis to heroin. That is what will happen outside. What on earth is that about?

DrugScope, which has been referred to and which is probably the leading independent centre for drug expertise, has expressed enormous misgivings, as has just about every other organisation involved with drug addicts. They work daily to achieve results. The Government will not listen to probation trusts or probation officers, but those organisations are another group of experts doing the job that the Government believe they know better than.

We are told that a national probation service will be formed. We should remember that it will be responsible for the most serious 30% of offenders—the murders and rapists and the like to which the hon. Member for Solihull has referred. It will be responsible for multi-agency public protection arrangements and for breaching, yet it will be based regionally. We are going to tear the heart out of the relationship between officers and the serious offenders. The larger geographic area will make a difference.

I have been a probation officer and can tell hon. Members that getting a probationer to appear in my office was the first part of the job. What if I move the office 50 miles or 100 miles further away? Does anyone believe that that would improve the chances of the probationer appearing? Does anyone consider that it will lead to less offending? It will not. Let us not forget that such offenders are not petty offenders, but dangerous people. I therefore have grave doubts. Are we setting up the so-called national probation service—the public part that picks up the bits that the private sector does not want, cannot handle, has failed with and so on—to fail?

The Ministry of Justice has said that the Bill encapsulates

“a complex, large-scale change programme to be”

introduced and

“completed within an aggressive timetable.”

The situation is that what works will be replaced by what will not work, on the basis of an ideological hunch from the Secretary of State. Here in the House on 9 January—do hon. Members remember?—he said:

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

The Secretary of State himself told us that that was the basis and justification for doing away with the two pilots that would have given him an evidence base. Even though he was new to his job, he knew in the first week that they would not have given him an evidential basis for anything of the kind.

In last week’s debate, several Members recited the number of incidents of reoffending in any one year, and one of them said, “Something has to be done.” That is the cry of the impotent and the powerless the world over. It has now apparently become the watchword of the Government with regard to the criminal justice system. That just will not do. We deserve much better, and the public need and deserve much better. The Government have to rethink this proposed legislation radically.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There are six speakers left and an hour and a bit to go, so I will have to introduce a limit of 11 minutes.

20:35

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate. We are enjoying an interesting discussion on the principles behind the Bill, and we have benefited from hon. Members on both sides of the House sharing their considerable experience. I pay tribute in particular to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who raised sensible issues regarding clarification on how probation trusts might participate in what is envisaged by the proposed legislation.

I welcome the Bill and the Government’s commitment to tackling high reoffending rates while being attentive to public protection and the need for justice for victims of crime. Some of the statistics we have heard this afternoon have been striking, with 58% of offenders with sentences of less than 12 months reoffending. That reoffending is costing the economy between £7 billion and £10 billion a year. There is an urgent need to tackle reoffending, and robust reform of the system is required if we are to achieve that. It is a tragedy for too many people and too many communities that for too long this issue has not been addressed effectively.

The Government’s approach to the two major aims of the Bill is absolutely right. First, it is right to open up the system to voluntary and private providers who can compete to provide better value for the taxpayer while maintaining and streamlining a public national probation service for high-risk offenders. I have listened carefully to the concerns regarding the demarcation of high-risk offenders and movement between categories and it would be helpful if the Minister underscored those points. Secondly, it is right to make the unprecedented move to put in statute a minimum of 12 months, combined supervision and licence for offenders who have served sentences of less than 12 months.

In the time available, I would like to focus on two areas of the Bill: the assumptions made in rehabilitation, and the calibration of the payment by results system. The Government, in the White Paper “Transforming Rehabilitation” and in the Bill, have shown a wise awareness of the pattern of drug use and chaotic lifestyles among many offenders, including those who serve short sentences. They are right to want to tackle that within the rehabilitation process. I am pleased to see, therefore, that provision has been made in the Bill for drugs testing and to tackle drug dependency, within the limits set out in clause 15, and that this has been expanded from class A drugs to classes A and B.

Last March, I visited the Amber Foundation, which does considerable work not only in Wiltshire, my county, but in Devon and Surrey, working with unemployed and homeless young people, many of whom have a history of crime or drug addiction and have come out of the criminal justice system. The foundation is unique in that, rather than running generic programmes, it works with each individual directly in a residential environment. When I stayed there, it was clear that it provided customised support to individuals, including support for independent living, literacy and numeracy courses and practical training. It became clear that the road to long-term independent living, free from reoffending, was often an extremely long and difficult one, as was the road to freedom from drug dependency.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I apologise, but I was in Committee earlier and could not take part in the debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that to help people in the rehabilitation process, prisons need to be drug-free, and therefore does he share my concern that methadone prescriptions in UK prisons have trebled since 2007?

[John Glen]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about the challenge of freeing people from drugs. As a magistrate for six years, I was deeply frustrated at the recurrent sentencing of the same individuals, knowing that typically someone would have to go through a programme six or seven times. I do not want it thought that Conservative Members think the solution is to send everything out to the private sector. I do not believe that. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) indicates that he thinks that that is what the Government believe, but I do not believe it. We are arguing for a recognition that all types of provision can lead to better outcomes; we do not have an ideological fixation that says that the way we have always done it must be the way of the future, but with enhanced targets.

I want the Government to learn the lessons from my experience at the Amber Foundation. It has a realistic view of what can be done with offenders, particularly young offenders with a history of drug or alcohol dependency, in a limited time frame. Short-term interventions will frequently be insufficient, as what is needed is a long-term investment of focused effort and patience.

Turning to the calibration of the payment-by-results system, I am aware that any move to a system opened—sensibly, I believe—to the possibility of private provision is looked upon with grave reservations by many working in the sector, but I hope that many of those who have spoken, mostly Opposition Members, will be assured by the Government’s inclusion of a measure of total reoffending in a cohort within the proposed payment-by-results formula. We do not want a system that incentivises providers only to take the low-hanging fruit of easy cases, and I am confident that the Government will deal with that this evening, but in the light of my earlier comments, I think that that needs to be spelled out clearly and that the payment-by-results system will need careful calibration.

The Amber Foundation explained that the support it could offer young offenders was sometimes constrained by the narrow time conditions attached to funding. A 12-month window for results will not always be sufficient for someone on the long and difficult road to mature, responsible, drug-free, crime-free independent living, particularly those who have had an appalling start in life and spent several years living on the wrong side of the law. Will the Minister therefore consider including an additional mechanism to reward long-term reduction in reoffending in a cohort? Will the Government also look at an option for the sentencing institutions to recommend a longer supervision period within a residential or closer-working environment?

I hope that the Minister will be able to address those minor points in his closing remarks. I am nevertheless enthusiastic about the Bill’s aims and the framework that the Government have proposed to achieve them. It is vital that we tackle reoffending rates, and the Bill shows that the Government are serious about and committed to doing so.

In these very tricky areas of public policy, it is inevitable that change will be uncomfortable. It has been suggested in a number of contributions today that pilots could be set up across the country, and that we could extrapolate from those pilots the information necessary to design the perfect system. Of course, that would have some appeal if we wanted to avoid taking any risks whatever, but it is unreasonable to suggest that Ministers are oblivious to the history of combined understanding and experience across the probation service and the range of front-line practitioners on the ground.

[Jenny Chapman]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because he is making a thoughtful and considered speech, but the fact is that the combined experience, as he puts it, is deeply opposed to the reforms, which is why many people were on strike last week.

[John Glen]

As I said earlier, change is always difficult and controversial, but this is an area that successive Administrations have not really grasped. We have heard about constraints on funding in the last few years of the previous Government, and there might be some truth in that, but the reality is either that we carry on putting things off and using warm words about aspirations for change or that we recognise the statistics and the reality that many communities are experiencing a cycle of reoffending that is not being properly addressed. I will support the Government this evening, despite having made what I hope were constructive suggestions about how this could be moved forward.

20:48

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

Last month, the National Association of Probation Officers held one of the biggest ever rallies in Parliament and called on the Government to rethink their proposals to privatise probation. Two large Committee Rooms overflowed with members of the association, but what struck me was that their main concern was public safety. Even their own jobs came third or fourth in the list, which illustrated the fact that their concerns were genuine and heartfelt.

When the Bill reached its Report stage in the other place, the Government were defeated by a cross-party amendment that now stands as clause 1. The clause states that no reform of the structure of the probation service may be made by the Government

“unless the proposals have been laid before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.”

Before he left the Chamber today, the Secretary of State said that he would reverse that provision in Committee. He wants to do that because it challenges the Government’s intention, which is to bring about wholesale change to probation without proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Government are planning to do that in spite of a tremendous public outcry and fierce opposition from the probation sector itself and the criminal justice system more widely.

On Thursday last, I attended a conference in London with representatives of the police forces, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, the fire service, local authorities, housing associations and police and crime commissioners all coming together. These were practitioners who know how these plans will affect community safety and crime levels on our streets. During a discussion on plans to reform probation, not a single person spoke up in favour of the Government’s proposals.

I understand that the Government intend to use the Offender Management Act 2007 as the vehicle through which to abolish probation trusts and to create new community rehabilitation companies and the national probation service. The 2007 Act, of course, enabled probation trusts to work with third sector voluntary organisations and possibly the private sector to ensure that services could be carried out locally.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On that subject, I understand that voluntary organisations have expressed some concern that providers should not be able to park these offenders who have complex and expensive cases. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that this legislation does not address that properly?

[Mr Llwyd]

When something is driven by the profit motive, I am afraid that cherry-picking is going to occur. Common sense dictates that that is likely to happen; the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

The thinking behind the 2007 Act was that the probation trusts would be at the very core of the work, and would effectively be able to commission as and when necessary. It seems to me that that was an entirely different animal from what we are discussing today. Despite the Bill currently stating that parliamentary approval will be needed before any change takes place, the wheels are already turning. At the end of September, probation trusts were given notice of the Government’s intention to terminate their contracts by 1 April 2014. It will soon be too late to step back from these proposals. If we do not, however, in March 2014, 35 trusts will be closed and replaced by a centrally run public sector service that will work with only high and very high-risk offenders. That will account for just 30% of probation work.

Probation trust leaders were told in September to undertake a 28-day consultation with their staff on the process of splitting trust staff and resources to create the new community rehabilitation companies and the national probation service. No recommendation on the processes involved or the terms of the resource split has yet been agreed by probation trust employers, unions or the Government. Staff have not been told the terms of any voluntary redundancy scheme or what access will be granted to the local government pension scheme either for existing staff or new recruits. They have been given no information on how their roles will change after the reforms have been introduced. There is a real risk that many of the best staff will leave the profession. Unsurprisingly, then, in October, 84% of NAPO members voted for direct action. This is only the third time that the union has voted for direct action in its 101-year history. It has not taken this step lightly.

Contractors who offer services for the lowest price regardless of quality will no doubt be responsible for supervising 70% of probation, which is the low to medium- risk offenders who are most at risk of reoffending. Everybody agrees, by the way, that something should be done about them, so it is not an issue of either the status quo or this change. We all agree that something needs to be done, but it is how it is done and who is accountable for the work that matter.

Nearly 70,000 of the 140,000 cases that will be outsourced to private contractors will be offenders convicted of violent or sexual offences—specialist and sensitive cases that demand expertise and dedication from trained professionals. What they will get instead will be companies that may have a perverse incentive to allow reoffending to increase so that they can increase their profit margin. The gravity of the outcome of these proposals cannot be exaggerated, and all this is happening in spite of the fact that probation trusts are performing as well as they are. The Ministry of Justice’s own figures show that all 35 probation trusts have “good” or “excellent” performance levels and are hitting all their targets.

Reoffending rates for adult offenders under supervision by probation are the lowest they have been since 2007-08. In October 2011, the probation service was awarded the British Quality Foundation gold medal for excellence. Reoffending by those under probation supervision has been falling every single year since 2000. Despite the uncertainty felt by probation staff at present, the latest Ministry of Justice reoffending data have shown that the service’s high level of performance is in fact continuing.

Today, the Ministry released figures showing that 234 serious crimes, including violent and sexual offences, had been committed in Wales by short-sentenced offenders who had been released from prison in 2011. Its rather misleading press release failed to point out that the Government had ruled out the option of handing responsibility for them to the probation trusts in the past. However, both the Ministry’s press release and the one from which the Sunday Express quoted yesterday underline the fact that that is a highly dangerous course of action.

Instead of entrusting those offenders to the care of the professional probation service, the Government will deliver them to privateers who will be untrained and, no doubt, preoccupied by the profit motive. That hammers home the point that the Government’s reforms represent a victory of dogma over common sense—and there will be problems. As the Magistrates Association has made clear, the management of risk for offenders whose categorisation changes from medium to high and high to medium will be made far more difficult. The association has warned that offenders’ categorisation can change from medium to high rapidly if their circumstances change.

There is also a real risk that communication gaps will occur between community rehabilitation companies and the national probation service, probably leading to delay and possibly endangering the public. The Magistrates Association has pointed out that the staff of community rehabilitation companies may not be trusted by the police to handle confidential intelligence once they are managed privately. As we have heard, there is even a fear that sentencers will be less inclined to use community orders in the light of previous experiences with privately managed contracts—such as those involving Capita/ALS for interpreters and Serco for prison escorts, not to mention the G4S contract—and that that will result in an increase in the prison population and all the associated costs. We should not forget that probation trusts will be replaced by a model that is largely untested, as the “Transforming Rehabilitation” programme has not been piloted in the UK or in other jurisdictions.

Even the Justice Secretary’s Department is aware of the risks. The internal risk register, which was leaked to the press but which the Ministry of Justice still refuses to publish, warns that there is a more than 80% risk that the plans will lead to

“an unacceptable drop in operational performance”

and to delivery failures.

I have a copy of another risk register, compiled by Policy Exchange. It states that there is a “very high” risk of a failure to deliver the programme either in scope or within the time scale set by Ministers, as well as a very high risk of a reduction in the performance levels of trusts and community rehabilitation companies during the change process. The register emphasises that that would be due to insufficient capacity and the extent and speed of the structural changes being proposed, changes on which the Ministry of Justice has already embarked. There is also a very high risk of a reduction in performance levels following the departure of the trusts, partly owing to the MOJ’s failure to establish a robust operational design that has been fully tested. Moreover, the register states that there is a danger of the

“superficial appearance of the programme’s success masking fundamental failures in service design and practice.”

Those are damning words.

The reasoned amendment that I have co-signed declines to give the Bill a Second Reading for the reasons that I have cited. No part of the amendment supports the status quo. We need to do something about the 12-months cohort, but the Bill is certainly not the answer. The Government have already been told that there is a common-sense answer, namely to extend the remit of the probation service so that probation trusts can supervise offenders sentenced to less than 12 months in prison. However, the Government have chosen not to do that.

[Jeremy Wright]

I understand that that is what the right hon. Gentleman wants, but can he explain how it would be paid for?

[Mr Llwyd]

I am sure that it could be paid for by the delivery of some savings here and there in other parts of the budget.

[Jenny Chapman]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister might like to consider this: about a third of the budget of probation trusts is top-sliced, which they are unable to control, and which pays for things like estates, and it might be better employed in delivering rehabilitation services?

[Mr Llwyd]

I accept what the shadow Minister says, but I want to say something to the Minister. I respect him as a Minister who does engage with people when they debate with him; I have great regard for him for that. However, I have to say to him that given that he does not know the cost of this farrago he is going into, he should not ask me about costs. [Interruption.] Well, it is first of all incumbent on him, being in government, to come up with figures, not to test figures put forward from the Opposition Benches.

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; I know he is short of time. The point is that I know how I will pay for it, but he does not. [Hon. Members: “How?] I will pay for it by the competition process. It is very interesting: the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), speaking for the Opposition, thinks we can do this through “estates”. Would the right hon. Gentleman be comfortable with the closure of probation premises, because that is what “estates” means?

[Mr Llwyd]

There could be some realignment, and there could be some savings here and there, of course, but there would have to be some increase in probation staff; that is an obvious point. As the Minister knows well, every change costs money and the better change would be to extend the remit, put in more properly trained probation officers and start from that point, not risk public safety in the awful way he and his colleagues are now doing.

I urge everyone who respects the probation service and who wants to ensure public safety to vote for this reasoned amendment today.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I now drop the time-limit to 10 minutes, and I hope we do not lose too much more time.

21:01

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

I shall try not to lose us any more time. I always seem fated to be called to speak in a debate when a time-limit has been applied. Also, I usually seem to speak to an empty Chamber, but I have a few Members to speak to today.

It is a pleasure to speak on the Second Reading of this Bill, and there have been some useful contributions so far. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), I regard myself as a critical friend of these proposals. No one can dispute the figures, and I make no apology for arguing that something must be done. The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood) appeared to suggest that that was a bad approach. I think that when we have a cohort of prisoners who are getting no rehabilitation support because their custodial sentence is less than 12 months, something should be done. I think there is general agreement on that on both sides of the House. We cannot go on giving people £46 cash-in-hand and just hope for the best. That is why these proposals are an important first step.

None the less, I recognise the level of concern that exists on both sides of the House and in the wider community, which is interested in these issues, not least the Prison Reform Trust, of which I am a trustee. There is a deep underlying concern that these proposals may inadvertently lead to an increase in the prison population as sentencers play safe and send people to custody in order to access rehabilitation services that they fear may not be available if they go for a community sentence. That is a genuine fear that we have heard expressed today, and I would like the Minister to try to nail it. What guidance can he issue to the judiciary and magistrates to remind them that existing sentencing guidelines will remain in force, so custody remains an option only when the offence justifies it? Furthermore, can he ensure that that guidance makes it clear that the level of support available to an offender does not vary depending on whether it is in a custodial or a community setting?

Those assurances would help many who are concerned that these proposals may lead to an increase in the prison population, and it will emphasise that these reforms should not be portrayed as being to the detriment of community sentences. Indeed, given these concerns, I would welcome hearing from the Minister how he sees community sentencing playing a greater role in the future.

We have also heard a lot about the probation service’s fears about the changes, and I want to raise a couple of points that may alter the balance of the debate somewhat. For a very long time now the probation service has argued for parity of esteem, within the Ministry of Justice, with the prison sector. The 35 local probation trusts have never felt that they have argued with one voice in the way that the prisons sector can in the Ministry of Justice. Creating a national probation service, and creating a probation institute to enhance that profession’s qualifications and opportunities, is a good thing. It provides an opportunity for the thousands of well-respected, highly professional probation officers who are out there.

We can all refer to excellent voluntary organisations that engage in rehabilitation work. As Christmas is coming, I can recommend Fine Cell Work. It produces excellent embroidery, cushions and needlework, which can be fantastic for relatives or friends. I suggest that hon. Members visit its website today. Fine Cell Work has a purpose, because it trains people for a career after they leave custody. The Clink is another good example of an excellent voluntary organisation. It is about to open its third restaurant inside a prison, at HMP Brixton—perhaps we can all go for a Christmas dinner at some point, if it opens early enough. Its reoffending rate is 12.5%, which is one that many would dream of in terms of this debate.

I recognise the concern expressed by hon. Members on both sides that the smaller community groups may struggle to cling on in this new competitive environment. A fortnight ago I made this point, but I will make it again: Ministers and Opposition spokespeople must look carefully at what is being proposed by Clinks, which is the trade body for the hundreds of voluntary providers in our prison system. It has some specific proposals about where risk can be located in the supply chain to enable more of these many smaller groups to play a crucial role. That particularly relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) about the smaller groups that help women offenders and other minority groups of offenders. That is an important thing and I hope that the Minister can respond to it.

The speed of reform is certainly daunting and ambitious, and I would be naive not to suggest that. In a way, it makes me think of the work capability assessment, although I would rather not necessarily have to do that. The previous Government sensibly asked Professor Harrington to undertake regular reviews of specific aspects of the WCA that were causing concern—one year it was mental health, another year it was fluctuating conditions. That tweaked the WCA to improve it, perhaps not to the extent that Labour Members might like but it was a useful self-correcting mechanism to improve a process. I would very much like to see something similar in this area. I recognise that we have Her Majesty’s inspectorate of probation, but how will the Minister task it to provide regular reviews of the progress of these reforms, identifying thematic areas that might need attention? Such an approach would greatly enhance the House’s confidence that these reforms will be properly scrutinised and improved as they go along. The iterative element to these proposals will be crucial, just as it was on the WCA.

I am also highly concerned about the potential for large numbers of breaches, with the impact assessment talking about a need for 600 extra places and a cost of £16 million. Nobody who is concerned about the size of public spending should treat that lightly. I want to hear a bit more from the Minister about how we can ensure that breach is not an automatic conveyor belt. Provision was made in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 to allow offenders to go before a court to explain why they did what they did and then the court would have the option to do nothing if it thought that what it had heard so convinced it. Disappointingly, I understand that that was not commenced—indeed, it was removed in the Crime and Courts Act 2013. Will the Minister say whether that can be looked at again to ensure that we do not have this automatic escalator of breaches, whereby we end up with more people in prison than should be there? I am particularly concerned about the much younger age group, who often have learning disabilities or communication delay of some sort. They often seem to be in a Catch-22 situation, where they have a complex set of requirements placed on them which they cannot possibly hope to understand. I know the Government, in the other place, made a commitment in response to Lord Bradley to have “easy read” statements of what the requirements are going to be. Can the Government update us on the progress of that, because I fear that without them we will see far more breaches that cannot be explained in front of a court to the satisfaction of the court?

Also, I remain slightly concerned by the role youth offending teams will play in the new landscape. Someone turning 18 while in custody, having been sentenced as a minor, will be transferred to the national probation service. For many of the vulnerable young people in my constituency, that will be quite a culture shock.

[Jeremy Wright]

I am conscious of the time and that I might not have the chance to get to this later, so I can give my hon. Friend the instant reassurance that in the case of the individuals he is describing, a decision will be made on each about whether it is more appropriate for the national probation service or, indeed, the CRC to manage it or for the youth offending team to continue to do so.

[Paul Maynard]

I thank the Minister for that response and hope that the youth offending team will still have a voice in that process rather than just being passive.

Most importantly, in terms of the numbers involved, we all frequently discuss the role that mental ill health plays in causing offender behaviour. The numbers in prison with a mental health diagnosis, an addiction problem or a dual diagnosis is significant. It is striking that, despite the fact that we have a specific mental health rehabilitation order, for the last year for which I have figures only 1% of disposals consisted of such an order—that is only 783. That cannot be because we are not aware of the problem; clearly, we are, and many detailed reports have considered the structural issues that mean that the capacity for meeting that need simply is not there.

Bearing in mind what we have heard from Members on both sides about cost, as well as the fact that providing treatments for these vulnerable groups costs more, will the Minister consider whether the mental health rehabilitation orders, which might be far more costly, need to be provided in a slightly different way? Otherwise, we might see a repeat of the current situation, where we have the need and the knowledge but do not seem to be able to supply the rehabilitation treatment to the people who most need it.

Clearly, I have just listed a long line of concerns, as is my way in such debates. None the less, I am highly supportive of the Government’s direction of travel on this Bill. I am very supportive of the Minister individually and I join Members on both sides in saying that we know that his heart is in the right place and we trust him to deliver the Bill properly.

21:12

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

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) referred to my long expertise in this field. Well, my expertise goes back to 1997, and I have dealt with successive Ministers. I am also the secretary of the justice unions group, of which the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) is the chair.

Having dealt with probation officers for all that time, I can say that I have never known morale to be so low. There is real fear and anxiety among them and their families about the future. Hon. Members need to recognise that. The strike has been mentioned. People do not go on strike lightly—certainly not in this service. These are dedicated professionals. The National Association of Probation Officers have been pressing for years to be able to supervise those on short-term sentences, and the irony is that that will be used to privatise their jobs. The tragedy is that probation officers have delivered on everything that has been asked of them, and not just on a wing and a prayer—piloted studies have demonstrated their effectiveness.

I refer Government Members to the briefing from London Councils and the Mayor of London, which demonstrated the local partnerships that had been working in London, as well as the other work that had taken place. I refer also to the briefing on the integrated offender management service, which has been independently evaluated by Sheffield Hallam university. This is where the police and probation and local authorities come together and work with offenders with a high risk of reoffending. Sheffield Hallam’s independent study showed that in 2012-13 the service reduced reoffending by 52%, one of the highest success rates for any scheme. It found that the scheme was economically viable: over five years, for every £1 invested, there was a saving to the taxpayer of £1.59, and over 10 years that would go up to £1.79.

The Sheffield Hallam university study is not like the Peterborough study. I have a lot of respect for what is going on in Peterborough, but that is a voluntary scheme. People are referred to the Sheffield Hallam university scheme, almost on a mandatory basis. To be frank, we were waiting expectantly for the full results and evaluation of the Peterborough scheme next year. That is what we were promised: an objective assessment of what worked, and evidence-based policy making, which seems to have gone out of the window. It is not that the probation service is not willing to change, reform or expand; it is just that the Government refuse to allow the one organisation that has a proven track record of success to become involved in the supervision of the offenders we are talking about.

On privatisation, I do not want to go over what has been said about Serco, G4S and the rest of it; I like the example of the privatisation of the court interpretation service. People turned up who could not speak the relevant foreign language. One would have to invent something really creative to enable that to happen. The London community payback scheme has been mentioned; in my area, we have lost invaluable staff and volunteers as a result of the scheme’s mismanagement. Hostel accommodation was privatised but had to be brought back into the public sector because it was so bad. If the question is what happens to staff in future, we should look to the prison privatisations: wage rates in privatised prisons are 23% lower than in state prisons, and the conditions—there are issues with the level of training and high staff turnover—are undermining the service.

The Chair of the Justice Select Committee mentioned our fear that the market does not exist at the moment. The Opposition are being criticised on the issue of energy because there are six major players in that field, and that is not an acceptable market. In the probation market, we may be down to two players. If the Serious Fraud Office’s investigation keeps going, two will almost certainly be taken out of the game, and we will be left with two or three big players. That is not a market; that is not competition. And the argument that competition will find us all the savings is like a belief in Santa Clause or the tooth fairy.

I heard the argument about mutuals. Probation officers come into the profession not to manage a company but to manage offenders. I like the example of the Government mutual that was set up to administer the civil service pension scheme. The day the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General came to the House to announce that change, the staff who were supposed to be participating in it were outside on strike, because the move was imposed on them, rather than being allowed to evolve.

I am concerned about costs, because it is quite clear that there is no real prospect of finding the savings through competition; that has been demonstrated in the case of other services. Where will the money be found to pay for the supervision of at least 50,000 to 70,000 additional offenders? There will potentially be 600 in a new prison. I think that there will be significantly more breaches than has been suggested, because we are dealing with people with chaotic lives. More and more people will be banged up. I remember the projections that the professionals gave us for prison growth: we were told that the number would never go above 60,000, but then it reached 80,000.

Where is the money to be found to pay for all that? I do not think it will come from savings through competition. It will come from where it always does: job cuts, pay cuts, the deskilling of the job, and the undermining of conditions of employment, including the pension. Reference was made to TUPE principles having an effect. We have had this debate time and again. To give assurances to staff, the last Government put a commitment to TUPE in some of their legislation, and that is what we would expect to find in this Bill to reassure professional staff.

We are requiring probation officers, and possibly private sector staff, to operate in a completely different environment. I welcome some elements of the legislation relating to supervision of those dependent on drugs, and other provisions, but to be frank, we met drug organisations in the drug and alcohol forum last week, and it reports exactly what we have heard in discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions. With the devolution of budgets to a local level, drugs services are being cut. Probation officers or private sector staff supervising offenders and seeking to get them off drugs will refer them to services that no longer exist.

One of my hon. Friends talked about how women will be affected. Reports are coming back from area after area that women’s centres and women’s services are being cut dramatically. We are setting up a system to fail. What does that mean in reality? My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood), who is a former probation officer, hit the nail on the head. We are setting up a system to fail, and in this case failure does not mean that something will not run on time or something may not be delivered on time. This failure puts our constituents at risk and it puts individual offenders at risk as well. I shall give one example from my constituency.

Feltham detention centre has been mentioned. When people come out of Feltham, there is a search by social services departments, probation and so on for accommodation for them. That accommodation is now managed by individual private sector organisations. In my area they have leased individual properties and put young people in those properties, largely unsupervised. One of them that I have been dealing with over the past fortnight is supervised for only three nights of the week. Only last Friday the police were called out twice. A month ago a neighbour had to take one of the young people living in the accommodation into her property because that person had been stabbed by another ex-offender—there is no supervision whatsoever.

When a system is set up which relies on the private sector and it does not deliver, in this area we are not talking about minor failures. We are talking about significant risk to life and limb of individual ex-offenders and of the general public. I repeat what I said last time and I am deadly serious about this: if any of my constituents are injured or harmed in any way as a result of this legislation, I will come for individual Ministers. I will seek to ensure that they never hold public office again.

Every warning has been given in this House, time and again by us and by professionals. I remind Members what was said by Liz Calderbank from the inspectorate. She said:

“Any lack of contractual or operational clarity between the public and private sector providers will, in our view, lead to systemic failure and an increased risk to the public.”

As chief inspector of probation, she said that

“the scale and pace of the change is considerable and we are concerned as an inspectorate that it is taken forward and implemented without any drop in performance”.

When such professionals warn a Government, their warnings need to be taken seriously. I worry, I fear for the safety of my constituents as a result of this legislation.

21:22

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Before I start, may I pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)? May I humbly say that this is a debating Chamber, not a Chamber to make threats to those on the Front Bench on either side of the House? Perhaps we should stick to talking, rather than threatening people.

[John McDonnell]

What happens when one of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents is injured, maimed or murdered as a result of lack of supervision by a private company as a consequence of this Bill? Who does he blame?

[Richard Drax]

I should be as upset as the hon. Gentleman or any other Member would be if such circumstances were to arise, but I do not believe that threats should be made to individual Ministers. I have made my point and I shall continue.

I praise the Dorset probation service, which is outstanding. I agree with many of the points that have been raised. I spoke in the Opposition day debate and I agree with many points made by the Opposition and by one or two Members on the Government Benches. The probation service has made comments to me about privatisation and the 70% that has been suggested in the House tonight, and there are concerns about this. Will people fall through the gaps? What about careers, as has been asked? There are serious concerns about whether this proposal from the coalition Government will work. All I would say is that something is better than nothing, as we have heard from several good speakers on the Government Benches. We must do something because the reoffending rate is unacceptable.

Perhaps the situation has become so serious that we should be even more radical than the Government now are. At the young offenders institution on Portland, Sir James Spicer, who was the MP for West Dorset—I am sure some in the House will remember him—has introduced an initiative called the Airborne Initiative. The young men from that young offenders institution are taken out to Dartmoor and for five or six days they are taken day and night across the moors to navigate and learn about team spirit, camaraderie, friendship, discipline—all the things that these reoffenders and many young men and, dare I say, young ladies need.

Will the private sector and all these good intentions solve the problem? Has it got to such a point that the state needs to be even more radical? Perhaps I could lodge an idea in the minds of those on the Front Bench. How about a third force? I am not talking about making people join the armed forces, because as an ex-soldier myself I know that that clearly would not work, but I have trained young soldiers for two years, and some of them—not all—have arrived at the barracks in a similar state of mind to many young men who are in jail today. But six months later, after the training and the discipline they have received, and the friendship and camaraderie that have been engendered, these are young men one would be proud to die with. The system works.

So why do we not have a third force in this country? Why do we not put the Border Force and Customs and Excise all under one cap badge, run it on a militaristic basis and into that organisation put young men and women who, on a third warning in the magistrates court—call it what you will—rather than being sent to the young offenders institution in Portland, are given a chance? They can spend two years in the third force or go to jail. If they go to the third force and make a mistake, they end up in jail. Those who are coming to the end of a sentence of, say, six or seven years, are told in year five that they have a choice: two more years in jail or two more years with the third force.

The third force would be manned by volunteers who made a career on the sea, in the air and on the land—manned to a large extent by ex-service personnel. Rather than give second or third-hand ships to countries like India, those ships can be kept in this country and used for that purpose. Aircraft that may have outlived their usefulness on the front line can be used in the air. Those who have served in the Army can join the third force and represent the third force on the land. I know, because I have seen it work, that when young men and women are given a structure, discipline and hope, they can be turned around. Will all the good intentions of the private sector and the probation service, which, as I said, in Dorset is exceptional, work? The problem we have heard today from my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) costs £7 billion to £10 billion a year. If we can grab just 30% or 40% of these young people and turn them around, which I believe we could do, when they leave the third force they can go on to contribute to society. They learn what it is like to be selfless, to give, to work together with other people, and to contribute to their country.

I very much hope that all these good intentions work, and I welcome something being done to cut the reoffending rate, but we could go much further and be far more radical with the future of our young people, many of whom have no structure at all in their lives. As a Conservative, I do not like the state to get involved, but perhaps the problem is so big that the state must get involved to cut the bill further. The state has the power and the money to provide something that these young people can be put into and given a chance. If the light is turned on, it is so simple. I have seen it happen. People with no hope are given a simple task to do, the structure and discipline within which to do it, and their lives are changed.

The police, ambulance and fire services ran an experiment with 12 young people aged 14 to 16 years old, out on one of the moors. They had four baddies, let us call them, four who were pretty okay, and four goodies, and they put them all together to spend the night out on the moor. The first task was run by a huge barrel-chested ex-Royal Marine. He said to them, “Right, your first task is to put up your tent.” None of these people had ever seen a tent. It was one of those old ones, with lots of bits and bobs, made of canvas. They stood there looking at it with hands in pockets and phones ringing. Their whole attitude was, “What the hell am I doing here?” Then one of them said, “Staff, could you come and help me?” The sergeant-major said, “Gentlemen, and ladies, gather around. What is the first lesson in life?” They looked at him perplexed. He said, “You’ve just done it: if you don’t understand, you ask.” Within an hour the tent was up.

The next day I watched all three groups go round quite a challenging assault course. They put the two bad boys with the two ladies and sent them around. The two young men who were the worst offenders—they clearly came across as the worst—were the best at it, and when they finished they went back, without being asked, to help the ladies, who were struggling. They finished the assault course and stood with their shoulders back, inspired. They had been gripped, disciplined and they had achieved something. I am utterly convinced that if that small glimmer of light was pursued they would have a chance in life.

It is nothing new. It is not reinventing the wheel. I believe that the Government’s intentions are honourable and good, as are the Opposition’s, but will it work, because the problem is so serious? I am afraid that my answer, from my experience of life and from looking around—I have been around a few years—is that it will not, and certainly not to the degree that it should and could.

Someone said from a sedentary position, “Put them in the Army.” I am not saying that we should put them in the Army; I am saying that many of those young people need what the Army and those sorts of careers engender. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, is a distinguished former officer of the Parachute Regiment. He knows exactly where I am coming from, and I suspect that in his heart he knows I am right. We can reach lots of young people if we are more radical and daring and go back to the old-fashioned way of helping people who are in trouble and need our help. I leave that thought with Members on the Front Bench.

I will support the Bill tonight and hope that it works but, on behalf of the probation service in Dorset, I have some doubts about whether it will be sufficient. As many Members across the House have said tonight, there are genuine concerns that people will fall through the net. That is what worries me. That is the risk element. We have to accept that there is an element of risk, but there is risk in whatever we do. Have we balanced the whole argument to ensure that the risk is as minimal as possible? In this case—I do not like using this expression—only time will tell. I hope for all our sakes that it works.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The winding-up speeches will start at 20 minutes to 10.

21:32

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I will bear in mind, Mr Deputy Speaker, the fact that I need to end in time for the Minister’s reply, which I am looking forward to hearing.

The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) has just given us an interesting vista of a militarised future for young people about which I have some serious doubts. If he wants to consider the consequences of the kind of solution that he proposes, he need look no further than the USA, which imprisons more people than anywhere else in the world per head of population, has a higher recidivism rate, has more brutality in its prisons and has a very large number of privatised prisons in which unbelievable brutality is carried out against individual prisoners. That does not work; it is not a solution.

Countries with a very low rate of reoffending are those that invest more in education in the first place, to give young people a better experience of life and better opportunities, and invest more in a prison service for young people that offers psychiatric and educational support and in which measurement is based on the educational improvements and achievements of those young people.

Members of the Justice Committee, including its Chair, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), visited Denmark and Norway to look at their experiences of dealing with young offenders. They spend far more money on it than we do and have reoffending rates of 20% and less in some cases, because they invest in those people. In this country, we are heading off in another, fairly ludicrous direction by saying that because there is a problem with the service we will hand it over to G4S, Serco and a few other companies that have a proven track record of incompetence and dishonesty, which will be sorted out by the courts.

[Richard Drax]

I did not suggest at any stage that youngsters should be brutalised in a militaristic fashion in a prison. I am suggesting that they should be taken out of prison and given hope and a structure that gives them a chance in life that otherwise they would not get.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

We are all in favour of young people having a decent chance in life. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, he would have heard me suggest that we need to invest much more in young people in school and college and beforehand, so that they gain a wider range of life experiences, greater self-reliance and a greater sense of community involvement. I am concerned that he seemed to base his whole argument on the operations of the military, rather than on a much better form of community service and development.

I support the reasoned amendment and am pleased that it has been selected. I draw attention in particular to the last part, which points out that

“the Ministry of Justice’s own internal risk register warns that the Government’s proposals could result in a high risk of an unacceptable drop in operational performance”.

We on the Justice Committee will start taking evidence on this tomorrow. Despite the Secretary of State’s refusal—and, indeed, that of previous Governments—I think it is high time that Governments start, as a matter of routine, to publish the risk registers of any service for which they propose major change. It is a simple act of transparency on the way in which the Government operate.

The speed with which this Bill is being pursued is extraordinary. The Justice Committee will take evidence and I hope that we will come up with some conclusions, but that is for the Committee to decide, not me. I hope that any conclusions will be taken on board, but the Bill is going through the House today and has to be out of Committee in three weeks’ time, so there is hardly any time for any considered public discussion or debate or for Members of the Commons to take a proper look at it.

The fundamental issue is that this is about the Secretary of State’s obsession with the privatisation of services. I cannot forget the day when the Justice Committee visited the Ministry of Justice. When we met the Secretary of State, he had hardly sat down at his desk before he said that he was a complete convert to the idea of franchising out and privatising various MOJ services. There clearly is an obsessive attitude that only the private sector can produce results.

I am sure that when the hon. Member for South Dorset meets members of the probation service in Dorset, he tells them what a fine job they are doing and what wonderful people they are. That is because they are wonderful people who are doing a fine job, but how are we rewarding them? We are giving them more work to do with fewer resources and putting them in competition, in a race to the bottom, with the private sector, knowing full well that the financial argument will win out at the end of the day and that the private sector will win, with its profits, low wages and inadequately trained or qualified staff, and the public probation service, which all of us are proud of, will be the loser. This Bill is going down a very dangerous road.

The statistics helpfully provided today by the Library show that the total case load of the probation service in 2003 was 199,000, of which 120,000 cases came from court orders and 80,000 came from pre and post-release supervision. By 2012, the number from court orders had declined to 114,000, while the number from pre and post-release supervision had gone up to 111,000. There is already a significant change in what is going on.

The reoffending statistics quoted are from Doncaster and Peterborough. I welcome anything that brings about a better prison service, better education and less reoffending. That has to be a good thing. The Justice Committee visited Doncaster, and it was an extremely interesting experience, but the statistics show that its reoffending rate of over 40% is still way above the national average of about 30%. It is a privately run prison and many of the regime’s liberal aspects are interesting, but it is perfectly reasonable to ask questions of the company that runs it about the treatment of its inmates.

I will make one last point because I want to leave enough time for the Front Benchers. Both unions that are involved in the probation service—Unison, which has fewer members from the probation service, and the National Association of Probation Officers, which has more—made a number of strong points in the evidence that most Members have no doubt received from them. The Unison paper makes the point that

“probation operates as a seamless whole. Splitting the service in two will allow dangerous offenders to fall down the gap between the two parts.”

Other colleagues have supported that position. NAPO has the same view. I attended its meeting and will conclude with a quotation from it:

“Napo believes that the proposed…agenda will undermine pubic protection procedures and place communities at risk of harm from poorly managed offenders. It will have a detrimental impact on staff who will have limited senior management support and who will be based many miles away and will have little local knowledge of the area they are responsible for. This will place unnecessary pressures on middle managers and front line staff.”

This privatising will not save money, but will cost more through higher rates of reoffending, greater danger to the public and, ultimately, more people in prison, not fewer. We should support the reasoned amendment tonight and give—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I tried not to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but that was a very long quotation. We need to get on to the closing speeches.

21:41

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

This has been one of the better-informed debates in the House that I have had the privilege to take part in, largely thanks to the amendment that was tabled by the Opposition, because it has provided colleagues with the opportunity to debate the sell-off of the probation service. The Bill, which seemed for some time to have gone missing and which it is good to welcome back, does not deal with the sell-off at all.

We can add this reform to a long list of rushed and regretted legislation, which includes that on the Child Support Agency, the private pensions that were mis-sold, dangerous dogs and the poll tax. All those disasters were foreseen and some had laudable aims, but they were all the personal obsession of a single Secretary of State—spot the coincidence.

The Bill provides for the post-release supervision of offenders who serve less than 12 months in custody. It makes some changes to community and suspended sentence orders and drug testing. That is all fine. Contrary to the Government’s wishes, the Bill also includes a clause to require the scrutiny of their planned sell-off of the probation service. I will come back to that later.

As has been said, the Opposition support the introduction of supervision for offenders who serve less than 12 months in custody. We know that supervision and support after release are effective in challenging reoffending and managing risk when done properly. That is why the last Labour Government sought to bring in custody plus. Offenders serving short sentences who are not currently supervised by the probation service have the most prolific reoffending rate of any group. By extending services to that cohort, the Secretary of State is agreeing that supervision works. We wholeheartedly welcome that view.

To continue to focus on areas of agreement, other provisions in the Bill will introduce increased flexibility in the structure of community and suspended sentence orders, widen the scope of drug testing after release and introduce a drug treatment order for those on licence. We are happy to debate the merits of those proposals and look forward to examining them in Committee. We also welcome the inclusion of a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the needs of female offenders in commissioning services. That group has been conspicuous by its absence in other legislation and it is welcome to see that trend broken.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), whom I congratulate on supporting the amendment, raised questions over the future supervision of offenders, the risk that they pose and the inevitable dangers that are inherent in the Government’s plans. I am sure that a Committee of the House would be willing to engage with those and many other issues, but I am afraid that there will be no such opportunity if the amendment falls.

Particularly disappointing is the Government’s determination to prevent Members from having the opportunity to debate the wider, risky upheaval of probation that precedes the Bill’s implementation. The Opposition cannot accept the roll-out of plans that are rushed, untested, uncosted and pose serious risks to public safety. From his speech it is clear that the Chair of the Justice Committee has serious reservations about the risks of this proposal.

The Government plan to hand over dangerous offenders, including violent and sexual offenders, to companies with no track record of providing probation services, and to a time scale that those responsible for implementing the changes have described as “unworkable”, “unrealistic” and “unacceptably risky”. The plans will for the first time fragment responsibility for offenders, adding a totally avoidable layer of bureaucracy to decisions on public safety. The proposals have not been tested to see whether they work and have not been subject to parliamentary scrutiny—a situation that clause 1 puts right. Clause 1 provides that the Government may not alter the structure of the probation service unless their plans have been first laid before, and approved by, a resolution of both Houses. It was inserted by Cross-Bench and Labour peers in another place, and when introducing the clause, former chief inspector of prisons Lord Ramsbotham summarised his concerns thus:

“We all want reoffending to be reduced, but we do not want to see any programme with that end fall flat on its face because understandable concerns about the viability of untried theories have been ridden over roughshod, in the desire to satisfy a party politically directed timetable that pays no attention to practical reality.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 June 2013; Vol. 746, c. 659.]

Those debating this issue in the other place agreed with Lord Ramsbotham’s assessment that the Government have so far failed to prove the viability and affordability of the Secretary of State’s plans and voted in favour of putting a brake on proceedings. Many Members agreed with that suggestion of caution, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), and my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), yet it has not been heeded. It has since been reported that the Secretary of State does not believe that we should pilot what he describes as “a revolution”. After the severe problems that the Government have recently experienced in the costly roll-out of universal credit, colleagues can join probation chiefs, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee in disagreeing with that rather stupid assessment.

I hate to break it to the hon. Members for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), but nothing in the Bill requires responsible officers in future to be qualified, experienced or even trained. In summary, Ministers are not at all interested in the competence or quality of provision. Colleagues in the House are not assured that the Secretary of State and his Department can answer questions about the safety of their constituents—questions that the Government do not want to answer.

Opposition Members are deeply concerned by the lack of detail from the Government on the cost of the Bill. What resources will the Department need to pay for the supervision of 50,000 extra offenders each year, how much will the contracts cost and what percentage will be paid by results? Even more concerning is the lack of knowledge, owing to a lack of interest in testing the model on the operational side. For example, how long will it take to swap responsibility for a high-risk, volatile offender between G4S and the national probation service?

The Secretary of State should be able to come to the House and answer those basic questions, and he should certainly answer them before he asks the House to nod through the sell-off of the probation service. The core of the Bill is welcome, but by cancelling the probation pilots, the Secretary of State has pulled the foundations from beneath it. The Government are abolishing local trusts, preparing to accept bids from providers under investigation for fraud and contracting an untested model in a Department that has repeatedly had rings run round it by G4S and Serco.

In the light of that, the Opposition are right not to trust the Secretary of State’s gut feeling. There has been no piloting, no parliamentary scrutiny, no commitment that those under criminal investigation cannot bid, no costings and no interest from the Government in the competence of providers. Ministers cannot say that they have not been warned. For those reasons, I hope hon. Members vote in favour the amendment.

21:50

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

It is a great pleasure to respond to the debate. It has been a good and wide-ranging debate, but it is about to reach a very strange conclusion, because there is no real disagreement on the Bill’s contents. All hon. Members I have listened to this evening agree—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) mentions clause 1. He is in favour of it, but he is about to vote against it. I am not sure he realises that, or that the effect of the amendment is to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading, including clause 1. I do not believe that the Opposition understand the effect of their reasoned amendment.

There is good reason for the consensus we have managed to achieve: it is vital that we extend rehabilitation to those sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment or less, who currently receive none. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has put it, the status quo is unacceptable.

The debate has concentrated not on the contents of the Bill, but on the wider reforms that the Government propose. I accept that we must get important aspects of the reforms right. It is important to have quality standards and to ensure that those who provide the work have properly trained staff. We will ensure that they do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) has said, it is important that there is inspection of all providers, from whatever sector. That, too, will be done.

It is right to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) has said, that risk is dynamic. She is right too that assessments of risk will continue to be done by probation officers in the public sector. There will be contractual obligations on all providing those services to refer back to the public sector if they believe there to be a change in risk.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that it is important to maintain local partnerships in the criminal justice system. They are right. Included among those relationships is the relationship with police and crime commissioners. We will have contractual obligations for all providing those services to participate in statutory partnerships. We will expect more than that. We will expect providers to show us, in the course of the bidding process, how they will engage with all appropriate partnerships.

Opposition Members have expressed concern that the public bodies, such as the police, will not share information with private sector organisations. I do not know how they think private sector prisons operate currently—institutions that were in place throughout the 13 years of the Labour Government. Exactly those interactions have continued to take place.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) made a number of points. He is right that contract management is important. As I said a moment or so ago, and on exactly the point made by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on the so-called “bid candy” problem, bid assessment is important. It is vital that, when we assess bids, we do so properly for the sustainability of relationships between larger organisations and smaller ones, particularly those in the voluntary sector.

Hon. Members have made a great many comments on the pace of the reforms, which we discussed two weeks ago in the Opposition day debate. I repeat that I make no apology for proceeding apace with the reforms because, for as long as we wait, victims will continue to be created as a result of the reoffending that we could otherwise prevent. I do not believe that that is sustainable.

In answer to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, it is important that we get on with the reforms so that we can give probation officers certainty on their personal futures. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, we fully expect that transfers to the NPS and to community rehabilitation companies in April will be made without any compulsory redundancies and on terms directly comparable with TUPE.

The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) raised understandable concerns about sentencer behaviour. As he would expect, we have spoken to senior sentencers. A number of points are relevant, a couple of which were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys. First, sentencing guidelines remain in place. All sentencers are expected to follow them and sentence to custody only when they believe it is appropriate. Secondly, the same level of supervision will be provided from the same provider whether someone receives a community order or a custodial sentence. There is no distinction and it is important to bear that in mind.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston was right to focus on through-the-gate provision. A broader part of our reforms is to institute what we call resettlement prisons, to enable all prisoners to be met by a rehabilitation provider in the closing stages of the custodial part of their sentence, and then be supported by that same provider through the gate and out into the community. That will provide the continuity she is looking for.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) made the point that it is important to design a payment-by-results system that does not involve cherry-picking. We will do that through a combination of mechanisms that will reward those who stop reoffending altogether, but reflect an element of reward for reducing the amount of reoffending in the cohort—that is crucial. It is right that we pick up on the specific needs of women. As I think has been recognised, that is already covered in the Bill.

There seems to be broad agreement that we need to act, but action has a cost and that cost was too high for custody plus—the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East was straightforward in saying that. We propose a simpler system. We propose not just the opportunity for innovation to be brought into the management of offenders—by the voluntary sector, and, yes, the private sector—but, crucially, the opportunity to make the savings necessary to provide for looking after the 50,000 offenders a year who everyone who has spoken agrees should be looked after.

If not by that method, how should that be done? Those who speak from the Opposition Front Bench have criticised our approach, but offered no alternative. Under pressure, the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) tells us that there may be savings to be found in the estates part of the probation budget. I hope she appreciates that that part of the probation budget involves the provision of probation facilities and premises. If she is suggesting closing some, I look forward to seeing a list. I am sure she will explain to the probation service why it is right to close them. The Opposition say this can be done without competition, but they do not say how. They sign up to a reasoned amendment that declines to give the Bill a Second Reading

“because the implementation of the proposals in the Bill”—

which I remind the House they entirely agree with—

“depends on the Government’s proposed restructuring of the Probation Service”.

If we cannot do it by means of restructuring the probation service, how are we to do it? There is no answer.

There is, of course, good work being done by the probation service and by probation officers up and down the country. Every time I speak on this subject I say so, and I am happy to do so again. That will still be in the system we are designing, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) is right that it is not true that state sector probation officers are the only ones who can do the job well. That is what is really behind the majority of the opposition to the reforms that we have heard today. It is not, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) said, that the reforms are a triumph of dogma over common sense. It is the other way around: it is the opposition that is a triumph of dogma over common sense—the view that the private sector can never do a good job, regardless of how good the offer may be.

Serco and G4S have been mentioned many times. I can offer the House this assurance: if Serco and G4S do not come out satisfactorily from the audit processes, which this Government instituted, they will not receive any contracts. Their apparent abuses relate to contracts negotiated by the previous Labour Government, and they took place under their regime. We are the ones sorting that out. The Offender Management Act 2007, passed by the previous Government, is clear: it gives us the authority to pursue the line we are pursuing. They would rather forget that, but they passed the 2007 Act and should know what it says and understand its consequences.

The Opposition support an amendment they never wrote; they support it in preference to an Act they passed; and they do all of that so that they can vote against a Bill that, broadly speaking, they agree with. What a mess. They should support this Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

21:59

Division 123

Ayes: 213

---

Labour: 203
Plaid Cymru: 3
Liberal Democrat: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 269

---

Conservative: 224
Liberal Democrat: 42
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Independent: 1

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2)), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

offender rehabilitation bill [Lords] (programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 3 December 2013.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mark Lancaster.)

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

22:13

Division 124

Ayes: 269

---

Conservative: 223
Liberal Democrat: 44
Independent: 1

Noes: 175

---

Labour: 167
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Green Party: 1

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On page 20 of today’s Order Paper, it states that tomorrow’s debate is on the “Abolition of the bedroom tax.” As there is no such thing as a bedroom tax—and I pray in aid page 390 of “Erskine May”, which states:

“A notice which is wholly out of order may be withheld from publication on the Notice Paper”—

does that mean that the Opposition day will not now take place?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Mr Bone, I suggest that you read tomorrow’s Order Paper tomorrow. You will then be able to see the title of the debate, which, I am informed, is in order.

Deferred Divisions

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),

That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion on a Reasoned Opinion relating to the regulation of new psychoactive substances. —(Mark Lancaster.)

Question agreed to.

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] (MOney)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mark Lancaster.)

22:31

Division 125

Ayes: 251

---

Conservative: 204
Liberal Democrat: 42
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Independent: 1

Noes: 125

---

Labour: 120
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Green Party: 1

Psychoactive Substances

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Relevant Document: 10th Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, HC 83-xviii.]

22:44

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

I beg to move,

That this House considers that the draft Regulation and draft Directive on the regulation of new psychoactive substances (European Union Documents No. 13857/13 and Addenda 1 and 2 and 13865/13 and Addenda 1 and 2) do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, for the reasons set out in the annex to Chapter Eight of the Nineteenth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 83-xviii); and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) annexed to the EU Treaties on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.

I am pleased that this debate has been called to discuss whether the EU Commission’s proposals for regulating new psychoactive substances, commonly called legal highs, comply with the principle of subsidiarity. I am aware that the other place held its own debate on this issue earlier this evening, following evidence that I provided to one of its European Sub-Committees on 16 October. I also note the European Scrutiny Committee’s report on these proposals, and its questions for the Government. I will be writing to the Committee with detailed answers to those questions shortly.

I am aware of a dangerous perception held by some that since many new psychoactive substances are legal, they must be safe to consume. This is absolutely not the case, and while research on these substances is limited, the number of people who have ingested them and come to harm demonstrates that doing so is a risky, potentially life-threatening activity. There is also no guarantee that what is being sold is legal—evidence has shown that around 19% of products sold as legal highs on the internet actually contain controlled drugs.

The proposals involve a draft regulation and a draft directive, which together seek to enhance the EU’s ability to respond to the threat posed by these substances. We believe the regulation would require all member states to adopt the same level of control for a substance that is causing concern at the EU level, within a tiered framework of low, moderate and severe risk. While a framework for EU-level risk assessment and control of new psychoactive substances currently exists, member states can adopt stronger or weaker controls if they believe this to be appropriate. The directive would expand the definition of what the EU considers an illicit drug to include new psychoactive substances classed as severe risk under the new regulation.

In recent years, the growing role of these substances in the recreational drug market has presented policymakers and legislators across the world with significant challenges. They are generally synthetic drugs, designed to mimic the effects of drugs listed under the UN conventions and intended to fall outside the law. They are unlikely to have ever been tested on humans, and thus their short and long-term effects are largely unknown. However, the hospitalisations and deaths that have occurred due to the ingestion of some of these substances makes this a problem that Governments across the world cannot ignore, and we certainly do not do so.

The UK has played a leading role in tackling this threat. Our temporary drug control orders allow substances causing concern to be banned in a matter of weeks. Our forensic early warning system provides the latest intelligence on what substances are available in the UK, and our use of generic definitions under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 allows us to ban entire families of substances. These and other measures have enabled us to ban the majority of such substances seen in the EU and since 2010 we have banned in excess of 200.

The UK has also provided international leadership in this field. We have sponsored an international early warning system and a platform for sharing data on this threat via the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, as well as sponsoring two resolutions at the UN on the identification and reporting of new drugs.

Any EU-level action is required to comply with the principle of subsidiarity, meaning that decisions should be taken as close to EU citizens as possible. Article 5 of the treaty of the European Union states that, in areas where it does not have exclusive competence, the EU should only act if two conditions are met: first, where the objectives cannot be achieved by member states, and secondly, where EU-level action can add value by meeting the objectives more effectively. This Government does not believe, and I do not believe, that the EU proposals meet these conditions. In our view, the measures do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity.

To explain why, it is necessary to consider the legal base for the draft regulation. The Commission cites an internal market legal base, on the premise that there is a substantial licit—legal—trade in new psychoactive substances which requires a harmonised regulatory approach. The Government does not accept this premise, as our experience has overwhelmingly been that these substances are sold for recreational purposes and are closely tied to the illegal drugs trade, with only a small handful having legitimate use in industry. We believe, therefore, that the regulation should cite a justice and home affairs legal base, reflecting the illicit nature of the trade.

I know that the issue of Europe can excite Members across the House, but I stress that the position I am setting out is influenced not by whether one is crudely pro-EU or anti-EU, but by an objective assessment of EU law as it stands.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

What concerns Members across the House, apart from the question of Europe, are the deaths of young people, which have risen from 29 to 52 in England and Wales over the past year. What the Minister is taking about is exactly what we want to see: stronger action from Europe to support what the Government are doing.

[Norman Baker]

We certainly want stronger action from Europe on, for example, co-operation between member states on information, but my view is that this serious problem is best dealt with at member state level, rather than by waiting for the EU. The system we have in place at the moment allows us to take action more quickly than the proposals the EU is putting forward would allow us to do, so the hon. Gentleman’s point is met by the present system in the UK—I am not saying that it is perfect, because we want to improve it—rather than the EU system, which is defective in comparison.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

What is the prognosis, assuming that the House agrees with the Minister’s sensible view tonight, for getting the EU to drop this interference and let us do what we want?

[Norman Baker]

It would be helpful if this House passed a reasoned opinion, and there was certainly support in the other place in a debate earlier this evening. I know that other member states have similar views, whether or not they are in favour of the Commission’s proposals, on the justification for this particular legal base. I am hopeful that good sense will emerge as a consequence.

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

Can the Minister say when in the past we have succeeded in winning an argument of this type on the basis of the subsidiarity case?

[Norman Baker]

I am not an expert on the history of EU legislation, fortunately, but this case seems to me to be somewhat blatant and rather clear-cut, so I am certainly hopeful that we will make progress on this occasion, not least because of the support from other member states.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I thoroughly support what the Minister is saying. This is not only unwelcome interference in a member state’s affairs, but could be very dangerous. He knows of the case of a constituent of mine from Chandler’s Ford—I have raised it in questions recently—in which the Government were able to respond, although not as quickly as I would have liked. What is proposed here from an EU level is actually quite dangerous.

[Norman Baker]

So far there has not been great success with regard to the speed of activity from the European Union. The proposals it is putting forward would, in my view, be slower than the present UK proposals, so irrespective of the legal base, that is not a good message to send out to those who wish to deal with what are often quite dangerous substances.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Would the Minister be kind enough to give way on a point of information, because I wish, through him, to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie)? There have recently been a number of successful challenges in relation to reasoned opinions on subsidiarity, including on a European prosecutor’s office. We will continue in this House and in the European Scrutiny Committee to take the appropriate and necessary advice and get it right.

[Norman Baker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. Of course, his knowledge of European matters is second to none in this House—[Interruption.] I did not say whether or not I approved of it.

The proposed regulation has features that might be appropriate if harmonisation of a legitimate internal market was genuinely required, but when applied to the control of these substances by member states, the proposal greatly exceeds any action required at EU level and thus does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. For those few psychoactive substances that have legitimate uses, which amount to fewer than 2% of the more than 300 substances identified by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction since 2005, our framework is already flexible enough to place controls on those substances to restrict recreational use without hindering genuine use in industry.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister believe that the European Commission’s impact assessment is mistaken? It states that member states would be able to apply national measures before the introduction of any EU-level measures and go further than what is foreseen by EU measures. It suggests that the UK would not be fettered. He clearly disagrees. Why?

[Norman Baker]

I do not think that is correct. Certainly, with regard to those substances classified as severe, with the top rank of measures, we would not be able to countermand the EU description applied to the substance unless the European Commission agreed to do so on application from the member state, so I do not think that is correct.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I know that the Minister has his finger on the pulse when it comes to the use of drugs in this country. What percentage of legal highs that come into this country are ordered via the internet from other EU states?

[Norman Baker]

I am not sure whether I heard the question correctly, but the acquisition from the internet of legal highs is, fortunately, a minority activity at the moment, but we need to keep an eye on it. The majority of legal highs are sourced elsewhere.

[John Mann]

How does the Minister know that?

[Norman Baker]

The Government and law enforcement agencies have investigative resources, so we monitor these things very closely, which I hope is what the hon. Gentleman would expect us to do.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

One of the real problems with so-called legal highs is that they are available in shops on our high streets, so young people believe that they will not do them any harm. What action will the Government’s decision enable us to take to crack down on their sale on the high street?

[Norman Baker]

Law enforcement agencies take action against the sale of illegal substances. As I have said, some 19% of so-called legal highs contain controlled substances. Other steps are being taken through other legislation to deal with these matters and I assure my hon. Friend and others that the Government is looking actively at what other steps we can take to deal with this increasing problem.

Let me make some progress. On our reading of article 4 of the proposed regulation, member states would only be able to adopt their own measures—this is the point raised by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock)—in relation to substances that are not the subject of EU restrictions. Where the EU has acted, member states would not be free to impose their own standards. Given that the new regulation provides for a tiered scheme of restrictions, it is entirely possible that the EU may decide that a measure merits a moderate restriction, whereas our own scientific evidence and domestic concerns suggest that it should require a severe restriction, with the ensuing categorisation under domestic drug control legislation. The reverse, of course, equally applies. This scenario further demonstrates our belief that the proposals as they stand are incompatible with subsidiarity, as member states must have the flexibility to impose the appropriate level of controls as circumstances within their borders merit.

Given the experience since 2005, it is difficult to see how enhancing the EU’s prerogative in controlling these substances would meet the second condition of subsidiarity, namely that objectives can be better achieved at EU rather than member state level. Under the current risk assessment and control framework, only 13 risk assessments on such substances have been carried out by the EU since 2005, with nine substances subsequently coming under EU-wide control. Of these, the UK had already controlled eight, and we have since controlled the ninth as well. The control of just nine substances in eight years is woefully insufficient to keep pace with the fast-moving marketplace. Although the current proposals would involve an accelerated risk assessment and control process, that would still be a reactive model in which it would take time for sufficient evidence of harms to emerge to trigger a risk assessment.

Furthermore, the vast majority of these substances seen in Europe in recent years have already been classed as illegal drugs in the UK. With many other member states also being well ahead of the EU-level response to this threat, we simply do not accept that the Commission’s proposals would add any material value at all to the domestic approaches already being taken.

We also believe both the regulation and the directive to be Schengen-building measures, a view which is not to date accepted by the Commission. Although we will be arguing that these proposals build on areas of the Schengen agreement in which the UK participates—and thus is able to opt out of—that does not necessarily mean we would exercise that power. The proposals as they currently stand, and as they develop through negotiation, will be judged on their merits, with the primary considerations being the subsidiarity and proportionality of the measures.

Having said all that, I readily acknowledge that we have benefited greatly from the EU-level monitoring and identification systems put in place for these substances, and support strongly a role for the EU in facilitating the sharing of information and best practice in responding to developments. Indeed, I suggest that an enhanced role for information exchange is where the true value of EU action lies. However, we do not believe that the current proposals for common standards in relation to controls on new psychoactive substances are consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, as sanctions in this area are best determined by member states responding flexibly to national circumstances. It is for that reason that I commend this motion to the House.

22:59

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

I welcome the Minister to his post. The Opposition were particularly pleased about his appointment to the Home Office. I thank him for his explanation of the Government’s position on this proposal.

The European Commission’s proposals are technical but important. We should be thankful for the work undertaken by members of the European Scrutiny Committee to assist our deliberations. As the Minister explained, the measures are an attempt to take an EU-wide approach to the problem of legal highs. No one in this House should underestimate the scale of the problem. The UN estimates that the UK has the largest legal highs market in the world. It is estimated that 670,000 young Britons aged 16 to 24 have taken legal highs.

Many of the figures on the scale of the problem already come from the EU through the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. That agency found 73 new synthetic drugs in 2012, which is up from 49 in 2011. The rate of proliferation is increasing. At times this year, about two new substances have been arriving in the UK market every week. Hundreds have been catalogued in the marketplace. There are more than 500 internet shops that supply the substances to the UK market. There are also an unknown but increasing number of head shops on the high street.

It is therefore clear that there is some truth in the Commission’s assessment that member states have not been able effectively to respond to the threat posed by legal highs and that collective action is needed. The Commission is perhaps being unfair on several other member states that have taken action. Countries such as Ireland have been more proactive in responding to the rapid proliferation of the new drugs. The UK Government have been singularly ineffective in tackling this problem. That is why the UK market is now the largest in Europe.

[Norman Baker]

I just want to put the record straight. The hon. Lady mentioned that there were 49 new drugs in 2011. Only 17 of those crossed the channel to the UK and 14 of them were already controlled by the UK Government. Of the 73 in 2012, only 18 have been seen in the UK and eight had already been controlled.

[Diana Johnson]

I will come on to the discrepancies between the Home Office figures and the figures of other bodies. The Home Office does not have access to the figures on all the new legal highs that are available on the internet and in head shops.

I want to return to the EU proposal to introduce a cross-European response. The Commission proposes to strengthen the existing monitoring centre, the EMCDDA, to enable it to undertake assessments of new substances and determine how dangerous they are. That determination will inform a classification that is decided on by the Commission with some input from member states.

The Commission wants to address two problems through the proposals. The first and, going by the Commission’s documents, possibly the foremost, is the impediment to the legitimate trade in new psychoactive substances caused by restrictions imposed by individual member states. Secondly, the Commission recognises the public health need. From the drafting of the proposals, it could be construed that the Commission is giving that secondary status.

I agree with the evidence of the Minister for Immigration to the European Scrutiny Committee in which he said that it was not entirely clear what “mischief” the Commission was attempting to tackle. In the regulations, free trade appears to be afforded equal status to prevention of harm. The Opposition share the Government’s surprise that the regulation is justified under the legal auspices of protecting free trade, rather than article 5 concerns relating to justice and home affairs. That focus is surprising given that even the Commission recognises that only a small, unquantifiable percentage of new psychoactive substances have a legitimate use.

The European Scrutiny Committee states that the

“trade in new psychoactive substances for legitimate purposes is difficult to quantify”.

I agree with its conclusion:

“Given that uncertainty, as well as the known risks associated with their recreational use, we do not consider that new psychoactive substances should necessarily be treated in the same way as other tradable commodities… Divergent national rules cited by the Commission as an obstacle to legitimate trade, in our view, often reflect differing cultural and societal attitudes towards the regulation of drugs”.

Although the Opposition have some reservations about the Commission’s motivations, we are willing to engage in addressing the health harms posed by legal highs. We also give the Commission some credit for recognising that harm.

Reading the Commission’s proposal, however, it is not clear how it would determine harm. Article 7 lays out the procedure for risk assessment connected with the substance, and article 10 states the conditions for the determination of levels of health, social and safety risks, following the risk assessment. Article 9 deals with urgent public health requirements, while articles 11, 12 and 13 lay out three levels of control, depending on the level of risk identified. It is important to note for article 11 and substances deemed a low risk that that would mean no restrictions at all.

That does not give an entirely satisfactory account of how the EMCDDA would determine the level of harm associated with each drug. The articles I have mentioned lay out a process, but it is not entirely clear that the EMCDDA will have the evidence available to make classifications that correspond to the level of harm outlined. EMCDDA assessments would not extend to clinical trials, and it is therefore not clear how it would be in a position to rule out addictiveness, long-term psychological harm, or the effect of combining the drugs with alcohol.

It is important to remember that most deaths associated with legal highs come about accidentally, and I am not convinced that the Commission’s proposals adequately explain how the EMCDDA would account for such dangers. Perhaps the Minister will set out the Government’s position on that point, and say what representations the UK Government have made to the Commission. It is also not clear how such proposals will impact on the UK’s capacity to determine our own classification system—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock).

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

Is the answer to the hon. Lady’s question that we are seeking to pass this measure today to demonstrate our expertise in and judgment on these various substances, those that are emerging and those that are well known such as khat—I have seen the devastation that causes right across north, west and east Africa—which is finding its way to these shores? Precisely for those reasons we want to rely on our expertise and judgment and get a system in place in time, rather than relying on the lowest common denominator from Europe.

[Diana Johnson]

If the right hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would know I was making the case for why I am questioning whether the procedure in this proposal would actually work. I want the Minister to respond to the Government’s advice on the point about the effect that such a proposal would have on any determination this country could make about its own classification.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The hon. Lady rightly raises the question of our making our own determinations, which I hope she will agree should be evidence based. Has she seen the advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs that khat should not be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and will the official Opposition follow that evidence-based line when it comes to a vote in the Statutory Instrument Committee?

[Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman should perhaps look to his own coalition Government, who decided not to follow the advice of the ACMD. As a Member of one of the two ruling coalition parties, perhaps he should question his own Ministers on that point.

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Diana Johnson]

I am going to move on because I do not want to get sidetracked into a debate on khat as that is not the purpose of this debate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could ask his Ministers about their position as they are part of the Government who are not using—[Interruption.] Well, I have made my position clear. He should look to his own Ministers. The Liberal Democrats cannot have it all ways—I know they try, but perhaps on this they should look to their Liberal Democrat Minister in the Home Office.

It would be helpful if the Minister set out clearly his position on classification. EU co-operation on drugs is not new, but previously the agreement was that drugs, as recognised by the UN agreement on narcotics, needed to be controlled and the trafficking of drugs tackled. The proposals we are discussing go far further than that. Drugs that would be deemed low risk will not be restricted; those deemed a moderate risk will be prohibited from the consumer market; and the most dangerous drugs will be prohibited altogether, with a possible exception for medical use. I should make it clear that the Opposition do not want to cede powers on drug classification to the EU, and I press the Minister on the Government’s legal advice on how the adoption of the directive could affect the UK Government’s position. The Home Office explanatory memorandum states:

“we do not consider that the measure complies with the principle of proportionality. In particular, the effect of Article 4 of the draft Regulation fetters the UK from adopting more stringent measures to control NPS. In our view, it is vital for the UK, guided as necessary by EU expertise in NPS but not bound by it, to have the final say when deciding whether to exceed any minimum standards mandated by the EU.”

Although the Opposition concur generally with that, it would be helpful if the Minister explained exactly what the Government mean by “fetters”. Do the Government believe that article 4 would prevent them from placing strong prohibitions on a substance?

When we turn to articles 3 and 4, we see that the Commission has placed a strong emphasis on free trade, as I have said. Article 3, on free movement, states:

“New psychoactive substances and mixtures shall move freely in the Union for commercial and industrial use”.

Article 4, on the prevention of barriers to free movement, states that, in so far as

“the Union has not adopted measures to subject a new psychoactive substance to market restriction under this Regulation, Member States may adopt…regulations”.

Is it the Government’s view that member states could impose restrictions only before the EU has classified a drug? Would the Commission classifying a drug as low risk, and therefore not restricting sale in any way, count as having adopted a measure, therefore precluding further action from member states? For its part, the Commission thinks not—it argues that in its impact assessment.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The hon. Lady makes a detailed and powerful argument. I am gathering that she supports generally what the Government are doing. Many Government Members would like to know that the Opposition will not vote against the motion tonight.

[Diana Johnson]

I have a few more pages of notes, and then all will be revealed. The hon. Gentleman will have picked up that the Opposition have a number of questions on whether the proposal would be helpful in dealing with the problem of legal highs.

The impact assessment states:

“Member States would be able to apply national measures before the introduction of any EU-level measure in…respect of the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC, and to go further than what is foreseen by EU measures in full respect of the provisions of Article 114”.

Will the Minister respond to that explanation on that point?

One point made strongly by the European Scrutiny Committee in the other place was that national states are more competent than the EU to make decisions because specific factors might influence the dangers of each drug in different national contexts. The Opposition agree with that assessment. One particular issue is what substances are mixed with—one psychoactive substance could form part of a compound street drug that is far more dangerous. That is a problem for the UK, which, as I have said, has Europe’s largest legal highs market. That draws attention to a failing of the Government’s response to legal highs—the failure to address the emergence of regional drugs, meaning drugs going under a generic street name, but often containing a variety of different substances that become popular in a certain region. Sadly, we have seen repeatedly over a number of years that batches of such drugs can contain a dangerous substance, often with lethal consequences.

Because the Opposition believe that member states are best placed to determine the level of harm posed by a new psychoactive substance, we do not believe that the proposal from the EU Commission is either necessary or proportionate. Therefore, we agree with the reasoned opinion put by the European Scrutiny Committee and supported by the Government. However, even if the House and the other place were to reject the Commission’s proposals—the other place has, I believe, already rejected the proposals—it should not be taken as an excuse by this Eurosceptic Government to opt out of EU co-operation on investigating and assessing new psychoactive substances. The Opposition see a clear need for EU-wide co-operation on a laboratory to research new substances without giving it the power to classify substances.

Currently, hundreds of new substances arrive on the UK market. The Government’s temporary banning orders have been used on only three occasions. I therefore dispute what the Minister has said about taking swift action. There are two reasons for this: a failure by Ministers to refer substances to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the capabilities of the advisory council. It has said that it can assess only two or three substances a year. It is clear that it will never be able to keep up with the number of new drugs on the market, so the UK Drug Policy Commission and others called for a joint EU-wide laboratory to provide advice and information to relevant authorities. We support that. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has long produced lists of new substances that have always been far ahead of the Home Office’s forensic early warning system. I have repeatedly asked Ministers why substances that are identified by the EMCDDA as being on sale in the UK are not automatically added to the forensic early warning system. This goes back to the Minister’s intervention on the numbers. The EMCDDA numbers are far higher than the Home Office numbers, and that needs to be looked at. Perhaps the Minister will finally be able to explain why there is such a disparity between the two lists.

In conclusion, the Opposition are in agreement with both the European Scrutiny Committee and the Government that the EU Commission proposal is neither necessary nor desirable. We would like the Government to be more precise about the consequences of adopting the directive on the UK’s current system of drug regulation. We do not want the Government to use tonight’s debate as an excuse to avoid greater EU co-operation to assess the dangers posed by legal highs, particularly to our young people.

23:16

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

We have had an interesting exchange of views, resulting in the Government and the Opposition agreeing with the European Scrutiny Committee’s assessment that there is a breach of the principle of subsidiarity in these matters. There are two issues: the draft regulation and the draft directive, both of which have already been described, so there is no need for me to go into them in detail.

The draft regulation would fetter the flexibility that member states currently enjoy to determine the level of risk associated with a new psychoactive substance, and to implement appropriate national control measures. The draft directive, on the other hand, would require member states to introduce criminal sanctions for a new psychoactive substance deemed by the Commission to present a severe health, social and safety risk.

The draft reasoned opinion concludes that the proposed legislation breaches the principle of subsidiarity simply because it would fetter member states’ action to an unacceptable degree. It highlighted the following concerns: the absence of reliable market information on the volume of trade in new psychoactive substances for legitimate rather than recreational use; different cultural and societal attitudes towards the regulation of drugs and new psychoactive substances and the need to accommodate different regulatory approaches at national level; the limited scope for unilateral action by a member state when faced with evidence of social or health harms which exceed the level of risk identified by the Commission when implementing market restrictions; and insufficient evidence of disruption to legitimate trade, or displacement of the harmful effects of the new psychoactive substances, to warrant market intervention on the scale envisaged in the proposed measures or the imposition of additional constraints on members states’ freedom of action.

We have had a number of successes in the European Scrutiny Committee’s proposals for reasoned opinions: we debated the proposal for a European prosecutor’s office and last week it was withdrawn by the Commission, and the Monti II provision in relation to small and medium-sized businesses. We are making some progress. The reality, however, is that we still have to get a substantial number of member states to agree to our proposals on the reasoned opinion. We have a decent track record and will continue to argue the case on the basis of analysis, logic and common sense. Having said that, I do not think there is anything I need to do to repeat the remarks that have already been made, because the Government, the Opposition and the ESC all agree.

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

From experience, does my hon. Friend agree that it is usually the most dangerous state of affairs when there is a consensus between my hon. Friend, Her Majesty’s Government and Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition?

[Mr Cash]

I would certainly agree that it is extremely dangerous when there is collusion between the two Front-Bench teams, but when the European Scrutiny Committee comes into the equation, I think it is a virtuous circle. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when the Government, the Opposition and the European Scrutiny Committee agree, there should be no question but that this proposal will go absolutely nowhere in terms of being implemented at any time in this country, and that we can be absolutely assured of that?

[Mr Cash]

We can be sure that our analysis will bear scrutiny and that the European Commission is getting used to the idea that when the UK Parliament is agreed about something, we are not going to give in. I think I will conclude my remarks on that rather important point.

23:20

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

It must be rather galling for the most European of all parliamentarians, the Minister, having to be dissing the EU and its great works in one of his first outings. I was surprised, however, that he did not take more credit for the work that he, his predecessor, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), and his Department have done in encouraging this EU proposal. Of course, it was a Liberal Democrat who predecessed him—

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

I am entirely unhappy about the use of the word “dissing”, but I think “predecessed” demands further investigation. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could clarify both those terms.

[John Mann]

It is a late hour and I have had no substances of any height during the day, but I have been building up my adrenalin, looking forward to this debate.

I have been monitoring what the Home Office has been doing in this field. Whenever I speak to people from other countries, they keep telling me how the British Government—this coalition Government—are out there seeking their views and trying to learn from them. Portugal is one of the leaders of the move towards drug legalisation across the world, but the Czech Republic is following—that makes two EU states—and the European monitoring body on drugs is based in Lisbon.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Mann]

I would like to make my point first, so that the hon. Gentleman can understand it in its fullness.

It is this Government who have been going and listening to the legalisers. I suspect that the European Commission is making an attempt over time to pull together these strands, backed by several senior police officers in this country, so that they can evaporate the problem of drugs and say that crime will reduce, because if we legalise lots of things and do not criminalise others, we will not need to spend as much money on policing, because crime will be falling all the time. What is happening with this Government—it is why the Minister has encouraged this proposal from the EU and now wishes to demolish it—is an attempt to block legal highs being made into illegal highs so that crime does not go up, because they are not providing the police in areas like mine that are disproportionately impacted by the current legal highs.

I carried out my own public inquiry in Worksop town hall this January into the question of legal highs, asking the young people, the police, the health service and others what was going on. It was interesting to find out that it was not only young people who were taking these substances. It was also middle-aged people, although not perhaps elderly people. It was the people who participate in what the Government call the night-time economy and what I would call pubs with late licences. People are tanking up at home on cheap alcohol then going out to the pubs and nightclubs and taking these substances. The owners of the pubs and clubs complained to my inquiry that their biggest problem was that people were taking cheap pills and other highs instead of buying alcohol.

By the way, allowing pubs to have late licences was the worst error of the last Labour Government. My biggest error in this place was not to speak out and try to alter that policy as it was going through because applying a city solution to areas like mine was totally inappropriate. One pub in my area is open till 5 in the morning, but nobody is drinking beer or spirits; they are allegedly—according to all the information I have—taking all sorts of substances that the Government will not deem illegal because they do not want the police to arrest people, though the police are not there anyway, because the Government have cut their numbers; and there are not even any police cells left in my area to put people in, and the police community support officers are about to take over neighbourhood policing. But nobody is being arrested for using legal highs in the pubs, and of course they are not because the highs are legal. This is part of Home Office policy.

[Jesse Norman]

I continue to be dazzled by the hon. Gentleman’s linguistic dexterity, which is reaching almost Prescottian heights, but will he tell us whether this great experiment in constructing a parliamentary speech out of a single sentence has the possibility of reaching a full stop?

[John Mann]

I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman was listening.

For two days, I got together young people, the police and the health service in my area, along with my expert panel which 10 years ago looked at the problem of heroin and this time looked at legal highs, among other problems. We analysed more than 400 submissions to find out exactly what was happening. We went out and asked the users of the illegal drugs what was happening with the legal highs. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would like to be informed about this, because his close coalition ally the Minister, and the Minister’s predecessor, have not got a clue what is going on with legal highs in this country. Some of the chief constables are increasingly saying, “Let’s legalise drugs; let’s not go any further with legal highs, so that we can get crime down.”

The European Union is heading in exactly the same direction. That is why the Czech Republic has just backed the same approach as Portugal has taken. The European monitoring body’s research is nonsense, but it is quoted by the Minister and others in the Government all the time as the factual basis for what is happening around Europe. But the statistics on this—as on so many other things—that are compiled around Europe simply do not compare with what is going on here. They do not compare at all.

In this country, we have a growing problem with legal highs. The problem is that people are taking cheap pills instead of spending money on alcohol, and the real problem with that is that they do not know what the pills are. People are taking things that give them a stimulus when they go out, but the compounds could contain anything, and on rare occasions there are tragic consequences. The bigger problem is that this is building up an atmosphere of semi-legality. People are taking things that ought to be illegal because they are dangerous, and they have no idea what they contain. They take them presuming and hoping that they are fine, and the Government are not prepared to put a system in place to deal with—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am struggling to understand how the hon. Gentleman is going to relate all this to subsidiarity. [Interruption.] Thank you; I do not need prompting. We are not having a general debate here. He has referred to Europe, and I hope that he is going to refer to the question of subsidiarity mentioned in the reasoned opinion.

[John Mann]

Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am constructing an argument to demonstrate precisely how the European Union has got itself into this absurd situation of what might be called a caterpillar race between the European Commission and the British Government over who can be the slowest to deal with the problem of legal highs. Frankly, my constituents’ problem is that this Government are doing nothing—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Mann]

I dare not digress.

Like the Government, the European Union is doing nothing other than create an excuse for allowing the growth of legal highs without criminal sanctions. Some European Union countries think exactly the same way as this Government think. They are saying, “The more we create illegal drugs, the more criminality there will be; the less we spend on police, the more that criminality will grow, and the public will not like that.” That is the problem that the Minister should be addressing. I put it to him that he should go back to look at the origins of this proposal and withdraw the Government’s policy of going around these legalising countries to see what we can learn from them. Instead, he should be looking at the problems in areas like mine.

[Dr Huppert]

I tried to intervene earlier on this point. The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about countries like Portugal as though they are legalising drugs. Does he not realise that Portugal has not legalised drugs and has no plans to legalise them? What it has done is to decriminalise them—a huge difference, which the hon. Gentleman should try to understand.

[John Mann]

I am familiar with the system in Portugal, having met the Portuguese and seen the myths created by their policy. Yes, the nuances of language are important for the law, but I am talking about the objective of allowing police cuts in areas like mine, which are the areas with the biggest problem with legal highs. This is part of a deliberate Government strategy. I put it to the Minister that as well as taking this back to the European Union, he should tell it that it has no remit in this area, no expertise to give and no valid data. He should stop relying on EU statistics and the EU agenda in setting Government policy. He should listen to the good people of Bassetlaw who say, “We don’t want legal highs in our clubs, pubs and streets; we want systems to make them illegal, and then we want the police in place to prosecute on the basis of them.”

[Mr Stephen O'Brien]

Has the hon. Gentleman not dissed himself by his previous argument? He suggests that we need to go much faster to get the impact that he seeks in order to respond to his Bassetlaw constituents who have given him all this evidence, but this is the only method by which we can do it at any pace that is going to meet the need.

[John Mann]

The right hon. Gentleman is half right. If we cede it to the European Union, its caterpillar will go even more slowly in reaching the lettuce than our caterpillar. My concern is that our caterpillar is spending so much time in the European Union debating these matters that the lettuce always avoids him.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am so grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way in his brilliant speech, but I have a worry that he is confusing caterpillars with snails. It is snails that are notorious for their slowness, not caterpillars.

[John Mann]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think it is time that we left the subject of caterpillars and lettuces and got to the matter in hand.

[John Mann]

I implore the Minister to reject this European Union attempt further to weaken our approach and to resist what his predecessor did, which was to go around these EU countries looking for ways to weaken our drug laws—precisely what this Government are sneakily doing in order to justify cuts in policing and the closing of police cells in areas like Bassetlaw.

23:35

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I shall try to be relatively brief and to resist the temptation to discuss the speech of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). I think that it was the first speech that I have heard in which someone has objected to the concept of talking to other people to identify good practice, which is surely something that most of us would want to do.

It is clear that a huge problem is posed by new psychoactive substances. As that has been reiterated so many times, I shall not go into it in detail now, but I will say that the rise in the number of such substances is partly our fault, because our prohibition-led policy has made it possible to be sentenced to years in jail for possessing one tablet of known harm, but to receive no penalty for possessing something else of unknown harm, which could be far more serious.

We know that some of the new substances are more harmful than substances that we have already controlled. Our use of the term “legal highs” suggests to the public that it is all right to take such substances, because it implies that they are safer than others. If ecstasy is a class A drug and another substance is legal, that suggests that we have made an assessment of the risk, which is deeply misleading. It flies in the face of any evidence-based policy, but it also flies in the face of what we all want to do, which is to reduce the harms from drug use. All substances of this kind, whether legal or illegal, have harms, and we must try to reduce those harms.

I agree with the Minister that the European proposal is not the right one to adopt, but what is the correct way in which to deal with all these substances? On the general subject, I follow the Portuguese line. I think that decriminalisation has worked very well there. Only those on the far right in politics opposed it originally, and now it is supported by people throughout the political spectrum and by the police themselves. The Home Affairs Committee conducted a detailed study of all the issues, and that was our very clear finding.

What is the solution? What is not the solution is simply to ban everything that is psychoactive. I suspect that that is what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw is proposing, and it is certainly what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) proposed in a new clause to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which would have included making the sale of caffeine, including coffee, illegal. I do not think that that was the intention of the new clause, but it illustrates the problems that arise when we try to ban things. Coffee is a psychoactive substance. I will not ask how many Members who are present have consumed some of that psychoactive substance today, but quite a number will have done so. That illustrates the danger of being extremist and banning everything.

What we should do is adopt an alternative to the European proposal, and emulate, for example, what has been done in New Zealand. When the New Zealand Government asked the New Zealand Law Commission to look at their drug laws—the Select Committee report goes into this in much more detail—the commission proposed the establishment of an independent regulatory authority to test substances, so that manufacturers and importers would have to demonstrate their safety. I am pleased to see that other members of the Select Committee are present. We proposed that urgent action should be taken, based on existing trading standards and consumer protection legislation, to deal with the sale of untested substances. The onus should be on the person selling a substance to check that it is safe. That is the right way to tackle the huge number of new psychoactive substances.

[Diana Johnson]

Perhaps I could correct the record. The new clause to which the hon. Gentleman referred would have dealt with exactly the problem that he has raised by building on the work that had already been done in relation to young people who were sniffing glue. I believe that it was a Conservative Government who had previously legislated to put the onus on shopkeepers who sold substances that could be used for that purpose, and the new clause was intended to put the onus on the seller in the same way. I take exception to the way in which he has described its aims.

[Dr Huppert]

New clause 2 stated:

“It is an offence for a person to supply, or offer to supply, a psychoactive substance, including but not restricted to…a powder…a pill…a liquid; or…a herbal substance with the appearance of cannabis which he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, to be so acting, that the substance is likely to be consumed by a person for the purpose of causing intoxication.”

That would make it illegal to sell coffee. It is perfectly possible to be intoxicated by caffeine, which is an addictive substance. The hon. Lady is right to say that the new clause deals only with the supply of substances, but, although some of us may have concerns about Starbucks paying taxes or otherwise, I think that making the company illegal would be going too far.

Roughly one in five of the notified new psychoactive substances are used for legitimate purposes in industry or research, or as active substances in medicines. We must be extremely careful about how we proceed, because a global ban would give rise to all sorts of problems.

We have touched on the Home Secretary’s decision to ban khat. She has tabled a statutory instrument to do so. That was her decision; it was not a jointly signed off one, and I was very disappointed by it.

I was also very disappointed and surprised that the shadow Minister had no idea what her own policy was. [Interruption.] If she would like to say what it is, I will be happy to take an intervention. Apparently, she does not wish to do so.

The Government have twice asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs what to do about khat. This is a classic example of a legal high that exists and would be covered by this provision, and where we have to work out what to do. The ACMD said that

“the evidence of harms associated with the use of khat is insufficient to justify control and it would be inappropriate and disproportionate to classify khat under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.”

It also said that

“the evidence shows that khat has no direct causal links to adverse medical effects”.

It went on to say there is no robust evidence of a causal link between khat consumption and any of the social harms indicated, and no evidence of it being connected with organised criminal behaviour.

[Mr Bone]

Will the hon. Gentleman tell me what his definition of “brief” is?

[Dr Huppert]

I suspect I will be one of the briefest speakers in this debate, not counting interventions. That will have to do as a working definition, and I have almost concluded.

Not only is it clear from the evidence that banning khat will be harmful and will not solve the problem, but it would also cost this country £12.8 million a year in the loss of the VAT that is currently being paid on the legal import of khat, with a total cost of £150 million, according to the Government’s own estimates. This is an example of a legal high that the Home Secretary is proposing to ban, and I intend to vote against that when we have the opportunity to do so, and it would be fantastic if the Labour party decided to join us. That example shows why this is such a hard issue.

I agree with the Minister that we should make it clear to the EU that we should make our own decisions, but it is also important that those decisions are the right ones.

23:41

[Norman Baker]

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), for welcoming me to the Front Bench on this matter, and I agree that the key issue is that the EU basis, suggesting there is an impediment to legitimate trade, is completely wrong. That is why the EU proposals are unacceptable.

The early-warning system does work. In fact, I referred AMT to it only a week or so ago, when my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) prompted me to do so. The early-warning system is also activated in terms of Exodus Damnation, so that we can see what can be done about that. What we have done successfully in this country is ban families of substances, and even substances that do not exist, in anticipation of what might come next.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

I strongly support the Minister’s stance against Europe on this issue and thank him for his detailed letter on the point that he has just made. As two of my constituents have died from legal highs, however, may I urge him to be open to testimony from the police that the generic ban to which he refers is not yet covering everything that it needs to cover?

[Norman Baker]

It is certainly true that new substances appear all the time, and how we deal with that presents a real challenge. I am looking at that, and it is a very high priority for the Home Office.

I can assure the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North that the Government recognises the need for EU-wide co-operation. We strongly support that and recognise its value in tackling this menace. She need have no worries on that front.

The hon. Lady talked about the numbers and asked for clarification about what the EU had said, as opposed to what the UK had said. Only 74 out of 270 substances identified by the EMCDDA have been found in this country—only 27%. That may account for the different figures. She asked whether it can make an adequate assessment. The answer in my view is no, which I think is her answer as well. That is one of the points that we will make in our discussions with the EU. Negotiations are at an early stage, but we will raise the points made both by the Committee and in the House tonight.

I can assure the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) that it is not galling for me to diss the EU, as he put it. I have always believed in subsidiarity. I believe that decisions should be taken at the lowest possible level. This is an appropriate decision for the member states to take, not the EU. It is as simple as that.

We have a very good way of approaching these matters that works. It is not true to say that we are not seeking to ban substances to reduce police activity. We have banned 200 such substances in recent times, compared with just the nine banned by the EU in eight years. So we have been very active in banning substances in this country. The hon. Gentleman talks about cuts in the police, but he might reflect on the fact that crime is down by 10% under this Government since 2010, so that was also a nonsensical point to make in justifying his case. I agree with him, however, that people sometimes take legal highs instead of alcohol. That is a matter that we are dealing with, which is why we have banned 200 substances, or thereabouts, in recent times. Finally, I welcome his contribution about psychoactive substances, caterpillars, snails and lettuces. With that, I ask the House to support the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House considers that the draft Regulation and draft Directive on the regulation of new psychoactive substances (European Union Documents No. 13857/13 and Addenda 1 and 2 and 13865/13 and Addenda 1 and 2) do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, for the reasons set out in the annex to Chapter Eight of the Nineteenth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 83-xviii); and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) annexed to the EU Treaties on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.

Business without Debate

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Oil Tax

That the draft Additionally-developed Oil Fields Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 9 October, be approved.—(Claire Perry.)

Question agreed to.

House of Commons Members’ Fund

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Order, 22 October, and Standing Order No. 118(6)),

That, pursuant to section 4(4) of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1948 and section 1(4) of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1957, in the year commencing 1 October 2013 there be appropriated for the purposes of section 4 of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1948:

(1) the whole of the sums deducted or set aside in that year under section 1(3) of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1939 from the salaries of Members of the House of Commons; and

(2) the whole of the Treasury contribution paid to the Fund.—(Claire Perry.)

Question agreed to.

Environmental Audit

Ordered,

That Paul Uppal be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

International Development

Ordered,

That Peter Luff be a member of the International Development Committee.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Public Administration

Ordered,

That Mr Steve Reed be discharged from the Public Administration Committee and Sheila Gilmore be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Petitions

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

23:45

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

I wish to present a petition on behalf of residents of Elterwater, in Cumbria, in the Lake district. The petitioners are particularly concerned about the speeding through the Lake district village of Elterwater.

The petition states:

The Petition of a resident of the UK,

Declares that the Petitioner believes that the current speed limit of 60mph in Elterwater, Cumbria, is hazardous for local residents.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to change the speed limit in the area to 20mph, and introduce traffic calming measures.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001287]

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to present a petition from the residents of Bozeat in my constituency, where an outrageous planning application has been put in which would destroy the nature of the village. The lead petitioners are Graeme Sutherland, Denise Moth, Leo Knight and Lucy Gardiner.

The petition states:

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

The Humble Petition of the residents of Bozeat, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,

Sheweth,

That the proposed housing development, application number WP/2013/0332 on the land off Hillside Close, Bozeat, is unacceptable because the scale and location of the development is out of character with the village and would extend the village boundary

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Borough Council of Wellingborough to work together to ensure that this development does not occur.

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

[P001289]

Feed-in Tariffs (Lottery Funding)

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Claire Perry.)

23:49

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

Let me start by thanking Mr Speaker for kindly granting this debate on lottery-funded projects and feed-in tariffs. I had hoped to speak in a Westminster Hall debate on the topic in October called by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), but the then Minister was the beneficiary—or perhaps the victim—of a reshuffle and the debate was cancelled. This Adjournment debate is a welcome opportunity to address these matters properly.

Some debates in the House are on topics of purely general importance, but this one specifically concerns two villages in a remote part of my county of Herefordshire. The issue, however, is of huge importance to those villages and their residents. Indeed, it would not be too much to say that it gravely affects their well-being as well as that of a local school. It also raises a general issue relevant to other village communities as well as wider questions of fairness and responsibility that directly concern the Government. For all those reasons, I thank Mr Speaker for granting the debate and ask the Government to give it their close attention.

Clifford and Moccas are isolated villages on the western and northern edges of my constituency. Both are blessed with village halls that are well-used and well-supported by local people. In early 2011, both communities were awarded grants from the Big Lottery Fund, which distributes moneys on behalf of the national lottery, to install solar photovoltaic panels on their village halls. The motivation in each case, which was clearly stated throughout the application process, was to claim feed-in tariff payments to help meet the running costs of the halls.

The schemes were installed in late 2011 and early 2012. Clifford received a £10,000 grant from the Big Lottery Fund and raised a further £15,000 from the local community. Moccas received a grant for £9,603, which covered the full value of the works. In spring 2013, however, two years after the original awards, both communities were told that their eligibility for feed-in tariffs was under threat as grants from the Big Lottery Fund had been reclassified as state aid. The communities were presented with two options: to pay back the funding received from the Big Lottery Fund and continue to claim feed-in tariffs; or to keep the Big Lottery Fund money and give up any entitlement to feed-in tariffs.

On 6 June 2013, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change said that he hoped that his Department would look into the matter. On 6 September 2013, however, a written question from me received a reply from the Department stating that it was not investigating the matter and that it was for Ofgem, which administers the scheme, and its licensed suppliers to determine eligibility for feed-in tariffs based on the legislation.

On 3 October I received a letter from Ofgem that disavowed responsibility, stating that it did not set the policy underpinning the feed-in tariffs scheme, which was the responsibility of the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The letters also said that the Big Lottery Fund grants were classified as “grants from public funds”, as the national lottery and the apparatus through which it distributes funding were established by statute. As a result, Big Lottery Fund grants were subject to the rules on state aid and it was not possible to combine a grant with the receipt of feed-in tariffs.

The Big Lottery Fund has given the village hall committees the opportunity to convert the grant money received so far into an interest-free loan. That is to be welcomed but it does not address the underlying problem, which is that a change in the scheme administered by Ofgem is causing tangible hardship to the villages. It is even having a negative effect on a lovely local school. Clifford primary school is located on the same site as the village hall and was a partner in its solar panel project. Indeed, the project is a key part of its eco-schools accreditation. The head teacher tells me that the school might have to be run at a deficit purely as a result of this uncovenanted and unilateral change.

That turn of events was entirely unnecessary. Both hall committees and Clifford primary school entered the agreements in good faith and, to put the matter in the kindest light, appear to have been let down by poor communication somewhere along the line. The question goes deeper, however, and raises issues of fairness and accountability and of management within Government. So far, both the Department and Ofgem have disavowed any responsibility for the mishap. Each has placed responsibility with the other. My question is simple: who is responsible?

How is it possible that Moccas and Clifford hall committees were notified only in spring 2013 of the change in legislation that happened two years earlier? How can it be right for the Government to have allowed national lottery funding to be classified as state aid when its moneys derive from private gambling on the lottery? The question becomes still more pertinent when one considers that the statutory body is the National Lottery Commission, which does not give out any money at all. The lottery is, in effect, a trading name for Camelot, a private company. Clicking on “About us” on the national lottery website takes one directly to the Camelot website.

One might ask how grants of money raised from private individuals by a private firm can be classified as state aid. Did Ofgem check whether the grants were subject to state aid rules before the scheme was launched? What legal advice was taken? If it was taken, it would have been adverse; was any thought given to contesting the matter?

There are also more specific questions that I would respectfully ask the Department to address. Is it satisfied that Ofgem has correctly interpreted the policy directions that it was given? Will it conduct a detailed review of how the change in policy was communicated to interested parties? When exactly were Ofgem, the Big Lottery Fund, licensed suppliers and parish councils or other grant recipients notified? How were they notified? Was any effort made to ensure that they received and understood the notification? Was any attempt made to offer redress for the misleading way in which local committees have been treated? Simply and crucially, will the Department ensure that someone—a named individual—takes responsibility for what has happened?

This issue has caused huge confusion, concern and cost to local people in my constituency. Neither Clifford nor Moccas would have entered into the contracts if they had known that the funding or the feed-in tariffs would subsequently be withdrawn, and if they are withdrawn, both will struggle to maintain the viability of their village hall. The financial well-being of a local school—an eco-school, no less—hangs in the balance. It is not the villages that have changed their minds; it is the Department that has done so.

There are not many of these schemes across the UK. I ask the Government to consider forgiving the debts altogether. That will not mend the harm that has been caused, but it will at least redress the balance, and it would be in accord with natural justice.

23:56

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) for calling for this debate, and for persisting with it after an earlier attempt. This is a topic that the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), would normally handle, but he is abroad tonight. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I stand in for him.

I regret the position that Moccas, Clifford and other community groups have found themselves in. The Department of Energy and Climate Change, Ofgem and the lottery have done their best to try to rectify the situation, but there is a limit to what can be done within policy and legal constraints. Let me explain the context, and set out the actions that we have taken and the measures that we have introduced to assist local communities that wish to develop renewable energy projects.

The feed-in tariff scheme is intended to replace, not supplement, public grant schemes as the principal means of incentivising small-scale, low-carbon electricity generation. As such, the tariffs are calculated to subsidise the entire cost of eligible installations, and to provide investors with a reasonably attractive rate of return of between 4.5% and 8% a year. For those reasons, and to ensure compliance with European Union rules on state aid, it is generally not possible for a generator to benefit from both feed-in tariffs and a grant from a public body, except in exceptional circumstances, some of which concern environmental considerations, such as the provision of fish ladders. That position, together with the various minor exceptions, has been clearly stated on both the DECC and feed-in tariffs websites since May 2011.

National lottery funding and grants issued by or on behalf of the national lottery are considered grants from public funds; I take my hon. Friend’s point about the lottery itself, but grants from it, including from the Awards for All programme and the community sustainable energy programme, are considered grants from public funds. As such, an installation cannot receive feed-in tariff support where national lottery funding has been accepted in support of purchasing and/or installing. I am sure my hon. Friend will accept that it is difficult to justify giving a double subsidy to individuals and organisations at any time, but particularly in the current fiscal climate, by allowing grants from public funds to be used in addition to the feed-in tariff subsidy.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think it would be unreasonable for the hon. Lady to expect to intervene, as she has only just arrived.

[Michael Fallon]

As I was saying, the costs of the feed-in tariff scheme are ultimately paid for through the electricity bills of consumers who, as my hon. Friend knows, are already facing rising fuel bills and general cost of living increases. The feed-in tariff scheme has been a success since its launch in April 2010, with over 480,000 systems totalling 2.4GW in capacity having been installed to date. An increasing number of these installations are indeed community energy schemes.

The Government recognise that some communities believed that it was possible to combine lottery Awards for All grants with feed-in tariffs when installing renewable energy systems on their premises, so we have been working with Ofgem and the lottery to try to find an acceptable solution for all sides. Recipients of lottery Awards for All grants who were also claiming feed-in tariffs were given the one-off option of repaying their grant to the lottery or converting it to a loan. The latter means that the income from feed-in tariffs could be used to pay back the loan over time. If the recipient did not take up one of the two options by 20 September, they faced being suspended from the feed-in tariff scheme and having their payments stopped. I understand that both Moccas and Clifford, along with a number of other community groups, have taken up the option to convert their lottery grant into a loan.

My hon. Friend asked a series of other questions. If I may, I will respond to him in detail in writing. Let me conclude by outlining some of the other measures that the Government are taking to support community renewable energy. My hon. Friend and those in his constituency who have already gone down this path are fully aware that our transformation to a low-carbon economy requires a huge national shift in the way we generate, distribute and buy our energy. By investing in local energy projects, communities can generate a healthy and stable return to cover the costs of installing small-scale renewable or low-carbon technologies. Such an opportunity can help drive local growth, redevelopment and even jobs at the larger scale.

Large low-carbon energy infrastructure, such as nuclear power stations and offshore wind, play a major role in our energy system. They are an important part of a diverse energy mix, but they are not a complete recipe. We also need a society-wide shift involving individuals, local communities and other organisations. I therefore know that, although my hon. Friend has been disappointed by the way in which the two applications have been handled, he will be delighted at the fact that the number of small-scale energy systems in homes, businesses and community facilities has leapt from a few thousand to nearly half a million since the feed-in tariff scheme was introduced in 2010.

We want to continue to help communities to spot and unlock such opportunities in their local area in order to save and generate energy for the benefit of the community. Communities will want to network with each other and with their local authorities and local businesses. My Department's forthcoming community energy strategy is looking at how information and advice can be used to supplement national resources, such as PlanLoCaL, the low-carbon hub and our recently published energy guide. I would also like to highlight the recent launch of the co-operative community shares fund website. That offers groups preparing community share offers free information and advice.

I would like to emphasise that local authorities have a pivotal role to play in community energy. They can share expertise, put people together, share facilities and, in some cases, partner community energy schemes. One of the benefits is the retention by local authorities of local business rates from renewables. There are also potential benefits for community groups in the green deal. Charities and community interest companies are able to receive financial support from the domestic customers' green deal cashback by registering on the cashback website.

I understand that pre-planning costs are a key barrier to developing viable renewables schemes of the sort that my hon. Friend has outlined and where those costs have already been incurred. In late 2011, we launched the local energy action fund, which offered pre-planning grants, and hundreds of applications have come in.

In December 2012, the Government put in place a one-year tariff guarantee for community energy and education providers pre-registering solar PV installations for the feed-in tariff scheme in future years. We also granted community groups and schools with solar PV projects an exemption from the energy efficiency requirement of obtaining an energy performance certificate of level D and above. We also think that larger community energy projects should be able to benefit from the simplicity and certainty offered by the feed-in tariff scheme. We are now considering increasing the maximum capacity that community projects can install from 5 MW to 10 MW, and we are seeking powers to do that in the Energy Bill, which is currently going through the other place.

As I mentioned, we are preparing a community energy strategy. It will tackle all aspects of community energy, including efficiency and renewables. I hope that that will inspire community groups, local authorities and commercial developers to put forward further projects. The call for evidence closed at the start of August and more than 300 responses have now been analysed.

I fully understand my hon. Friend’s disappointment that both Moccas and Clifford were not fully aware of the limitations of the feed-in tariff scheme and the classification of grants from the national lottery as public funding. The option that they are taking up to convert their lottery grant into a loan is a useful one, but I am very happy to look at the particular questions that my hon. Friend has raised during the course of this debate and to reply to him in more detail.

Question put and agreed to.

12:08

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Monday 11th November 2013 Ministerial Corrections

Monday 11 November 2013

The Guardian

Monday 11th November 2013 Ministerial Corrections

Julian Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department spent on advertising with (a) The Guardian newspaper, (b) The Guardian website and (c) The Guardian Media Group in (i) 2009-10, (ii) 2010-11, (iii) 2011-12 and (iv) 2012-13. [171554]

[Official Report, 22 October 2013, Vol. 569, c. 152-53W.]

Letter of correction from Hugh Robertson:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) on 22 October 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Hugh Robertson]

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has spent the following amounts on advertising with (a) The Guardian newspaper, (b) The Guardian website and (c) The Guardian Media Group in (i) 2010-11, (ii) 2011-12 and (iii) 2012-13.

[Hugh Robertson]

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has spent the following amounts on advertising with (a) The Guardian newspaper, (b) The Guardian website and (c) The Guardian Media Group in (i) 2010-11, (ii) 2011-12 and (iii) 2012-13.

Written Statements

Monday 11th November 2013 Written Statements

Monday 11 November 2013

Research Councils UK

Monday 11th November 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

Research Councils UK has today published management data on how spend has been allocated across the nations of the United Kingdom from 2005-06 to 2012-13. These data have informed the Scottish analysis programme paper on research also published today and does not relate to the research councils’ financial reports already audited and laid before Parliament. Data before 2010-11 have been re-stated from previously published figures for consistency and are based on a harmonisation of management accounting practice across the seven UK Research Councils. As a result newly-published historic data may not be identical to that used in previous statements and parliamentary questions.

A copy of the spend data and explanatory notes will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available at: www.rcuk.ac.uk/ukfunding

Ministerial Champion for Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Overseas

Monday 11th November 2013 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to take this opportunity to update the House on my role as Ministerial champion for tackling violence against women and girls overseas.

Violence against women and girls is a global pandemic—it is one of the most systematic, widespread human rights abuses in the world. The UK Government believe this can change, that every woman and girl has the right to live free from violence and abuse.

The establishment of the role of Ministerial champion for tackling violence against women and girls overseas is the first of its kind internationally. I was appointed to this role by the Prime Minister in 2010 and for the last three years I have had the privilege of being at the forefront of UK efforts to successfully drive forward progress towards eliminating violence against women and girls internationally.

In my role I am also working to improve policy coherence across UK Government Departments, ensuring that what we do has the greatest possible impact overseas. I have also championed this issue with the media, civil society and with parliamentarians in the countries in which we work. As a result we are now seeing an unprecedented level of commitment to this issue that I would like to bring to the House’s attention.

As champion, I am passionately committed to tackle all forms of violence against women and girls but have identified three priority areas:

Addressing violence against women and girls in humanitarian emergencies—because women and girls are often the most vulnerable in emergencies and in times of conflict;

Ending female genital mutilation/cutting—as this is one the worst kinds of gender violence, where girls around the world have suffered a lifetime of damage, sometimes even death, as a result;

Building the evidence base—so we better understand what works in preventing violence against women and girls.

During my time as champion, the UK Government have shown considerable leadership in this area at all levels. This includes the recognition of violence against women and girls in the Prime Minister’s “Golden Thread” agenda for International Development and his push for its inclusion in the framework that will replace the millennium development goals; the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to addressing sexual violence in conflict through the preventing sexual violence initiative; and DFID’s scaling up of its response to violence against women and girls, including more in-country programmes on preventing violence, support to building the evidence-base on prevention including launching a £25 million research programme, and high-level leadership on addressing violence against women and girls in humanitarian responses.

I am championing our work on female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), of which I am very proud—demonstrating UK leadership in backing an Africa-led movement on this issue. In March 2013 I announced DFID’s flagship £35 million programme which will help to end this practice within a generation with a specific objective of reducing it by 30% in at least 10 countries in five years. There are clearly links between the diaspora and what is happening within their countries of origin. Within our FGM/C programme, we will be working with diaspora communities with the specific aim of supporting ways for them to influence change in their countries of origin.

Important steps have also been taken this year at the international policy level in which the UK has played a key role. This includes the agreed conclusions reached at the 2013 UN Commission on the Status of Women which gives the international community a strong mandate to take a stand on ending violence against women and girls.

We have also seen the Foreign Secretary deliver the preventing sexual violence initiative, ensuring our efforts across Government are fully complementary. So far, the initiative led to the historic G8 declaration, and in September 2013 the ambitious declaration of commitment to end sexual violence in conflict, which, so far, 134 countries have endorsed.

Looking forward, building on the G8 commitments, on 13 November 2013, the Secretary of State for International Development will host a high level call to action on protecting girls and women in emergencies, to be held in London. This event will shine a spotlight on the actions the international community will take to better protect women and girls in emergencies.

We are also developing a new UK national action plan on women, peace and security, to be launched in March 2014. This will ensure that the UK’s work in conflict resolution and peace-building takes into account the impact of conflict on women as well as the important role they play in building a lasting peace.

Alongside the International Development Secretary, I will continue to push for the inclusion of a stand-alone goal on gender equality, which includes a target on ending violence against women and girls, in the framework that will replace the millennium development goals after 2015.

As recommended by the International Development Committee in their recent report on violence against women and girls, I am working to ensure that we continue to scale up the development and implementation of programmes to tackle violence against women and girls in all DFID priority countries.

Night Flying Restrictions

Monday 11th November 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

The Government announced on 26 March 2012 an extension of the restrictions on night flying at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports for a period of two years until October 2014.

Our subsequent first stage consultation closed on 22 April 2013 and gathered evidence on options for the next regime. We are grateful to all who took the time to respond to this.

I am announcing today the publication of a second consultation, which sets out our proposals for the next regime.

Many of the respondents to the stage 1 consultation suggested that we should take account of the findings of the airports commission before making any changes to the night restrictions regime. The commission’s final report is due to be published in summer 2015, preceded by an interim report at the end of this year.

As noise impacts are a key consideration for the commission, we agree that it would not be sensible to make any significant changes to the current regime before the commission has completed its work and the Government have had time to consider its recommendations. We therefore propose to set a three-year regime to last until October 2017, which will retain the main features of the current regime, in particular the numbers of movements and noise quota permitted.

I will place a copy of the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses.

Grand Committee

Monday 11th November 2013 Grand Committee

Monday, 11 November 2013.

15:30

Children and Families Bill

Monday 11th November 2013 Grand Committee

Committee (10th Day)

Relevant documents: 7th, 9th and 11th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee and 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.

Amendment 224

Moved by

[Lord Storey]

224: After Clause 73, insert the following new Clause—
“Part 3BYoung carersDuty on local authorities
(1) Where it appears to a local authority that a child within their area may provide or be about to provide care to an adult or a child who is disabled, the authority must—
(a) assess whether the child has needs for support relating to their caring role (or is likely to have such needs in the future), and(b) if the child is found to have such needs, set out what those needs are (or are likely to be in the future).(2) Having carried out an assessment under subsection (1), the authority must meet those needs for support which it considers to be necessary to meet in order to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare.
(3) Having carried out an assessment under subsection (1), a local authority must also consider whether the adult is or may be eligible for assessment under the Care Act 2013, and if so must ensure such an assessment is carried out unless that adult objects.
(4) Having carried out an assessment under subsection (1), a local authority must consider whether, in the case of a child who is caring for a disabled child, the child being cared for requires an assessment under the Children Act 1989 and if so shall carry out that assessment unless the person with parental responsibility for that child objects.
(5) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance in relation to the duties set out in subsections (1) to (4).
(6) The Secretary of State shall only issue guidance under subsection (5) after having first consulted persons whom the Secretary of State considers to be appropriate.
(7) Any service provided by an authority in exercise of their functions under this section may also be provided for the family or for any member of the child’s family, and may include—
(a) services to the adult the child is providing care for to meet the adult’s needs for care and support; and(b) services to the adult to enhance their parenting capacity.(8) An authority must provide services under subsection (7) if the authority considers that this is in the best interests of safeguarding or promoting the child’s welfare.”

[Lord Storey (LD)]

This is a model of how amendments can be dealt with. The ministerial team have gone to great lengths, on all these amendments, to meet and talk with people and to see if agreements can be made wherever possible. They have been absolutely stunning on the issue of young carers. They have met a whole range of people, particularly the National Young Carers Coalition—to which we pay tribute for its work—and we now have a government amendment, so I do not want to say very much.

On reflection, we have been slightly concerned about having the clash of the two Bills, but that clash has concentrated the mind. Although we cannot be in two places at once—my colleagues have dashed from the Chamber to the Moses Room—it has, somewhat surprisingly, shown the importance even more.

I will say no more. My colleague wants to go into more detail about how we can get a few issues clarified and be a bit more joined up.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, it may be helpful to the Committee if, at this point, I outline the government amendment, to enable us to have a full debate. I will, of course, respond to that debate in the usual way.

The proposed new clause in Amendment 241 was announced formally in a Written Ministerial Statement from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education on 8 October. It gives effect to the stated intention of my honourable friend the Minister for Children and Families during debates in the other place. He undertook to consolidate and simplify legislation relating to young carers’ assessments, and ensure that children’s legislation works with adults’ legislation to support the linking of assessments, as set out in the Care Bill, to enable whole family approaches.

This proposed new clause makes the following important changes to young carers’ legislation. It extends the right to an assessment of needs to all young carers, regardless of who they care for, what type of care they provide or how often they provide it. Local authorities will have to carry out an assessment of a young carer’s needs for support, on request or on the appearance of need. The proposed new clause also enables local authorities to align the assessment of a young carer with an assessment of an adult whom they care for, by making express provision in relation to combining assessments.

This last point is perhaps the most important of all. My noble friend Lord Howe and I agree that enabling local authorities to consider the needs of the whole family is the key to achieving our joint aim of protecting children and young people from excessive or inappropriate caring roles. The proposed new clause enables the necessary links to be made between a young carer’s assessment and, for example, an assessment under the Care Bill. This, together with planned future regulations and guidance under the Care Bill on whole family approaches to assessing and supporting adults, will provide a clear and joined-up legislative framework that will enable early identification and assessment of needs for support.

Over the summer, we have worked closely with interested parties from the statutory and voluntary sectors. This proposed new clause reflects those conversations. The reaction from the sector has been incredibly positive: I pay particular tribute and offer thanks to the National Young Carers Coalition, which has been especially constructive and supportive.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 224, to which we have added our names, and to Amendments 225, 226, 227, 228, 229 and 230, as well as to government Amendment 241. I echo the comments already made—that this is a very welcome breakthrough in the Government’s approach to young carers. I am very pleased at this unusually effective twin-track approach, with the Department of Health and the Department for Education coming together to address these issues from both aspects. That is a welcome development.

Without rehearsing all the arguments, we can all identify with the overwhelming evidence that there are an increasing number of children and young people caring for a family member, parent or sibling and that that is affecting their education, their chance to socialise and their health. We have not had the processes in place to identify these young people and give them the help they need, but I am pleased to say that we are now moving forward.

The key to this new requirement is the duty on local authorities to identify young carers. As we know, they are often hidden from view. Our amendment places parallel duties on schools, social care and health providers to play their part in finding these young people, and in putting in place co-ordinated support packages for the children and for those for whom they care. Our amendments spell these out in some detail. Amendment 225 also specifies a duty to provide sufficient resources to improve the well-being of all young carers in the area.

We have now had an opportunity to consider the government amendment to the Bill, and I appreciated the chance to attend the meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and with representatives of young carers’ charities. As the Minister has said, there was a strong welcome for the steps that have been taken and for the Government’s recognition of the importance of this issue. We feel that the government amendments provide a useful outline framework to address the issue. We also accept that some of the detail will inevitably have to be spelled out in regulations. However, our amendments go one step further in stipulating the specific duties required of health, social care and FE institutions. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how his amendments—which impose a much more general duty—relate to all those different aspects of the combined package that is meant to apply to young carers in future.

We have acknowledged previously that you can only go so far in driving change from the centre. There also has to be the political will at local level. Concern remains about the appetite of local government for embracing these extra duties. Their representatives were noticeably absent from the meeting we attended, though at the time we were assured that they were supportive of the changes. Would the Government look again at Amendment 225? This goes one step further than simply putting in place whole family assessments—it places a duty on local authorities to provide a range and level of service sufficient to improve the well-being of young carers. We are not just talking about the structure; we are talking about the resources as well. Without the sorts of amendments that we have put forward, there would be a concern about the level of resources made available locally. In other words, we would ensure that the resources were in place to make a real difference to these young people’s lives. Could the Minister clarify whether he agrees that there is merit in such a duty?

We also have residual concerns about the split between adult and children’s services in local government and their inability to work together in a co-ordinated fashion. These structural problems still need to be addressed going forward. How, if not in legislation, might we make some progress on these issues so that all sides of local government are talking and working together?

There is also a big training need. For example, schools and other education institutions, which often have no knowledge that their pupils are carers, need training to identify the symptoms of young carers and in the skills needed to champion their needs. As we have previously identified, teacher training has a big role to play here. Could the Minister address the issue of training, particularly at school level?

Finally, an issue came up in the Care Bill: that of parent carers. It was raised by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley. On Report, in response to her concern the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that it was the Government’s view that the main provision for assessing and supporting those caring for disabled children should be in the children’s legislation, so that the family’s need for support could be looked at holistically—in other words, it should be in this Bill. It feels as if we are addressing everybody’s needs in this wonderful new holistic arrangement apart from the parents of disabled children. How has that read-across from what happened in the Care Bill to this Bill been followed through?

Nevertheless, we feel that the Government are on the right track and support their amendment. We accept that this is a unique opportunity to improve the lives of young carers. Obviously, we should grasp that. I very much welcome the steps taken so far but would like answers on the points I have raised with the noble Lord this afternoon. That could help to make a lot of difference to young carers, in terms of the reality of their experience on the ground.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 224, to which my name is attached. I will also make some comments about government Amendment 241.

I agree with other noble Lords who think that today is a landmark moment in what has been a very long journey for young carers to get the support that they need. More than a year ago, the Government announced new rights for adult carers. Those were extremely welcome but no equivalent provisions were put forward at the time for young carers. I pay tribute to the Government today for the very hard work they have done over the summer, across government and working with the sector, to get to this situation.

Like many other commentators at the time, I was particularly surprised a year ago at that omission, given what we know about children and young people who care for someone. They are particularly vulnerable to poor outcomes and life chances. Obviously, the reasons for that are straightforward. It was clear that for far too long young carers had not been sufficiently protected by the law. Indeed, very few young carers had received statutory assessment and support. Where they did, they often continued to undertake inappropriate levels of caring, simply because the adult that they were looking after continued to have unmet needs. The law was so confusing for young carers that it often was not even clear who had responsibility for them.

These are critical points in what we are looking at today because young carers’ well-being was directly affected by how far the adult they looked after was supported. That is why the whole family approach to assessment, which we have heard about already from the Minister, is so important. If this is to make a difference in practice, it is absolutely critical that children’s and adult services are able to work together. That sounds obvious but any of us who have been involved in the sector know that in practice it is often quite the reverse.

As my noble friend Lord Storey said at the beginning, the two Bills are scheduled at the same time. Originally when I saw that, I thought “Oh my goodness, I do not know how I will cope running between the two”. Actually, I think the opportunity provided to link the Bills is rather important. It has felt quite a complex process at times but I think we are almost there.

I have a final couple of points to make. What it really comes down to now is regulations. In addition, the Government have made it absolutely clear in various briefing sessions that the Care Bill provides a whole family approach to assessment, and this will need to be set out in the regulations. I would very much welcome any further assurances the Minister can give today that all those loose ends will be tied up so that the jigsaw is absolutely complete. One of the reasons that I attached my name to Amendment 224, before the government amendment was tabled, was to make it clear that adults’ support needs should be met in order to protect children. I would particularly welcome assurances that the Government intend to look at how regulations relating to the Care Bill will make this crystal clear. I, too, commend all the collaborative work that has taken place. I pay particular tribute to the expert advice and real-life experience that the National Young Carers Coalition has fed in.

The only remaining point I would like to highlight concerns the respective roles and responsibilities of other agencies, particularly health and education agencies but social care as well, in identifying young carers and knowing how they can best be supported. That is also something I would like to see picked up in the guidance. These amendments, particularly the government amendment, together with the provision in the Care Bill, provide an excellent opportunity to set new standards for identifying young carers and approaches to supporting the whole family. Regulations and good practice guidance on these new standards would be a very good place in which to take the provision forward.

15:46

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the Government on producing their amendment, which is a significant milestone. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, spoke of a long journey. I pay tribute to all those who have been on that journey, including my colleagues at Loughborough University in the Young Carers Research Group who were there at the outset and I think coined the phrase “young carers”. They have done a lot of research which has helped lead to this conclusion. Therefore, it is very gratifying for me to thank them and all the others who have contributed to this outcome.

I pick up a point made by my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch about parents caring for disabled children. Carers UK points out that: it is three times more costly to bring up a disabled child than a non-disabled child; parent carers are more likely to be reliant on income-based state support; 34% of sick or disabled children live in households where there is no adult in paid work, compared with 18% of children who are not sick or disabled; parent carers are more likely to suffer relationship breakdown and divorce, and three or more times more likely to suffer ill health and health breakdown than parents of non-disabled children; and more than half the families who responded to its survey felt that a lack of statutory services was the key factor contributing to their feelings of isolation. A recent study by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner carried out with disabled children found that for many disabled children and their families the impact of low income on basic needs was compounded by inadequate services, personal support and information. In some areas necessary housing adaptations were hard to obtain, long delays were experienced and appropriate provision was achieved only through persistent parental pressure.

Will the Minister explain why this group does not seem to come under the whole family approach that he rightly emphasised? Will he consider having another look at this as it is now a gaping hole? I hope that he might take another look at this hole and be willing to fill it on Report.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)]

My Lords, no one can be anything but absolutely delighted at the government amendment. I, too, was at the joint meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but wish to ask some further questions, following on from the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Tyler. I am concerned that, even if a local authority had a duty in this regard, there would be extreme difficulties in continuing this journey. We are on the first step of the journey. As a long-standing practitioner, I know that the problem arises with the actual implementation of these services.

When I asked a supplementary question about the parents of disabled children, I was told that it could be dealt with in this Committee. We do not get those services for disabled children, or a proper co-ordinated family approach in local authorities, because of the difficulties they have in meeting their commitments currently. I have said this before, but I sometimes think I am living in a parallel universe where our aspirations and our joy at achieving excellent legislation cannot be matched by reality. My own local authority is about to face further cuts of £145 million on top of previous ones. Every noble Lord in this Room should know what their own local authority faces and what the implications will be for services on the ground. I want to hear from the Minister how we can meet the young carers approach and about what we might do for disabled families, because they need the services, not more legislation.

There is an answer. If we had good, co-ordinated family assessment and family workers with no duplication—I speak as a trained family case-worker in the past—where one worker undertakes the assessment and knows which experts to call on when other expertise is needed, and much more focus in terms of the work, we might actually save resources. However, I do not know how that gets into regulations. I would be very interested to see whether or not we can do that because we could revolutionise some of these services by the approach we take in implementation. We have legislation that says that disabled children should receive X, Y and Z for particular conditions, but I fear that the services are simply not there to meet the need. I am sorry if that sounds a slightly sour note—it is not meant to, as I am utterly delighted that we have this in the Bill. What I hope we can do now is to start to revolutionise services so that it actually happens, day to day, in people’s lives.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly follow what my noble friend has said in terms of the practical implementation of this very welcome work that the Government have undertaken. I remind the Committee of the difficulty posed by having continually changing professionals. We debated earlier the issue of children making their transition to adult services. On several occasions, parents have raised with me the difficulties posed by the fact that they will have several changes of social worker just as the child comes to access adult services, such that the advocacy for that child as it goes into the adult services is lost. I am very familiar in children’s services, particularly those for looked-after children, with people complaining and saying, “Look, I have had five social workers in the past two years”. People have had multiple social workers, which is very disadvantaging. When we talk about working together to improve outcomes for children, as we are here, we need to keep a good eye on the practicalities and ensure that there is more continuity of professional care. We need to keep and retain our social workers and other professionals, and not keep moving them around all the time.

Here, I would just like to raise the concerns that I have heard in the past when speaking to psychiatrists working in the health service. They feel that the service is changing and being reformed so often—with the best of intentions—that, once they get to build relationships with partners in other disciplines, they or the partner are moved on. They do not know the other people and cannot work in the kind of way I think we are talking about at the moment. I make a plea that we avoid more large-scale reorganisations of, for instance, the health service in the near future. The same story comes from social workers in local authorities, who continually experience reorganisations of their local authority, which overburdens them and, again, breaks up the relationships necessary for them to be able to make effective partnerships work in the way that we want them to work in this part of the Bill. I hope that is helpful to your Lordships.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, I join in the praise for the Government on taking this issue very seriously indeed. The Minister has brought forward a comprehensive set of proposals to cover this vital area, and it is a source of pleasure to most of us that young carers are to be given some support in the background. It will be good to watch and see what happens.

I want to ask a question about Amendment 225, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones, which seeks to insert a new clause headed “Duty to secure sufficient support”, particularly so far as schools are concerned. I speak as an officer of the National Governors’ Association. To what extent has the association passed this message on to all governing bodies? Do a sufficient number of schools have an individual governor from a background that reflects the training, knowledge and awareness to recognise the support that will be needed, and will they have specific responsibilities and duties in this respect in order to see that the policy is properly applied? This is particularly important. I go back quite a long way so far as governing bodies are concerned. Even in the context of the education Bills we have seen in recent years, it has taken some time to make it clear that governing bodies are expected to play an important role, yet they had not even been mentioned in the legislation. That, of course, has now changed, but it would be good to know how well this message has got through to governing bodies and to those with responsibilities in this area.

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Storey and Lady Tyler, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones, for proposing these new clauses. I shall turn first to the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones. I agree wholeheartedly that the effective identification of young carers and assessment of their support needs is best achieved by social care, health and education services working together and considering the whole family’s needs. We have been promoting this approach with local authorities since 2011 through the Prevention through Partnership programme delivered by the Children’s Society and funded by my department.

Our proposed new clause supports the combining of assessments. This enables the necessary link to be made between a young carer’s assessment and, for example, an assessment of the adult they care for made under provisions in the Care Bill. This will support practitioners to take a whole family approach to considering the effect of the adult’s support needs on the rest of the household and provide appropriate services that address the needs of the whole family. I also agree that it is necessary to have sufficient local services available to meet the needs of young carers. That is why we are building on the existing general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need in their area by requiring them to identify the extent to which there are young carers in their area with needs for support.

I do not agree, however, that a new duty to provide services to young carers, as proposed by my noble friends Lord Storey and Lady Tyler, along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones, is necessary or appropriate. Our aim is to start by ensuring that the eligible support needs of the person being cared for are met. Most commonly this is an adult, and the provision of services to that adult will prevent young people from having to undertake or continue in a potentially harmful caring role. If the young person still has needs for support, services can be provided under the existing general duty to safeguard and protect the welfare of children in need under the Children Act 1989.

16:00

The noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones, have also tabled three amendments which place duties on specific institutions to identify young carers. While I fully support the need to improve early identification of those with caring responsibilities, I remain unconvinced that a regulatory approach is appropriate. Once again, we are in the realm of what actually happens in practice. The key issue is about raising awareness and understanding among those working in health, education and social care of the possible impact of a caring role on young people. They will then be able to signpost them to relevant sources of information, advice and support.

We will continue to work with our statutory and voluntary sector partners to pursue non-legislative means of achieving this. For example, we are training school and community nurses to be champions for young carers. We are also working with the Children’s Society to deliver training and guidance for practitioners on identifying young carers in hard-to-reach groups. These include those supporting someone with mental illness or substance abuse problems and HIV, and those from ethnic-minority communities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked how the amendments would apply to health bodies, FE training et cetera. We do not feel that an apparently simple provision putting duties on everyone—which of course will not be simple—is the right way to achieve the culture change required to ensure that young carers are developed and their needs assessed. I will explain the other steps that will contribute to this. GPs and those working in primary health services have a vital role to play in identifying carers of all ages. For 2012-13, the Department of Health has provided funding of over £800,000 for a range of initiatives by the Royal College of General Practitioners, Carers UK, the Carers Trust, the Queen’s Nursing Institute and the Royal College of Nursing to increase awareness in primary healthcare of the needs of carers and how to access support. The Department of Health is considering further bids for funding for 2013-15.

In addition, the mandate to NHS England, published in November 2012, contains clear objectives, including one on enhancing the quality of life of people with long-term conditions and their carers. The Department of Health has also recently started training school nurses to be champions for young carers. They will speak up on their behalf and help head teachers and governors decide how best to support them at school.

Most importantly, the statutory guidance on joint strategic needs assessments specifically includes looking at the needs of young carers. This, combined with the new role for local authorities in health and well-being boards, which will be developing strategies to meet the identified needs, should result in young carers being given extra support over the coming two years.

The Children’s Society’s recent report Hidden from View includes some startling findings, perhaps none more so than that the young carers involved in the study had significantly lower educational attainment at GCSE level than their peers: the equivalent to nine grades lower overall, which is the difference between nine Bs and nine Cs. That makes clearer than ever the need for schools to identify and support their young carers. However, a legislative approach that compels them to do so will not help. The fewer burdens we put on head teachers, the more likely they are to be able to respond to the individual needs of their pupils.

We want to see all educational establishments create a supportive environment that encourages voluntary co-operation and responds to each child’s personal circumstances. It is important that head teachers and governors are allowed the necessary local freedom to exercise their welfare responsibilities in the most appropriate way. There are safeguards. For example, Ofsted inspections take particular interest in the experience of more vulnerable children, including young carers, during inspections.

There are some really good examples of good practice in schools, such as having a nominated lead teacher whom young carers can talk to, setting up young carer card schemes so that they do not have to keep explaining their situation, and making links to local young carer support groups. I accept, however, that there is plenty still to do to make this normal practice.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, asked about training. That is why I was so pleased to hear that the Big Lottery Fund is to work with the Children’s Society’s Young Carers in Focus programme on a national award scheme that allows schools to be recognised for getting it right for their young carers. Furthermore, my department has worked with the Children’s Society and the Carers Trust since 2011 to share existing tools and good practice, including an e-learning module for school staff that we developed to increase awareness in schools of young carers’ issues. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that there is a lot going on, which is what we need to see in addition to our amendment.

On the point of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Lister, about carers for disabled children, the Government recognise the tremendous job that parent carers of disabled children do and the impact that their caring responsibilities can have on their own lives. There is a strong framework of support already in place to support parent carers under the Children Act 1989 and in new provisions in Part 3 of the Bill. As noble Lords are aware, we will be debating an amendment on parent carers next week, so I will not respond to this issue further today.

My noble friend Lady Tyler raised a point about what regulations will cover. The exact content of the regulations is still under consideration, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, explained at our recent round table with Peers. Our two departments have already held constructive discussions over the summer with the National Young Carers Coalition, the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and young carers themselves to identify key principles of a whole family approach to assessment of an adult needing care and support. To ensure consistent messages around whole family approaches to assessment, the regulations from this proposed new clause and those from the Care Bill relating to the assessment of adults with care needs will be developed side by side. We anticipate issuing draft regulations and guidance for consultation in spring 2014.

I strongly agree with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about a holistic single-family assessment and the importance of implementation. It is only in part about the legislation, as was said. I will try to explain how we are seeking to develop regulations under the Care Bill to support this. Regulation-making powers about assessment in the Care Bill provide the opportunity to expand on a whole family approach to assessment, among other matters. This approach would apply when appropriate in assessing the needs of caring for adults as well as adults who need care and support. While this is particularly relevant where children and young people are providing care to an adult, it will also be relevant to other family members.

We have identified the following principle to inform the drafting of regulations about a whole family approach when assessing an adult. The adult’s assessment should reflect the impact that their care and support needs have on the adult’s responsibilities as a parent of a child under 18, and responsibilities for the function of a family and household. The adult’s assessment should take into consideration the impact of any care and support responsibilities on a child’s well-being, welfare, education and/or development. If a young carer’s need for support cannot be met through meeting the adult’s need for care and support, consideration must be given to whether they might be entitled to assessment and support in their own right as a child in need under the Children Act 1989, or for assessment as a young carer under the provisions that we are debating today. The Department of Heath plans to publish these drafts for consultation in May 2014, aligning with publication of our regulations. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, will see progress when we do so.

Finally, picking up on the point of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about children experiencing constant change of professionals, I will point him to some work in Hackney which seems to be making good progress on this in ensuring that families work with one professional for as long as possible.

I hope that your Lordships will agree that our proposed new clause represents a significant step forward in improving outcomes for young carers and their families. I therefore urge noble Lords to support that amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, to withdraw his.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I will press the Minister on one thing. He has clearly not referred to governing bodies at all in what he said or in his own amendment. What responsibility does he see that governing bodies will have to know what is going on and to be active elements in seeing that it is delivered?

[Lord Nash]

The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has raised an important point. As she probably knows, school governance is an area on which we are focusing a lot more. To date we have not involved the National Governors’ Association in this, but I agree that it is important that governing bodies are fully aware of and involved in this in terms of training programmes for school nurses and others. I would be very happy to talk to the NGA about how it can ensure that governors focus on this issue more closely.

[Lord Storey]

I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 224.

Amendment 224 withdrawn.

Amendments 225 to 230 not moved.

Amendment 231

Moved by

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

231: After Clause 73, insert the following new Clause—
“Personal and social education
After section 78 of the Education Act 2002 insert—“78A Duty of schools to promote the academic, spiritual, cultural, mental and physical development of children
(1) All schools shall make explicit to parents, school governors and pupils how they deliver—
(a) school policies which contribute to the health and well being of pupils;(b) pastoral care focused on the safety and well being of pupils and which, where appropriate, works in conjunction with support systems from agencies outside the school;(c) a school ethos which fosters respect for self and others;(d) a school curriculum from which pupils gain the information and skills to support their academic, emotional, moral, physical and cultural well being and which prepares them for adult life; and(e) the school’s commitment to democratic principles and good citizenship.(2) The above shall be delivered as appropriate to the age, readiness and needs of pupils in the school.””

[Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)]

My Lords, I ask Members of the Committee to allow me to remain seated while I move my amendment because I am still recovering from a close encounter between my head and a paving stone in New York, and I would rather not stand.

Amendment 231 has two purposes. It seeks to guarantee for all children and young people an education, in whatever establishment the education takes place, that will equip them with the skills and knowledge to succeed both now and in the future. It also seeks a guarantee that their well-being and protection be safeguarded. Further, I put forward the view that personal, social and health education, PSHE, is only partly a discrete subject in the curriculum. These issues form part of the whole school life; they are not just topics. Ofsted stated recently that PSHE is patchy in schools and not always of high quality. I want to try to describe how school policies, pastoral care, the school ethos, curriculum and democratic principles all contribute to enhancing opportunities for children and young people.

I believe that the Minister will agree with me on this, but I suspect that he may read out all the duties on schools and academies, and perhaps even on free schools, which are currently set out in legislation and guidance. I hope that he does not do that because we have gone through all this before. Yes, there is guidance and, yes, there is legislation, much of it couched in indirect language that is vague and aspirational. I suggest that that is not good enough. I hear a good deal from Ministers and the media about the rights and freedoms of schools, about league tables, and about what the curriculum should contain. However, I hear very little about the importance of fostering personal development and self-confidence in children, and how that often underpins the ability to learn. This is about the rights of the child.

My amendment does not prescribe what schools should teach or what might be their policies and practices. It simply requires them to state what they provide in relation to their policies, pastoral care, ethos, curriculum and democratic principles. In other words, I seek to make explicit for pupils, parents, governors and those otherwise connected to a school what that school delivers. There are no cost implications to this.

I was most interested in the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about two weeks ago, when he said that custodial institutions for young people should follow the practice in schools. I believe that the principles I have set down here would be very pertinent to young people in custody. I also maintain that in a safe and well ordered school, based on respect for self and others, learning and academic results will be improved. I have seen this happen often in schools that were at risk, which were turned around by placing an emphasis on respect, order and clarity of purpose.

I should like to speak first about school policies on bullying, behaviour, young carers and pupils’ health needs. It is reassuring that the Department for Education has recently announced that schools must have in place a policy on the long-term health needs of their pupils, but children—perhaps it is only a small minority of pupils—also suffer from the effects of bullying and bad behaviour. Pupils being bullied and those who do the bullying both need appropriate help. Expected standards of behaviour need to be clear to pupils, teachers, parents and governors. If no one knows what the school policy is on this, how do they know what to do?

16:14

I will move on to pastoral care that focuses on the safety and well-being of pupils. Schools can often spot a child who is in difficulty: they may be physically marked, sullen and inattentive, or absent. Schools can call on help from medical and social services, the police and so on. However, we know of examples where children attending school have slipped the net and been harmed. If no one knows what the pastoral care policy is, how does intervention for the child happen?

You can smell a school ethos when you walk into the school. How are you greeted? What does the school look like—for example, is any children’s art or poetry on the walls or displays about school visits, wildlife or achievement in sport? Do the children walk down the corridors in an orderly way? Are they confident and polite with each other and with adults? A positive school ethos does not just happen but is something the leadership and staff—all staff, teaching and non-teaching—create. That is what good schools do, in both the public and private sector. They are proud of the qualities that they encourage in staff and pupils. You only have to look at the evaluation of UNICEF’s Rights Respecting Schools programme to see how a whole school ethos encourages good learning and good citizens. If no one knows how to encourage a positive school ethos, how will they know that the ethos is important?

On the curriculum, we all know that structured learning is at the heart of a school and develops—or should develop—at each stage of the child’s development. For example, a child learns to read and he or she goes on to read more and more complex material. Children read simple stories, then more complex literature, before they read Shakespeare. That might be in sex and relationships education, drug education or alcohol education, which dovetails with the amendments of my noble friend Lady Hughes and Lady Jones. Young children can learn about parts of the body, friendships and respect for others before they go on, as older pupils, to discuss changes in their bodies, sexual feelings and emotions, and risk-taking. Learning is, in all subjects, a spiral. Subjects such as sport, music, drama and art all encourage teamwork and respect for others. Teachers, of course, do not do it all—I certainly never did. They invite specialists in to enhance pupil learning in areas such as drugs, alcohol or sexual health. Parents and governors have a right to know what children in a school are learning at each stage, while pupils need structure. If that structure is not there, how does anyone learn and how do they know what they have learnt?

I move on to democratic principles, which some would call citizenship. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, sitting opposite, who introduced a most excellent debate recently about the importance of citizenship in schools and in higher education. Again, young children can learn in school about participation in a group, respecting the views of others and taking responsibility. I have seen many primary and secondary schools with a school council, which contributes to the school’s thinking on, for example, discipline, school meals and so on. As the child matures, they may learn about national and local structures of decision-making. If we hope that people will vote and take part in democratic processes in this country, early introduction to the importance of democracy is surely important.

I believe that all children and young people have a right to a broad education that encourages excitement in learning and joy at being in a school community where they feel safe, respected and nurtured, and where principles of self-discipline and respect for others and self are paramount. If children grow up with these principles, they will surely be better equipped to be better citizens and parents and to enhance that most important quality, home learning. Home learning and parents are the key to confidence and success for children. Sadly, that is sometimes lacking.

The cycle of deprivation still exists: all pupils do not have the benefit of a stable, nurturing home, where expectations are clear and learning encouraged. Schools can help to counteract that, not by trying to “teach” children of two or by pouring in more so-called academic learning, but by having clear purposes on how children will be helped to be secure and motivated to learn. Most schools are proud to make public their policies and practices on personal development and learning, but some do not. If schools receive state funding, then they surely have a duty to the state to demonstrate that they provide a good, broad education for our children. That is all I seek: not to prescribe what they teach or what should be in a policy, but to advocate that schools make provisions and policies transparent and visible with regard to how they intend to develop pupils’ personal, social and health needs as well as their academic needs.

My amendment would encourage action on what schools provide for our children. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 232(Rev) and 233 as this might help with the subsequent debate.

I warmly endorse the contribution of my noble friend Lady Massey and the amendment in her name. She always speaks with enormous weight and confidence on these issues. The amendments in my name are slightly more specific and both propose new clauses relating to the provision of sex and relationship education in schools.

Amendment 232(Rev) is a detailed amendment which would place PSHE in the national curriculum at all four key stages, covering primary and secondary schools. It aims to broaden and update the curriculum to ensure that, in an age-appropriate way, sex education emphasises the importance of loving relationships. It is vital that this subject is taught by those skilled to deal with complex emotional and developmental issues, who might not therefore be based in science departments.

Because young people need to better understand the physical and emotional journey to maturity, they have the right to information about same-sex relationships, the danger of sexual and domestic violence and a much clearer understanding of body awareness and sexual consent. They also need help in resisting the pressures to achieve a size-zero body shape, while understanding the dangers of obesity.

These are all complex issues which require specialist teachers if they are to be handled successfully. The amendment would require the content to be put out to consultation, to ensure that it was age-appropriate for children at different stages—in the way described by my noble friend Lady Massey—and would give parents the right to opt their child out of sex and relationship education up to the age of 15. It would also apply to all schools.

Amendment 233 concerns the need to update the statutory sex and relationship guidance issued by the department to schools. It would require the Secretary of State to convene a round table of experts to update the guidance, which was last updated in 2000 and which contains no reference to the impact on the lives of young people of mobile technology, the internet or online bullying. This update is, therefore, long overdue. We have all been appalled by the recent cases of child grooming, which have highlighted the urgency with which government authorities and agencies need to act to prevent abuse of children and young people. In recent court cases, it became clear that the young girls concerned had no idea what they were getting into or how easily they could be exploited. Meanwhile, research by the Children’s Commissioner has found that too many young people do not know what a healthy relationship looks like any more and do not even know what consent means. In the absence of effective education, they are, literally, modelling themselves on internet images instead.

There is a growing body of support demanding that this issue be addressed. Organisations such as the Girl Guides, Mumsnet, the National Association of Head Teachers and the Mothers’ Union are calling for the guidance to be updated. Even the Telegraph newspaper is running an excellent Wonder Women campaign, calling for sex and relationship guidance to be updated. It cites some shocking statistics; one-fifth of boys between the ages of 16 and 20 told the University of East London that they were

“dependent on porn as a stimulant for real sex”.

In the University of East London survey, 66% of girls between the ages of 12 and 16 say that pornographic images and content are their main source of sexual knowledge; they say they find that information from Facebook. A study by the NSPCC found that almost a third of school pupils believe that online pornography dictates how young people in a relationship should behave towards each other. A study of 601 pupils, aged 11 to 18, revealed that girls feel that they have to act like porn stars in order to be liked by boys. How sad it is that we have come to this. For those of us who think that sex education should be the parents’ responsibility, their survey also showed that young people are three times more likely to go online to find out about sex and relationships than they are to ask their parents. The result of our inaction is that teenagers are being influenced by violent, pornographic images, leading to increasing violence in their relationships.

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, whose Private Member’s Bill has sought to limit young people’s access to adult pornography and I support that piece of legislation. However, we need to approach this whole issue from a number of different directions, and education has a key role to play. We argue that our country is breaching its commitment to Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires us to take all,

“social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse”.

The Welsh Government have already updated their sex and relationship education, building on Article 19, and addressing the rights of the child to have the necessary information to make informed personal choices. So, at a national and international level, the pressure is on us to act.

Both Nick Clegg and David Cameron have backed the Telegraph campaign. In September, the Prime Minister vowed to update sex and relationship education, to bring it into the 21st century, and to ensure that teachers were equipped to talk about the dangers of the internet. We also have support from the Cross Benchers, from the Bishops and from the Lib Dems—although we have yet to hear from them—so I hope that this will be a cross-party issue.

Unfortunately, Michael Gove remains opposed to updating the guidance, and seems to be blocking it. In a recent interview, he said that he thought sex education ought to be timeless. The Minister also appears to be taking this line. On Wednesday 30 October, when asked about this by my noble friend Lady Hughes, he said:

“Technology is moving very fast, and we do not think that constant changes to the regulations and top-down diktats are the way to deal with this”.—[Official Report, 30/10/13; col. 1580].

Regrettably, this does not match the reality of 21st-century life. Yes, the recent pace of technological and social change has been huge, but it has also had an enormous impact on children’s personal and sexual development. We have to keep pace with these developments, in order to provide proper support for these young people.

We have to acknowledge that young people are being hurt and traumatised by trying to form relationships in a new world that they do not really understand. We cannot remove all these pressures and expectations, but we can give them better tools and insight to help them develop mutual respect and loving relationships. This is what an update of the guidance can deliver, and I hope that noble Lords will support this really important amendment.

16:30

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, the Committee is about to hear from the Lib Dems because I was delighted to add my name to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, in support of her amendment. I am delighted to see her in her place and congratulate her on the quality of her introductory speech. If she can do that after a bang on the head, what on earth could she do without one?

Current legislation in relation to PSHE and SRE is very confused. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that making PSHE, including SRE, a statutory part of the national curriculum would make schools much more accountable for what they delivered. Young people all say that they want a comprehensive, high-quality programme of PSHE. Teachers themselves are campaigning for it, a large percentage of parents want it and most of the children’s organisations are also campaigning for it. That is why I also support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to make PSHE part of the national curriculum and, indeed, to put an expert group together to look again at the guidance. An enormous amount of expertise is available to the Government on this subject and they should listen to it.

The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, is very clever as it builds on a duty that schools already have. I am sad to say that this Government have already made clear their position on making PSHE part of the national curriculum. In my view, a few warm words in the preamble to the national curriculum is not enough but the Government have stated what they want to do or rather what they do not want to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, has considered a duty that schools already have. Hardly anyone could disagree with the wording of her amendment. Frankly, it occurs to me that no school could comply with this amendment without teaching a comprehensive programme of high-quality PSHE.

I wish to comment on two of the five important paragraphs in proposed new subsection (1) of the noble Baroness’s amendment. As regards a school’s ethos, she mentioned rights-respecting schools. It is very important for children’s own protection that their personal self-respect is built up by a programme of PSHE and by everything which happens to them within the school. I have visited a rights-respecting school where I saw some of the most mature young people that I have met in any school. The pleasant, relaxed and respectful relationship that existed not only between the young people themselves but between the young people and their teachers was outstanding. That is the sort of relationship that is conducive to high-quality learning. Paragraph (d) in the amendment refers to the duty of schools to promote,

“a school curriculum from which pupils gain the information and skills to support their academic, emotional, moral, physical and cultural well being and which prepares them for adult life”.

What are we doing with children in schools if we are not preparing them for adult life?

Children who have self-respect and confidence and feel comfortable and happy in their school environment are good learners and that will help them to achieve academically as well. We are not talking about a soft subject here; we are talking about a very important underpinning for all the academic subjects and the high-quality qualifications which we hope all young people will get in their schools, given good-quality teaching. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, is absolutely right that it is important that this issue is in the curriculum but it is also important to understand that this is not just about the curriculum but about the development of the whole child across the whole school. Many schools put PSHE right at the very heart of everything they do. They do not just teach it as a subject; it is a fundamental underpinning of everything that the children do. However, it is also important to teach them all the things they need to know to help them develop into well balanced, confident adults and to protect them from all the dangers that there are out there for them.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to have been tempted into the Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, who asked if I would put my name to her amendment. I was very glad to do so.

To begin, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, made some very telling points in her speech. I often wish that we had never had the internet invented but the fact is that it is there, it cannot be uninvented and it has brought a new dimension to the lives of young people—a dimension with which they find it exceptionally difficult to grapple. The noble Baroness was very right to underline that.

Many years ago, because I have been in this building for 43 years, I was a schoolmaster for 10 years. When I talk to my grandchildren—three granddaughters and a grandson, ranging in ages from eight to 16—I realise what a very different world they are growing up into. The challenges and moral dilemmas they face are so different from those of the relatively simple and stable society when I taught in a Church of England school in the early 1960s. Perhaps the biggest problem we had to deal with was the odd Woodbine behind the bicycle shed. Now our young people, almost all of whom are computer literate and equipped with mobile phones—of a very advanced nature in many cases—have their privacy invaded and eroded in a way that most of them are not emotionally able to tackle.

I am not a believer in censorship. I never thought I would hear myself saying this in either House of Parliament but I am afraid that I have come to the conclusion that we must censor this heavy pornographic material which pollutes minds, distorts lives and destroys them, often even before they have properly begun. If that means being very tough with the purveyors of this filth, and denying adults access to it, so be it. Not a single life is enhanced by the filth and degrading material that we know about and read about. In Parliament, we must be adult enough and give leadership to provoke our Ministers and political leaders in all parties into accepting that we cannot solve these problems by pussy-footing around.

I am wholly with the noble Baroness in what she sought to say in referring to her amendment. I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that it would be no bad thing if he and the Secretary of State convened a meeting of Members of both Houses of Parliament to discuss ways and means of tackling this appalling problem. It must be Members from all political persuasions because this is not, in any sense, an issue where party should raise its head for a moment.

Now, I pass back to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, which I was very glad to sign. I am delighted that she has survived her encounter with a New York pavement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, did, I congratulate her on her very cogent presentation of an amendment that is in fact a statement of common sense. That is why I strongly support it.

The noble Lord, Lord Nash, knows, because he has been good enough to see me on a number of occasions since the debate on citizenship, that I have a passionate interest in that. I have been able to convene a group of Members of your Lordships’ House from all parties and the Cross Benches, and we met with the noble Lord, Lord Nash, just three weeks ago to discuss our desire to see citizenship playing a much more important part in the curriculum. We would like to think that all young people, before they leave school have the opportunity to participate in their local communities in one way or another. The noble Lords, Lord Clarke of Hampstead and Lord Ramsbotham, talked about bodies such as the National Trust, which wish to engage the services of young people. It does not matter whether their interest is in helping the elderly or the young, or engaging in heritage or environmental projects. Each young person is a member of his or her community and should recognise that that brings with it obligations as well as rights. We have suggested to the Minister that we would like to see every young person, having engaged in community service, having the opportunity to have a citizenship certificate. That is not a cataloguing of academic achievement, but recognition of their participation in the community. We base this on the citizenship ceremony, which was denigrated before it happened. People who become British citizens go through this, and many of them think it is a wonderful rite of passage, which it would also be for our young people to have something similar. That was one reason, when I saw the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, why I was so glad to add my name to it.

There are other reasons. The noble Baroness talks in the preamble about:

“Duty of schools to promote the academic, spiritual, cultural, mental and physical development of children”.

That spiritual dimension is, sadly, all too often neglected. Without vision, they say, the people perish. Without a spiritual dimension, young people—all people—are impoverished. There should be this opportunity, and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, is so right to highlight that in bold letters at the beginning of her new clause. Following on from that, the pastoral care, about which she talked movingly, really ought to be at the core of any good school’s being. You do not know a pupil unless you know his or her home and social background, just as a doctor who only sees people in a surgery and never at home has a one-dimensional view. How many of the awful, dreadful things that have happened in recent years may not have happened if there had been a greater degree of pastoral care and real knowledge on the part of the school? The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, is so right to emphasise:

“focused on the safety and well being of pupils and which, where appropriate, works in conjunction with support systems”.

I would also say, “works in conjunction with”—if they have a religious faith—“the priest”, or “the imam”, or whoever. It is very important indeed.

16:45

Of course, this leads on to something that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, talked about, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which is the ethos of the school. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, is quite right: you walk into a school and you know whether it feels right. There were some wonderful primary schools in my former constituency in Staffordshire. When you went in, you would have what was often the very small head boy or head girl, perhaps only 11 years old, shaking you by the hand in greeting and proudly showing you works of art and so on. You knew you were somewhere where the children both cared and were cared for. Through the Peers in Schools programme I recently visited a couple of schools in Lincolnshire. It was immediately apparent that there was a sense of commitment on the part of pupils and staff. When that happens, discipline is not a particular problem. This is something that we all ought to realise. Discipline is a question not of wielding a weapon of any kind—in my young days as a schoolmaster that was part of the curriculum; not that I personally did it—but of making young people feel they are truly part of something that is worth while and that they are learning things that are worth while.

The bad teacher is the one who goes by rote, reads out the book and gets the pupils to read paragraphs from it. I saw an example of that not long ago. Of course the children are bored stiff, as would we all be. A good teacher is the one who makes a subject exciting because he or she knows about it and wishes to transmit an infectious enthusiasm to others. If there are good teachers, the school ethos will be right.

What the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, has done here is to put down a little coda which no one can really disagree with. I hope that no noble Lord in this Committee disagrees, and most of all I hope that the Minister does not disagree. When he comes to respond, I hope that not only will he acknowledge the pertinent and telling points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, he will also respond positively and enthusiastically to the simple and profound amendment before us.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a film maker because it is in that capacity that I have spent the past 18 months making a documentary film about teenagers and the internet. I wish to speak only to Amendment 233, which is the narrowest of the amendments in the group, but in my view it is important and I have added my name to it.

The amendment is very modest, but within it lies the suggestion that at this time young people need additional help to navigate a world in which the very concept and experience of growing up has changed completely. It is a new and confusing world in which videos featuring beheadings occupy the same space as a homework assignment. The intense sexualisation of media and merchandising, the ubiquitous presence of hardcore pornography and the pressures of 24/7 connectivity are not simply the stuff of the Sunday papers. These are palpable pressures in the real-world lives of young people, and they have real-world impacts. Young people mirror pornographic scenarios denuded of the concept of consent and, most importantly in my view, of intimacy of any kind. They adopt a culture of anonymity that teaches cruelty without responsibility.

The working group should pay particular attention to the role of the internet and social media in sex and relationship education and in online bullying and harassment. It should do so with one eye on the particular problem of young people with learning difficulties, who are extremely vulnerable in this unfettered world. It should address the specific question of the demands placed on young women of body image, sexual norms and its relationship to self-harm. I have read much of the research and it is compelling.

The Government’s stated position is that the current, 2000 curriculum provides a good foundation on which teachers can build. But it has not been updated in 13 years. In that time, the ways in which young people access information, learn about sex and negotiate their interpersonal relationships has profoundly changed. The advent of the smartphone has been a game-changer. It is not simply about the internet and computers; the smartphone ensures that the adult world, in its full beauty and abject horror, is in the hands of children. It is a device which ensures that, once in trouble, a child finds it very difficult to get away. It is a personal device which effectively means that parents can no longer reasonably expect to fully know what their child is accessing or who is accessing their child.

The Minister has also said that the Government,

“trust teachers to deliver the education that pupils need and adjust it for the modern world”.

Teachers are crying out for a new level of information, uninflected and up to date. As someone who has conducted hundreds of hours of interviews over the last year, with some of the most eminent academics on this subject, I have had access to the research. I have also done hundreds of hours of interviews with young people. It is beyond any single teacher’s capability to collate information in a meaningful way and in an up-to-date manner, for the new world order that presents so many problems for young people. I cannot imagine any reasonable grounds on which the Government would refuse to gather the most recent research and best practice, and put it in a form where it is easily accessible to teachers and parents.

I quote the Minister again:

“Technology is moving very fast, and we do not think that constant changes to the regulations and top-down diktats are the way to deal with this”.—[Official Report, 30/1/13; col. 1580].

It is moving very fast. Very soon, we will have an entire generation that has learned its sexual norms from hardcore pornography; friendship rules from Facebook, and self-image from Pinterest and the rest. Of the many professionals I spoke to, not one—either technological or educational—suggested a list of sex regulations or diktats. However, hundreds of adults—parents and professionals—say that they feel more equipped to guide the young when they have the authority of robust information.

I have been absent from this Chamber during Committee on this Bill, so I have had the singular privilege of reading nine days of debate in one weekend. One of the exciting, or perhaps encouraging, things—and noble Lords may not realise this—is that the conversation was littered with the words “holistic”, “whole child”, “whole family” and “child-centred”. I suggest that this modest amendment sits very well within the deliberations of the Bill and reflects that attitude. The only possible reason for rejecting it, because it marks such a small step that needs so little in the way of resources, is the fear of what the working group it would create might recommend. I would ask the Minister to find a way of gathering the guidance, even if there is then a further debate and a fight about what we might then do with it.

I will not quote the many supporters of this idea because others have already done so, but I take the opportunity to say that all the research I have done and the people I have gathered on my journey I would be happy to put in the service of the Minister and Her Majesty’s Government.

[The Lord Bishop of Oxford]

My Lords, I also would like to speak briefly in support of Amendment 233, which was so ably and vividly introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I have a particular responsibility in the Church of England for education, so I am pleased to be able to bring that authority and support, as it were, on behalf of all the schools that I represent. This is a small but important and crucial piece of work.

As has been said, it is interesting to note that the Mothers’ Union, the Children’s Society and a further 70 different organisations which are involved in and have some knowledge of this area all support the proposal. It was a few years ago now, but the board of education that I represent worked with the Sex Education Forum to try to produce some new guidance, but unfortunately that work was not taken up. It is clear from all we have been saying that the purpose of education is not simply to present children who can pass exams, but to create an opportunity for young people to take control of their lives and values, and to realise their hopes through their approach to life. It is a much larger task, and for that social, emotional and spiritual intelligence is important, along with academic prowess. When the chips are down, nothing matters more to us than our relationships and how we form them. As we have just heard described so vividly, this is a new age for people as they form their relationships.

Building a network of friendships and exploring more intimate relationships with particular people are hard tasks for young people today because they have been made extremely complex by the rapid changes in technology. It is in fact some 13 years of revolution since the last guidelines were produced. This is a fascinating world, but it is a jungle, and our young people have to navigate it. A rare consensus seems to be building around the need to update the guidelines, so it is vital that we seize this opportunity. As part of its commitment to addressing these issues, the board of education that I represent has been compiling resources for use in church schools and any other schools to help combat homophobic bullying. That is an important piece of work, but the problems go much wider. Given that, I want to say briefly that we need to get on the case urgently.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

My Lords, briefly, I lend my support to all three amendments. In their different ways they are designed to do something about which I feel absolutely passionate, which is to make sure that all children and young people, in whatever sort of school they are, have access to high-quality, age-appropriate and up-to-date sex and relationships education. Of course, I always put it the other way around and say “relationships and sex education”, for a reason I shall come to in a moment; that is absolutely critical. We must focus on the need for all young people to understand the importance of healthy relationships. It should serve them as part of their fundamental education going through life.

I have read through all the evidence of what people think at the moment. We have heard it and I do not want to repeat it. We know what the National Association of Head Teachers thinks. We saw the reports of the consultation on PSHE education in March this year and the Mumsnet survey. I will just quote from the Brook survey of 2011, where one in four young people said they did not get any sex and relationships education in schools at all and 26% of those that did said that their SRE teacher was not able to teach it well. I fundamentally believe that relationship education should be a compulsory part of the national curriculum and taught by specialist teachers and others who really understand these things. At the very beginning, I should have declared an interest as vice-president of the charity Relate.

17:00

Two more points, quickly: when I reviewed the evidence, some of the international evidence in particular talked about the very important protective function that sex and relationships education can have on young people. Those who have really good experiences of this are more likely to choose to have sex for the first time later, use contraception and have fewer sexual partners. We heard earlier, in the set of amendments about young carers, about links between education and health. There is a strong correlation between young people receiving good-quality relationships and sex education and various public health objectives, which are so critical. They are particularly critical to women. The evidence tells us that they have resulted in earlier reporting of sexual abuse, and in some cases its prevention, reduction in intimate partner violence, reduced numbers of unplanned pregnancies, reduced maternal and infant mortality, and prevention and earlier treatment of sexually transmitted infections, as well as reducing the gap in health inequalities. These are important things. The very foundation stone of all this is good-quality relationships and sex education.

I had the great privilege this morning to be part of a launch event in the House of Commons for the Relationships Alliance. That was about emphasising the huge importance of relationships in all aspects of people’s lives, through all stages of their lives, and its links with public policy. It was absolutely clear there that this has to start young, with high-quality relationship education available to all children. I was delighted to hear this morning that in Northern Ireland it is officially called relationships and sexuality education. That gets it the right way round; it sets the context and then gets to the important aspect of sex education as well. I wholeheartedly support the attempts being made through these amendments to shine a spotlight on this crucial issue.

[Lord Northbourne (CB)]

My Lords, my Amendment 57, which had a great deal of support earlier on in this Committee, was on roughly the same subject as and to a great extent coincides with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. I congratulate her on an amendment which I almost—almost—entirely support.

I have two things to say here. First, there is a decision to make. The opposition amendment—shall we call it that?—puts the burden upon the state to list the things that schools must do. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and my amendment both place that obligation on the schools themselves. That has a number of implications. I will not go into those in any detail but it will make schools think harder and it is more in line with what I believe to be the Government’s policy, so perhaps it is more likely to happen.

The other point about these two sets of amendments, particularly the second set, is that they are only about sexual relationships. If you think about life, other sorts of relationship are equally important. Particularly in the context of sexual relationships, the relationship between a parent and their child is crucial. I would like to see built somewhere into these amendments a reference to other important forms of relationship. For goodness’ sake, no one can tell me that relationships in the workplace do not matter, or when dealing with clients, in social life or looking after older people and children. Sexual relationships are frightfully important and I agree that at that stage of a child’s development it is important that they should be given the detail and information, and be able to question and think about those relationships, but it should be done in the context of all interpersonal relationships.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I go back a long way on the whole business of citizenship, which is what I shall call it. When I came into this House, a new Government arrived shortly afterwards and my noble friend Lord Northbourne was keen on promoting something called citizenship. Suddenly there was an idea that citizenship was actually going to be taught. I think we assumed that citizenship would encompass some of the less explicit things we have been talking about in the debate, and an awful lot of them were going to be taught within this subject. However, it did not happen. The subject was spread around a lot of other different subjects being taught, and nothing was made of it.

We have seen a huge change in the influences bearing on young people and on families more generally. I listened with great interest to my noble friend Lady Kidron, who is writing a book or making a programme—I do not know which it is—about this whole area. My goodness, what she has uncovered and described to us is something that I am afraid we are becoming more aware of every day.

What I would like to see, along with the superb amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, which we all support, is real attention being paid to how we can address this issue. I am afraid that we have moved much further up the sexual agenda. I am grateful for the comments that have been made about my Private Member’s Bill, but having listened to what has been said in this debate, I almost feel that it is out of date. However, there is a lot of emphasis on this in the redraft and it is still awaiting its Second Reading; I hope that that will come soon. There is a lot more about education and support of that kind in the Bill. Judging by the number of noble Lords who have talked about this subject today, I hope that we shall see lots of them in the Chamber when the Bill is debated.

I will not go into the specific details of what I would like to see being covered, but I hope that the Minister has, above all, listened to what has been said. My noble friend Lord Cormack—I call him that we because we have known one another in different capacities for many years, although we do not necessarily always agree on every subject—made an extremely telling contribution. Again, I hope that the Minister will pay a huge amount of attention to what is set out in this amendment and to what has been debated. It is absolutely the gist of what we have to deal with in the future if we are to bring up the next generation, particularly young women, with sufficient self-esteem, knowledge of and confidence in themselves to play their full role. I fear that all too many young women are regarded as objects in today’s world, which is a terrifying comment on what we have failed to achieve so far. This is a major challenge, but I will not go on because we have had a very good discussion. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that this issue is going to be taken seriously.

[Baroness Perry of Southwark (Con)]

I am sure that we are all very happy to bring this fascinating discussion to a close, but I want to make one point. I was seized by what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said in discussion on the previous amendment. We can sit in this building and make laws, decide what should happen and sometimes even get it into legislation, but what matters is how it is delivered in reality. My only point is that all these splendid things—citizenship, relationship education, spiritual and moral development and so on—have to be delivered by teachers. Unless we have the right teachers who are properly trained, it simply will not happen. We can write it into the books, but we ought to spend far more time addressing what actually happens in the selection and training of teachers than simply on what we ask them to deliver.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

Since the noble Baroness has just mentioned my name, I will say one sentence. I absolutely agree with her; all I will ever talk about is implementation and application. However, in this context the revision of the guidance on sex education would be such a support to teachers that it would make a difference.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, following what has just been said, the strongest reason for making PSHE statutory has been the case put by teachers. This would be the way to ensure that teacher training bodies really put a priority on training for PSHE. Teacher training is skewed towards what is statutory in the curriculum. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. We need to empower teachers so that they have the confidence to hold these conversations with young people. Doing what is suggested in these amendments would make that more possible.

I warmly welcome the words of the vastly experienced noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I vaguely remember that the previous Government commissioned an expert group to produce a report on this topic which was presented some time ago. I felt at the time that it was a little soft. I so admire my noble friend Lady Howe, who is absolutely right to bring forward, very late in the day, her Bill to regulate the availability of this material on the internet. Perhaps the Minister will be able to use his good offices to take back to those thinking about the Bill a little encouragement to move ahead with the Second Reading because it is so concerning. I hear from other sources concerns about gangs of boys and the way young women are treated, and how that has changed because of what young men are seeing on the internet. It is very troubling. I support all these amendments.

One particular point has always niggled at me. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred to same-sex education in particular. I had an experience some years ago when visiting a children’s home. The manager was gay. There was a young man there who certainly dressed in quite an effeminate way and could have been called gay, and the manager was saying, “Well, this young man is gay”. My concern is that it is of course a common experience for children to be attracted to the same sex as they grow up, but many of them grow out of it. Those who take the most active role in this particular area are sometimes overly enthusiastic in promoting an attitude. In dealing with these sensitive same- sex issues, on which people get so polarised, there should be a recognition that young people experience attraction to other young people of the same sex, but most of them grow through it. There should not be a misunderstanding that if one seems to be attracted to other members of the same sex in one’s mid-teens, for instance, that that is one’s sexuality and how one is now set. I am sure that that is not the intention, but it is my sense of how this sometimes comes out. Some reassurance on this point, not necessarily in Committee, would be welcome.

17:15

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

Can I come back briefly on that? The noble Earl has underlined the point we were making: addressing these issues requires specialist teachers with proper guidance. I agree that you cannot pigeonhole young people and say that just because you are attracted at one moment in your life to someone of the same or different sex, then you are that for life. People have complex emotional experiences and they need to find the terminology to make sense of the journey they are going on. It is all very complicated, but that is why you need really well trained teachers who can explain this. The alternative of pigeonholing in the way the noble Earl has described makes young people feel very confused. They do not have any understanding of the language to express what they are feeling, or they do not think anyone will listen to or respect them if they admit it, or they think they will be bullied. A way has to be found to put all these issues on the table so that people can feel confident about their sexuality, whichever route it will finally takes them on.

[Lord Storey]

First, I welcome the very clever amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. Sometimes we have to remember the journey we have come on and how we have created some of these problems ourselves. We had a national curriculum with core and foundation subjects which was, if you like, the bible of schooling. At the time it was very progressive and a great deal of thought went into it. There might have been disagreements about what the subjects should be, but it laid down clearly what every pupil would be taught. It was easy for trainers to train teachers because they knew what the national curriculum was.

As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, knows, the legislation laid down clearly that every school should have a daily collective act of worship. That does not happen in schools any more, although it is still the law of the land. Ofsted, when it reports, has concerns about how schools try to get round it by having a quick prayer in the classroom or whatever. So that was covered, and inspectors came to schools knowing what they were inspecting. It was not just a very narrow definition of inspections. They would look at the whole ethos of a school, and in their reports would actually use the phrase—mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—“feel the ethos”. They would shadow a pupil for a whole day to see their experience in the school. Then as a society we thought, “Hang on a second, we are being too prescriptive here. We need to let schools be free and decide what they want to do. Perhaps the national curriculum is a bit too much for them; perhaps the type of school is all a bit too organised and bureaucratic”.

The previous Government went down the route of academies, particularly for schools that were failing pupils. Academies had slimmed-down curriculums where they did not have to teach the national curriculum so they did not have to do some things which they did not think important, whether that was PSHE or sex and relationship education or whatever. We have built on that tradition and, as political parties have coalesced round it, we have said that we want a slimmed-down curriculum. There is a lot of merit in that because in the past more of society’s concerns have been pushed on to schools, which could not cope. We now have a slimmed-down curriculum so that schools can breathe and build on their strengths. Certain schools, such as free schools or academies, do not have to follow it. What is more, we will move to being more flexible on who can teach.

We have got to a situation with the national curriculum where it is not actually a national curriculum. It does not have to be taught in Scotland and Wales, in academies or free schools. It is not a curriculum for all, so I do not know why we still use that phrase. However, we are now realising that children have a right to learn and teachers have a right to teach. Pupils have a right to be respected and understood. We suddenly realise that some of the pillars of our educational establishments are in danger of being taken away or need to be developed again.

The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, was absolutely right to say that it is not just about looking at what needs to be taught, it is how you teach it and the quality of the people who teach it. I can tell noble Lords from bitter experience that there are hundreds of schools that proudly say in the school prospectus that they teach PSHE. You go in and it is a tick-box exercise; they do not teach it. The same is true of sex and relationship education. We have got to realise that. It is all very well sitting in Committee and saying, “This is what we believe in; this is what we want”. It will not change unless we change the foundations of how things happen.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, that I do not know what has gone wrong here. I had always thought that schools produce a school prospectus that sets out the aims and values of the school and states clearly what it does. I remember my vision and the phrase we used. We said that we wanted to, “Ignite the imagination of pupils”. We listed everything we did in the school, and why we have lost that, I do not know. Parents should be able to look through a school prospectus and see exactly what the school is doing and how it is done.

This debate is absolutely fascinating and I will make just one other point. When I first started teaching we had sex education. We followed the BBC “Merry-Go-Round” radio and television programmes and we starting teaching it at the age of seven. If you leave it until children are aged 11 and 12, it becomes a bit of a joke. They get embarrassed and giggle, but if you do it when they are six and seven, it becomes a natural progression. I hope that we realise in our deliberations, and in how we build on this debate, that other fundamentals have to be put in place as well.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, support these amendments and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, on her persistence on these matters and issues. Like my noble friend Lord Storey, I believe that the right teaching for vision and delivery can make a difference and change lives in schools. I know this from personal experience, because I often visit primary and secondary schools across the country and always speak about philosophy to children; some as young as four years old but right up to 18 year-olds. I tell them to practise the philosophy of what I call my three Cs.

Consideration is about having respect and empathy for other people and being able to put yourself in the place of others without being judgmental. The more privileged you are, the more consideration you need to show others. The second C is for contentment, which is about having a happy, contented heart and not being jealous and envious of what other people have. The more contented you are, the more ready you are to receive what is right for you. The third C is for confidence, which is about having high self-esteem and high self-worth. If others do wrong to you, it is not your fault. It is about feeling worthy and being able to love and give unconditionally, and practising that at that very young age. I teach children how to deal with temptation and to learn to say no, whether that is to joining a gang, having sex, drinking or bullying others.

This philosophy really empowers children. It makes them feel worthy and gives them the spiritual guidance that children crave in the materialistic world in which they live today. It helps them to cope with adversity; to feel as if they belong. Children need that feeling deep in their souls. It gives them the confidence to face the world: it opens up their minds to the world. I have been doing this for the past 30 years or more and I have seen the results. However, more needs to happen: children need to feel as if they are somebody.

Every single day of my life I receive a letter from someone or meet someone in the street who tells me: “What you did for me in school saved my life. What you did showed me I could be somebody. You showed me how to lead my life the way I wanted to, to be who I should be”. I met a woman who said: “I was a crack addict when I was a young teenager. When you came into school and spoke to me, you saved my life. You showed me I was worthy. You made me look at it and see it in a different way”. We need to give that kind of philosophy to children in school: they desperately need that help.

I also agree that we need to have meaningful sex and relationship education as part of PSHE, to demonstrate what loving, respectful relationships are. Too many of our young people are learning from, and being influenced by, online pornography. Girls think they have to behave like porn stars to be liked by boys. Boys expect the girls to behave in a sexually explicit way. They both think this is what love is. Some young people are even raping and sexually abusing very young children—five year-olds are being raped—because teenagers are putting into practice what they have witnessed in online pornography. Children need to have a balanced influence about sex and to learn what love and respect are.

After one school visit, when I spoke to 13 year-old girls, I received several letters from girls who said that no one had ever told them that they were loved unconditionally. Years later, I met one of these girls who told me that she had not got pregnant and was going to sixth-form college. She wanted to be somebody: she felt worthy. We must not assume that children know how to cope or deal with the hard slog of life. We have to teach them so that they can lead the happier life that some are so desperate for. They can then pass that knowledge on to their children. It all starts at school, where they spend most of their early life. They do not always receive that guidance from home, so let us make sure that those who do not get it do not miss out. That is why I support these amendments.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I hesitate to speak after such a powerful speech, but I want to make three brief points in support of these amendments. First, my noble friend Lady Jones referred to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is important to have a rights-based approach to sex and relationship education. People sometimes say that there is too much emphasis on rights these days and not enough emphasis on obligations. However, we must remember that this is about the right to safety—a very basic right for children and young people. A few years ago, in Leicester, colleagues and I did some interesting research about young people’s transition to citizenship. We were quite surprised that the young people found it much harder to articulate their rights than they did their obligations. They knew what their obligations were: many of them had expectations about paid work and knew their obligation to be good citizens in the local community. However, when we asked them about their rights they did not know what to say: they did not know about rights. It is a myth that we have got too much into rights and not enough into obligations.

17:29

The second point which links to that, to which we have perhaps not paid enough attention in my noble friend Lady Massey’s amendment, is about democratic principles and citizenship education. I am glad to say that my party now supports votes at 16. If we are to have votes at 16, or even votes as we have them now, it is really important that young people have good citizenship education which prepares them for that and, as has been said, infuses the ethos of the school. There has just recently been quite a bit of debate about whether there is any point in voting. The comedian Russell Brand has been saying, “Don’t vote, it encourages them”. Well, we want to encourage young people to vote. We want them to know why they are voting and what is at stake. That is another reason why this education is so important.

Thirdly, I am a member of an informal parliamentary mindfulness group. I know that mindfulness is now being taught in schools and is one path into the three Cs that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, referred to. All of us, whether we are young or older, face difficulties in our life. We have bad days, and mindfulness helps us to steer a path through that and helps to achieve the contentment to which the noble Baroness referred. I hope that that will also be part of the mix when we think about citizenship education and sex and relationship education.

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, we agree about so much here. Everything that noble Lords have mentioned is what a good education is all about, and is what a good school does. I agree that it is so important that all schools do this. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, is of course right that we have debated this many times before. We just disagree about how we ensure that it happens.

The noble Baroness has read out a long list of things that schools should do. All schools should have a behaviour and bullying policy, and Ofsted will inspect against it. She talked about ethos, pastoral care, self-confidence and raising aspirations. I agree that all schools should provide their pupils with the right to an education which delivers these. All schools will, of course, state their ethos and their approach in their prospectuses, as my noble friend Lord Storey has said, and at parents’ evenings, and be inspected by Ofsted. This is what good schools do. However, making the schools write all this down in lists will get us nowhere.

The Government do not believe that politicians, Peers or bureaucrats are the best people to dictate what should be delivered in schools in this regard and how it should be delivered. We believe that writing lists of what PSHE should cover, this kind of central prescription, is a recipe for failure, for minimum prescription and for a race to the bottom; a race which we have just successfully won by following this approach with the shocking OECD statistics which show that our school leavers are among the most illiterate in the developed world.

I will say it again: the Government trusts teachers and head teachers to tailor their PSHE and general provision to the individual needs of their particular pupils. Many of these needs are specific and cannot be delivered by teachers. I speak with some experience here. We took over a school which was failing on just about every measure. The behaviour was awful. The morale and the results were very poor. There were gangs and riots; it was just a mess. We brought in a head teacher and a new senior leadership team, and they introduced a totally new behaviour management policy which was clear, consistently applied, and required the teachers to be in evidence at every turn. We brought in a raising aspirations programme and, by letting the team get on with it, they turned the school around in record time. They did not do this by following lists.

I am sad to say that we still have gangs in the school, as do most inner-city schools in this country. Their students often join gangs because of the complete absence of male role models in their lives. They are often brought up in maleless households and have been to primary schools where there are no male teachers—which is the case in just over 27% of primary schools in this country. When we identify these pupils when they come in at age 11, we seek rapidly to give them male role models but, sadly, the gangs have often got there before us. These children are not going to open up to their teachers, whom they see as authority figures. The only way to counsel them out of gangs—which is a highly skilled job—is to introduce them to mentors, often mentors whom they see as being of their own kind. That means black boys to black men; white boys to white men; Asian girls to Asian women.

Other schools have other issues. I have just been involved in a school where there is an issue with forced marriages. Examples such as this confirm us in our belief that enforcing more prescription on teachers is not the way forward. The kind of education that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and my noble friends Lady Walmsley and Lord Cormack refer to is being delivered in schools up and down the country which failed for years and which have now been taken over and turned around by successful academy sponsors. They are developing the whole child and putting them at the centre of the school. I hear no desire from them, or the mentors, or the counsellors I work with, for a list of things to do. Frankly, they think this completely misses the point.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Storey for his observations. I also agree with my noble friend Lady Perry that teachers are at the heart of this and that there may be some provision where they need to bring in outside agencies. Because they are very much at the heart of this, we have developed more than 350 teaching schools and are expanding SCITTs, which are much more highly rated by Ofsted.

The underlying sentiment of much of the new clause proposed by Amendment 231 is one that the Government would support. We want to see all schools accountable to their pupils’ parents for what happens. That is why, in 2012, we amended the School Information (England) Regulations. Schedule 4 of those regulations contains a list of the minimum information that maintained schools are required to publish, including their ethos and values, with parallel provision included in academy funding agreements. This includes the content of the curriculum to be followed for each subject during each school year and details of how additional information relating to the curriculum may be obtained. On this basis, schools must publish information about their PSHE provision as well as about any other subjects they teach which are not part of the national curriculum. We expect all schools to make provision for PSHE, drawing on the good practice to which I have referred. This is an expectation which we have made clear in the introduction to the framework of the new curriculum and one which I make clear to all academy sponsors and academies whenever I meet them. This expectation is not set out in the statutory requirement. However, as I say, this Government believe strongly that teachers need the flexibility to use their professional judgment to decide when and how best to provide PSHE in their particular local circumstances.

One of our core aims in reviewing the national curriculum was to slim it down and to reduce prescription, thereby allowing teachers more flexibility and freedom to exercise professional judgment at a local level. They can, for instance, create space in their curriculum for bringing in outside agencies or for teaching specific matters in PSHE. To place new and wide-ranging duties on governing bodies and head teachers would run counter to this approach. Through the school inspection framework, Ofsted inspectors continue to be required to consider pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development when forming a judgment of a school. This enables important aspects of PSHE to be considered in a proportionate and integrated way, linked to the core inspection areas. We consider that publishing the information set out in the current school information regulations and academy funding agreements is the best way for parents to have access to the key information, and that teachers should be given more freedom, not less, to decide the content of the school curriculum and how it is taught.

Turning to Amendment 232(Rev), I have already indicated, but will stress again, that the Government want to see all schools provide a high-quality and broad programme of PSHE that includes sex and relationship education. Where we differ is how such provision is specified and delivered. As I noted previously, placing new and wide-ranging duties on governing bodies and head teachers, and furthermore requiring that the Secretary of State issues new guidance to be followed by teachers, would run counter to this Government’s whole approach. International evidence shows that the best school systems in the world give considerable autonomy to those professionals working on the ground.

Sex and relationship education is already compulsory in maintained secondary schools. All schools, when providing it, must have regard to existing guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Amendment 232(Rev) proposes that all schools teach sex and relationship education, including at key stage 1. It specifies that such education should include information about sexual and domestic violence, for example. I agree that it is vital that schools cover such issues when providing sex and relationship education and that they do so in an appropriate manner. However, to specify that pupils in key stage 1, including those as young as five, should be taught about these issues, without allowing teachers the discretion to decide whether to do so, as we do currently, is completely inappropriate.

The amendment would mean that where a child is aged 15 or over, their parent would no longer have the right to remove them from SRE. Currently, parents have the right to withdraw their children from religious education and sex and relationship education, with the exception of those topics that form part of the national curriculum for science and acts of collective worship. There is no need to amend any of the provisions in existing legislation as this proposed new clause seeks to do: they provide a clear and workable model for schools and parents. I fully understand what the noble Baroness is seeking to achieve, but the Government do not believe that the rights of parents should be diminished.

Turning to Amendment 233, I agree with the noble Baronesses on the importance of high-quality teaching in this area and on the need for young people to have reliable and well informed sources of advice and support. However, I do not consider that the best way to achieve that is to revise the statutory guidance on SRE. The existing guidance was considered as part of the recent review of personal, social, health and economic education that I mentioned earlier. In March 2013, the review concluded that the statutory guidance continued to provide a sensible framework for schools to use in developing their own SRE policy. We agree that sex and relationship education should be informed by both current and expert advice. However, our clear view is that that advice is best provided by expert organisations which can make available to schools up-to-date materials and advice on changing technologies that fit within the framework of our guidance. This means schools can always access the most current advice and guidance on every emerging issue and teachers can make informed decisions about which resources best meet the needs of their pupils. We have directed schools to sources of information, including the Sex Education Forum, which has already listed 24 pages of further resources that are available to secondary schools for teaching SRE. There are other organisations with which schools can engage in relation to this such as Brook, the Family Planning Association and the SRE Project.

A number of noble Lords referred to access to pornography and online safety. I share entirely noble Lords’ concern about this point. When I was first looking into this, I spoke to a number of people and was struck by the fact that when I spoke to people who were highly IT literate and had children, the more IT literate they were, the more concerned they were about this issue because they appreciated how, with three clicks, children could look at the most appalling images. However, we are doing a lot in this regard. Through the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, we are working with social networking sites and internet companies on developing a safer online environment, which I agree is essential. Good progress has been made with the main ISPs, which are putting in place systems to encourage customers to use parental controls and filters.

An example of the resources that we have made available to teachers is the resource pack, Exploited, published by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre with input from national partners, including the NSPCC, Brook, the Sex Education Forum and Barnardo’s, which aims to help prevent child sexual exploitation by educating young people on how to stay safe. The Government are supporting the BeatBullying charity’s CyberMentors programme to give online support to victims of bullying and train 3,500 11 to 17 year-olds over two years to act as mentors, backed up by support for teachers and parents. As part of our reforms to the national curriculum, we will strengthen the requirements to teach e-safety as part of changes to the new computing programme of study. From September 2014, e-safety will be taught to primary pupils in key stages 1 and 2.

17:45

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said that this is beyond any single teacher’s capability, which supports my point about the importance of engaging with outside agencies. I would like to take the noble Baroness up on her offer to study the information that she gathered and would be very happy to discuss online safety with any other noble Lords. I am happy to convene a meeting about it because I agree entirely that this is something that we should all be deeply concerned about.

We have directed schools to other sources of information, including the Sex Education Forum. The department has also provided grant funding to the PSHE Association to help schools develop curricula, improve staff training and promote the teaching of consent in SRE.

In conclusion, the best people to help schools deal with changing technology are, in our view, the experts. Our SRE guidance directs schools to draw on the up-to-date advice produced by experts for use in sex and relationship education. SRE is a sensitive area, in which expert organisations and professionals have an essential role to play, but in our view that does not require the Government to revise existing guidance. We consider that publishing the information set out in the current school information regulations and academy funding agreements is the best way for parents to have access to the key information. Teachers should be given more freedom, not less, to decide the content of the curriculum. However, we do not disagree at all about what we are trying to achieve here. I would like to reinforce that point: we do not disagree at all, it is just a question of methodology. I would be happy to discuss further all the points raised today but I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Cormack]

Will my noble friend amplify that point? He very kindly said that he would be glad to convene a meeting to discuss this appalling problem of the internet. Could he give reasonable notice of that meeting and try to convene it as soon as is reasonably possible?

[Baroness Warnock (CB)]

Can the Minister answer the point made by my noble friend Lord Listowel about the ways in which teacher training could concentrate on this area that I roughly think of as moral teaching? There is no requirement that this should be taught in any particular way. I quite agree with the noble Lord about the futility of making lists but the point is that teacher training does not concentrate sufficiently on it simply because it is not part of the national curriculum. Can he say what he thinks about my noble friend’s point?

[Lord Nash]

We have great concerns about the quality of teacher training in this country, which is one of the reasons why, frankly, we do not think qualified teacher status is essential. If teachers were trained for many years, like doctors, vets or lawyers, it might be different, but they are not. In ITT colleges, somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of training is in schools. We are expanding in-school training and have substantially beefed up, for instance, behaviour management training. I will look at this and write to the noble Baroness, as well as talk to Charlie Taylor about what more we can do in this regard.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

I just want to correct what I believe to be a misunderstanding about what Amendment 232(Rev) says. The noble Lord talked about teaching children at the age of five. I must draw his attention to the proposed new Section 85B(4)(b), which talks about teaching that is,

“appropriate to the ages of the pupils concerned”.

Of course, that needs to absolutely underlined. We are fully aware of the need to teach age-appropriately. What is right for an 11 year-old is clearly not always appropriate for a five year-old.

I know my noble friend Lady Massey will want to address much of what the noble Lord said so I will just say that I am very disappointed by the tone he took. I feel he is swimming against the tide here. There is a growing consensus on the need to update the guidance. It is a fairly simple act. Just referring everyone to a whole lot of different websites and so on is missing the point about the Government’s responsibility here. However, I am sure my noble friend will address that more coherently.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the point about the training of teachers. During our earlier debates on child development, the Minister said something that I certainly found quite comforting, about there being, in the standards for teacher training, a requirement that teachers have a good understanding of child development, which will be helpful in this area as well.

I listened with great interest to what the Minister said about his personal experience in this area and about why he thinks that it is unhelpful to be so prescriptive about what teachers do. Although that does not instantly change my point of view, I have sympathy for his position. I think of the situation, for instance, in Finland, where they have a very loose national curriculum. The Minister for Education there has described his teachers as “researchers” who develop their own kind of education base. However, in Finland, of course, teaching has been of very high status for many years. They have competition to teach and to get on to teacher training courses—it is a different culture. I suppose the question might be where we are today in this country with moving towards raising the status of teaching. We have only started that in the past few years. The question is one of getting the balance right between prescription and freedom, and empowering teachers to do the best they can with all their capacities.

I welcome what the Minister said, particularly with regard to mentoring and the recognition that so many boys are growing up without fathers in the family, which was a theme of the debate on Friday on the age of criminal responsibility. One of the very encouraging parts of the Minister’s response then was that the Home Office is putting so much energy and investment into mentoring for these young people. Two-thirds of young black men in the United States are growing up without a father in the home. The proportion of lone-parent families in this country is even higher than in the United States and about twice the level, I think, in Germany and Denmark. We have a real issue that we need to address. I often wonder, when thinking about this topic, whether there might be a more strategic push on mentoring: a sort of big society approach, with something like a national service commitment, to think about how we could mentor young men who do not have fathers in their families. I was encouraged by what the Minister said in that regard.

[Lord Northbourne]

About a year ago, I wrote to the noble Lord’s predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, on this point, suggesting that some teacher training colleges should specialise in training specialist teachers for PSHE and associated disciplines. The reply that I got back from the Minister said that the Government did not guide or direct teacher training colleges as to what courses they should make available but that it depended on the demand from schools. Can the Minister confirm that that is still the position?

[Lord Nash]

I can confirm that that is still the position.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his responses and will come on to those later. Meanwhile, I sincerely thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this fascinating, very knowledgeable and passionate debate about the well-being and education of children and young people. Two key things have perhaps come out for me today. One is, as several noble Lords have mentioned, how the world has changed and how we need to address that change. We all have to tackle this, not only by helping children to have self-respect and respect for others but by tackling the dangers of the internet and other technology.

Secondly, the issue of child development has been central to many of our points. It is very important to understand child development. As my noble friend Lady Jones has just said, of course you do not teach five year-olds about the intricacies of sex. However, they can learn about friendships, respect and parenting: of course they can. Not a single person in this Room has even mentioned, as the Minister did, teaching children of five about sex. We have all learned our lesson about age appropriateness.

I tabled Amendment 231 because it encompasses—as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said—what should be good practice in schools: policies, pastoral care, school ethos, curriculum and democratic principles. I am not being prescriptive: all I am asking is that schools should make their approaches on these explicit to parents, staff, governors and, very importantly, to pupils. What does a school expect of its staff and its pupils? The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, talked interestingly about the protective function of education and the use of experts. I have never said that teachers should be able to do everything. They cannot, of course, but teachers and schools can—and most do—create a climate for good relationships and learning. My noble friend Lord Northbourne quite rightly said that this is about all relationships, not just sexual relationships. One example of this is that if children learn respect for themselves and others—if they have opportunities to explore spiritual, moral and emotional issues and learn about the importance of security, well-being and safety—then they may well become better parents and know how to relate to and guide their own children. This is different from maths, English and so on in the formal curriculum.

I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, is not in her place; I take her point about trained teachers. However, my view has always been that teachers go into teaching because they want to relate positively to children. I am not asking for miracles: I see generally trained teachers who, if they do not know something about a particular issue like drugs or first aid, will call in an expert to help them. That is what trained teachers do: teaching is about relating positively and sympathetically to children. If teachers do not do that then I really do not know what they are doing. Amendment 231 calls for schools to make clear how they are promoting things: it is not about making lists. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed their thoughts.

I am somewhat baffled by much of the Minister’s response. The amendment is not about writing things down in lists and I do not understand why he thinks it is. I find it quite insulting that the issues I raised in this amendment should be considered as a long list of things to do. It is not that: it is about what schools should be about. I am not being prescriptive and the noble Lord’s good example of turning a school round was exactly what I am talking about: heads and teachers—and, perhaps, pupils and governors—sitting down together and working out what policies they need and how those policies will be carried out to make the school better. That is not about making a long list: it is about having policies. Nothing is achieved, in any organisation, without policies.

School policy—or any policy in industry or wherever—should be written down, because pupils, parents and governors can then understand what is expected of them and of the school.

17:59

If schools do not have policies, how does anyone know what is happening? The PSHE arguments have already been won. The Minister, as someone said earlier, is swimming against the tide. We all want the best for children in our schools. We need to have those expectations and how they will be delivered explicit. It is not a prescription. It is not a list. It is policy on various aspects of school life.

I thought that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about convening a group across both Houses to discuss these issues was interesting. Prior to that, I suggest that the Minister might facilitate between Mr Gove and those of us who have been involved today a discussion about our concerns and try to explain to him that this is not about prescription or lists, but is about doing the best for our children. I shall certainly return to this issue on Report.

Amendment 231 withdrawn.

Amendment 232 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendments 232(Rev) and 233 not moved.

Amendment 234

Moved by

[The Earl of Listowel]

234: After Clause 73, insert the following new Clause—
“Welfare of children: asylum seekers
(1) Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (withholding and withdrawal of support) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 6(1), after “person” insert “who entered the United Kingdom as an adult”.
(3) In paragraph 7, after “person” insert “who entered the United Kingdom as an adult”.”

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, the amendment would ensure that all care leavers, including young asylum seekers and migrants who came to the UK as children, are given the support that they need while they are in the UK by amending Schedule 3 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 so that it does not apply to people who initially came to the UK as children. It would not create an automatic right to support but would make sure that a young person is not discriminated against on the basis of his or her immigration status.

The concern is that young people are leaving care and being made destitute. Another point to make clear at the outset is that while being so harsh to these children, it is unlikely that they will be returning home to Eritrea, Afghanistan or anywhere else earlier, and it may well make it more difficult for them to return home as they disappear into prostitution, disappear from sight, and go underground.

Although the immigration status of a separated or unaccompanied child does not affect their entitlements while they are in care and as care leavers under the Children Act 1989, a young person’s entitlements after 18 will depend on their immigration status. There has long been concern about the forced destitution of former separated asylum-seeking children when they turn 18 and a recent report from the Children’s Society found a sharp rise in the number of young people who are experiencing destitution. The majority of unaccompanied children in the UK are seeking protection from violence, abuse and persecution from places like Afghanistan, Eritrea and Iran. Some of these young people experience destitution because they are discharged from children’s services at 18, and have been refused asylum and exhausted their rights to appeal, often despite significant barriers to their return or continuing protection needs.

Case law has made it exceedingly clear that a young person in this situation should not be moved on to support provided by the Home Office but continue to be supported by the local authority. However, in practice, this still happens as the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 prevents some categories of migrants from accessing certain types of support, including leaving-care provisions, and practice among local authorities varies widely due to confusion around entitlements and their budgetary pressures.

The Government say:

“There is absolutely no intention that destitution should be a deliberate aim of public policy. That would be wrong and that is not the aim of immigration policy or any other part of our policy”.

However, the provisions under Schedule 3 have precisely this effect by withdrawing vital leaving-care support from young people while they are still in the UK. This is at odds with the Government’s policy on supporting British care leavers. As I say, there is also no evidence that withdrawing support is effective in encouraging young people to return to their country of origin. A growing body of evidence demonstrates that forced destitution is an ineffective policy. In fact, severing contact between refused asylum seekers and the authorities is likely to make returns more difficult.

Destitution has severe consequences for young people’s safety as these vulnerable young people are forced to take extreme measures to survive, including being sexually exploited, working illegally or being forced into criminality. It also has an impact on a young person’s physical health, for example, through their being malnourished and unable to travel to see their GP or get warm clothing in the winter, as well as having adverse effects on their often already fragile mental state. Various systematic reviews estimate that 19% to 54% of separated children suffer from symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder compared with 0.4% to 10% of other children in the UK. Being able to access education and safe housing—two key protective factors for separated young people—becomes more difficult when young people are destitute. I beg to move.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, my name is added to this amendment. I would like to speak particularly about young people who have been trafficked into this country. I declare an interest as the co-chairman of the trafficking parliamentary group and a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation. The Refugee Council and the Children’s Society have highlighted this particular group of young people who come within Amendment 234. They are included in the young people to whom the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred but they form a very specific group of young people who have been trafficked into this country, are identified as having been slaves and are often put into care or accommodated by the local authority which arranges for them to go to school and live in England until they are 18. Some may be asylum seekers. The latter were referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. However, some are not asylum seekers and the minute they turn 18 they become illegal immigrants under Schedule 3 to the relevant Act, and there is no one to protect them. If they remain in this country, they are particularly vulnerable. They have no status, no access to public funds and no housing. Some of them sleep on the streets and are dependent on soup kitchens. They are destitute. Others are at real risk of being sent back to the abusing situation in the country of origin from which they had escaped, having been trafficked here. Some of them are terrified at the prospect of going back because they may be retrafficked or may well be very ill-treated for having escaped the traffickers, so to go back to their country of origin, particularly when that is Nigeria, is extremely problematic.

We are in the extraordinary position of having identified these young people as victims of trafficking and having cared for them in this country where they were looked after and made welcome. However, the moment they turn 18, they are considered to be illegal immigrants and no one looks after them. I ask the Minister to look at this group of trafficked children, who probably number 100 or 200, who have been to school in this country. I have no idea what the actual number is but it is tiny. It is a pretty odd situation if we look after them and educate them but then leave them destitute the moment they turn 18.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in support of the amendment, and I am very pleased that it has been tabled. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, have both talked about destitution. I was a member of the Parliamentary Inquiry into Asylum Support for Children and Young People. That was a slightly wider group than that on which this amendment is focused, but the point is the same. We said that:

“Although the inquiry’s focus was on those in receipt of asylum support, the panel was shocked to hear of instances where children were left destitute and homeless, entirely without institutional support and forced to rely on food parcels or charitable donations. Evidence received by the inquiry cited counts where children made up between 13-20% of the local destitute population”.

I find it shameful that we have anyone in the population who is destitute in a society as rich as ours. It is particularly shaming that people who have come to this country to seek refuge should be destitute, and that children should be destitute.

Perhaps I may reinforce what the noble Earl said by referring to a case study which has been provided by the Refugee Children’s Consortium. It states:

“Case study: Matthew—a young person from Iran. Matthew is a torture survivor who came to the UK from Iran when he was aged 17. He was refused asylum and wanted to appeal but his solicitor did not want to support his appeal so he went to court unrepresented. His appeal was rejected and children’s services stopped his support. He was made homeless for one year. He was seeing a psychologist while being supported by children’s services but once the support was cut off, the counselling stopped as well. While homeless Matthew’s health deteriorated”—

is that surprising?

“He couldn’t sleep at night. His hair was falling out. He experienced a lot of violence when he was sleeping on the streets. Sometimes he was able to work for his friend in exchange for accommodation. He was desperate to stay in the UK because he feared for his life if he were to return to Iran. With help from The Children’s Society he was able to get a new solicitor and put in a fresh claim”.

This really should not happen.

I was also involved in the launch of a report from Freedom From Torture about the poverty experienced by torture survivors. One of the strong messages in that report was how poverty undermines the rehabilitation of torture survivors. This is dreadful. Torture survivors, who are psychologically scarred, then have to go through further ordeals when they get to this country. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to say something rather more positive in response to this amendment than perhaps was the response to the previous amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Nash.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I support this amendment. Noble Lords will recall that I talked about a similar group of young people who were privately fostered. It was then subsequently discovered that those with whom they had been privately fostered were not in fact family, or if they were, they had not sorted out the children’s immigration status. When they reached the age of 18, or sometimes 16, and went to college, they found that they did not have the appropriate paperwork and they then became illegal immigrants.

As a country, we have totally failed to grasp a very straightforward issue, which is that if these children are in our country and are at school, they can be checked by the school, by the local social services or by the health services wherever they find themselves. Surely we have a responsibility to sort out their status before they reach the age of 18. Some of these young people clearly could go back to their country of origin, and there are voluntary organisations which work in that area. Others, however, clearly cannot do so. Recently I met a young man at a reception provided by the Children’s Society for the work it is doing on its Here to Listen? campaign. That young man was bright and intelligent, and wanted to get on with his life. I asked him about his immigration status, and the answer was, “I have not yet got a passport”. My heart sank because I knew that what might well happen, if this could not be sorted out, would be that he would possibly find himself being sent back to whatever he had escaped from.

We pride ourselves in this country on the work we do with children and child protection. Look at the lengths we go to in order to develop child protection procedures. We go to huge lengths to ensure that young people, including these young people, have a proper education. How can we be so neglectful as to not notice that when they reach later adolescence they will become destitute, be sent back to appalling circumstances or have a hugely strenuous set of interactions with the law to try to gain proper status so that their lives do not fall apart? I have been an advocate for some young people who have found themselves in this position at 18, trying to go through our complex system in order to get this sorted.

I do not think it is beyond our departments to find a system that looks at all of these groups of young people. I agree with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that young people who are trafficked are particularly vulnerable. All these young people could easily have their status sorted out earlier in the process. We would not then be faced with these kinds of difficulties.

18:15

[The Lord Bishop of Oxford]

My Lords, this is an important amendment. The Refugee Children’s Consortium, a coalition of more than 40 NGOs that are involved in this sphere, is very concerned about this legislation and is looking for changes. Three or four weeks ago, I was with a group of four young people in Cowley in Oxford; 16 years old, three were from Eritrea and one from Somalia. They were so pleased to be at the end of a journey that had taken months, and to have access to education and safety. That was the thing they kept on saying: “We are safe”.

The Children’s Society told me that this is the time of maximum happiness. From that point on, it is all downhill, with 95% of the young people who come there having to go back at the end of a process that in many cases will lead to destitution—the word that we have used quite often. That, of course, has many implications for physical health, as a result of being malnourished and not being able to get access to a doctor. It leads to illegal work, sexual exploitation and all kinds of problems. There must be another way, a more humane and civilised way, of handling vulnerable young people who have all their lives before them. It seems crazy that, at the age of 18, everything should just turn over. Their needs for education and safe housing are basic things. The age of 18 should not be so critical that it makes people destitute. This is a really important amendment and we need to take it seriously. Destitution is not the answer.

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, for 21 years I was a lay member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. I used to hate it when we had young people of 18 presented to us for deportation. These youngsters had been through school, some of them having come to this country when they were seven, eight or nine years old, but they had no clue how to go through the legal system or get a solicitor—there were free lawyers in those days. It would have been extremely difficult for them to establish a life in their own country again. Many had lost touch with their parents, or their parents had died. They did not know what they would be going back to and, in many cases, did not speak the language. It is incumbent on us—this is maybe part of the social care aspects of the Bill—to see that social services ensure that their immigration status is settled before they are 18, so that when they leave school or are out of the care of the community they know where they stand.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I understand that the way adults in this situation are treated is to wait until there is an order for them to be removed from the country. If they do not comply, all support is removed and they can become destitute from their own choice. However, children turning 18 can be made destitute before they receive the removal instruction. I understand this was not the Government’s intended policy, but it has evolved over time. I hope that is helpful and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and other noble Lords for this amendment and for stimulating some important debate.

It might be helpful if I explain how the existing legislation works. Unaccompanied children who apply for asylum are supported by local authorities under the Children Act 1989 and under similar legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland in the same way as any other child in need. As children their immigration status is, rightly, irrelevant to their entitlement to support, and remains so until they reach adulthood. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, made an extremely cogent set of points, especially on picking up at an early stage the challenges for some of these children. Local authorities already have a duty under the Children Act to plan the transition to adulthood of care leavers. She made an implicit point about when that ought to be examined and not left until the young person is about to turn 18.

For unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in care, this planning should include the different steps required in response to different immigration outcomes. The guidance is clear that local authorities should work with dedicated case workers at the UK Border Agency. As we set out in our letter to noble Lords on 1 November, the Department for Education is currently developing an action plan to drive forward improvements—which I think is what the noble Baroness was flagging—in the way local authorities identify children in, for example, private fostering who are at risk and where there may be concern about a child’s identity and immigration status. The noble Baroness specifically mentioned schools. We are currently exploring options with interested agencies and partners and hope the noble Baroness and any other noble Lords who are interested will contribute to that process by sharing their expertise and discussing any outstanding concerns in more detail.

When young people reach the age of 18, the position may be different from the one I have just described for under-18s. If they have been refused asylum, have not been granted any other form of leave to remain in the UK and have had an opportunity to appeal against the decision to an independent judge, then automatic access to further support from the local authority ends. That is what we are addressing here. It is important to recognise that support may still continue where it is necessary to avoid a breach of a person’s human rights. Whether this is necessary will depend on an assessment of the individual circumstances, but should include any failed asylum seekers who are taking reasonable steps to return to their countries of origin but need time to make the necessary arrangements because they are awaiting the issue of a passport. Equally, those who face a temporary barrier to departing because, for example, they are too sick to travel, should continue to receive support.

I turn to trafficking, which was mentioned in this context. Noble Lords will remember that we had a very important debate on this subject earlier in Committee. We will have further discussions on it, both in the Chamber and outside it. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, highlighted this issue and other noble Lords picked it up. In the case of potentially trafficked children, the first step is to assess whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is trafficked. If the answer is yes, in practice it is likely to be considered as a breach of the child’s rights to refuse leave to remain. I hope that somewhat reassures the noble and learned Baroness.

We believe that the existing arrangements already make provision for those who have a genuine need. I realise that this is a probing amendment which is trying to get to the bottom of this particular challenge. We are concerned that, if we were to accept it, it could create further incentives for young people to claim falsely to be under 18 when they apply for asylum. This is a problem that local authorities already struggle to deal with. It could even put more young people at risk by providing an incentive to make dangerous journeys to the UK to claim asylum in order to receive extended support. The dangers of these journeys are well evidenced in the courts, by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and by UNICEF.

The Government remain committed to ensuring that young care leavers whose immigration appeal rights are exhausted do not face an abrupt withdrawal of all support. It is important that their options are clearly explained, including the availability of generous reintegration assistance from the Home Office if they agree to return voluntarily to their countries. It is important that any genuine barriers to preventing return are identified. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I emphasise that the local authority must assess each case individually, and if the authority considers that stopping support would breach a person’s human rights, it should continue. The Home Office provides funding to local authorities to cover the cost of extended support beyond the point at which a person turns 18. It already continues for three months after the person’s immigration appeal rights are exhausted, specifically to allow the local authority time to make the necessary assessments of individual cases. If an assessment shows that additional time is needed to complete the practical arrangements to leave, or where there are real obstacles to leaving the UK, further support should continue. However, we are aware that some local authorities are unsure of the practical steps they should take to assess individual cases properly. Young people in different areas may experience different levels of support. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner is currently examining local authority practice in this respect. We believe that it is right to wait for the findings of that study before considering whether further work with local authorities is required to ensure more consistency in case assessment. I hope that this information is useful to noble Lords.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness. Can she give us the timing of the study in relation to the progress of the Bill?

[Baroness Northover]

The report should come through in February. It will inform what the Government might or might not need to do to address this issue. I hope that noble Lords will feed in any experiences which they feel need to be looked at so that the study can be as effective and far-reaching as possible.

I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that the Government take seriously their responsibility to provide appropriate support where care leavers no longer have leave to remain in the United Kingdom. As I have mentioned, there are a number of different categories where it would not be expected that people would be required to leave—for example, trafficked children. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

18:30

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

The Refugee Children’s Consortium and the Children’s Society do not think that trafficked children are being properly looked after. Would the Minister take that back? Could those behind her have a discussion with the Children’s Society and the Refugee Children’s Consortium, who have some very worrying examples? At this stage of the evening I did not want—if I may say so—to bore the Committee with endless examples but they have examples of children identified as trafficked who, at the age of 18, are destitute. Others, they think, would be in grave danger should they go back home but are not given the opportunity to stay. There are these two groups. If those behind the Minister would be prepared to be in touch with the Children’s Society and the Refugee Children’s Consortium, perhaps some useful discussion might take place.

[Baroness Northover]

I thank the noble and learned Baroness for that. I am sure that my colleagues here will take that on board. That might also be part of our general discussions on trafficking.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her sympathetic and careful response. I was particularly pleased to hear of the study being undertaken by Dr Maggie Atkinson, the Children’s Commissioner. Clearly, we need a robust immigration system. The people of this country really feel that that is of great importance. However, I am not aware of any evidence that the policy in this area acts as a pull factor or that the way we treat these young people encourages more young people to come into this country. Indeed, my understanding is that we currently treat these 18 year-olds more harshly than adults of similar status but who have not come through the care system. This needs to be looked at carefully. I will take away what the Minister said and for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 234 withdrawn.

Amendment 235

Moved by

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

235: Before Clause 74, insert the following new Clause—
“Staff to child ratios: Ofsted-registered childminder settings
(1) This section applies to Ofsted-registered childminder settings.
(2) The ratio of staff to children under the age of eight must be no less than one to six, where—
(a) a maximum of three children may be young children;(b) a maximum of one child is under the age of one.(3) Any care provided by childminders for older children must not adversely affect the care of children receiving early years provision.
(4) If a childminder can demonstrate to parents, carers and inspectors, that the individual needs of all the children are being met, then in addition to the ratio set out in subsection (2), they may also care for—
(a) babies who are siblings of the children referred to in subsection (2), or(b) their own baby.(5) If children aged between four and five years only attend the childminding setting outside of normal school hours or the normal school term time, they may be cared for at the same time as three other young children, provided that at no time does the ratio of staff to children under the age of eight exceed one to six.
(6) If a childminder employs an assistant or works with another childminder, each childminder or assistant may care for the number of children permitted by the ratios specified in subsections (2), (4) and (5).
(7) Children may only be left in the sole care of a childminder’s assistant for two hours in a single day.
(8) Childminders must obtain the permission of a child’s parents or carers before that child can be left in the sole care of a childminder’s assistant.
(9) The ratios in subsections (2), (4) and (5) apply to childminders providing overnight care, provided that the children are continuously monitored, which may be through the use of electronic equipment.
(10) For the purposes of this section a child is—
(a) a “young child” up until 1 September following his or her fifth birthday;(b) an “older child” after the 1 September following his or her fifth birthday.”

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 235 and 236 would simply place in the Bill the current permitted staff/child ratios for childminders and nursery settings respectively. The current ratios are at the moment in regulations which can be changed by order of the Secretary of State. I had hoped I would not have to speak to these amendments, which were precipitated in the Committee deliberations of this Bill in the other place by the Government’s attempt earlier this year to increase the permitted staff/children ratios for childminders and nurseries. Noble Lords may recall that, after strong resistance from many parliamentarians but particularly also from childminders, daycare providers and children’s organisations, and after Mr Nick Clegg made it clear that the Liberal Democrats could not support these changes, eventually they were dropped in June.

However, in the last 10 days the Government have launched what I have to say is a very strange online survey using Facebook and Twitter to ask parents what they know about ratios in childcare settings and the qualifications of staff. Entitled “Ratios in Nurseries and Other Childcare Settings”, it asks 10 questions of parents with three and four year-olds in nurseries. All the questions are about ratios and qualifications. The Pre-school Learning Alliance described the survey as “biased”, “unscientific” and easily open to manipulation. Clearly, the understandable concern is that Conservative Ministers are trying to revisit this issue. There is suspicion about the motives behind the survey, particularly when, inevitably given its nature, the results will be random, unsystematic and potentially open to abuse.

Therefore, we felt we had to explore the support for putting into primary legislation the current requirements on staff ratios. As I said, that is the intention behind Amendments 235 and 236. We have done this for two reasons. First, the current ratios have, for the moment, stood the test of time in balancing on the one hand the quality of provision for children and on the other hand the costs to providers and therefore to parents. The evidence from Holland, where ratios were increased in 2005, was that this led to significant worsening of the environment for children and a much impaired responsiveness by staff to the children. They have now reversed those increases in the Netherlands. There is currently no evidence to support an increase of ratios.

Secondly, we also believe, given recent events, that if at some point any future Government were to feel that that was evidence to support a change to these ratios one way or the other, this issue is sufficiently important to require close parliamentary scrutiny and debate. The well-being of the youngest children in our society will depend on getting this right. At one level, the subject of staff/child ratios in nurseries could be taken to be a very dry subject, but I know that noble Lords will appreciate that it is critical. It is the most fundamental factor in shaping the daily experience of children in those settings: how happy they are, how well cared for they are, whether that setting is contributing positively to their development or not.

Amendment 235 and 236 set out the current regulatory requirements. Amendment 235 covers childminders. To set out what we are talking about, a single childminder can currently care for up to six children aged eight, including a maximum of one baby under 12 months and another two children under five. In practice, then, a childminder can now have a baby of six months, two children aged 18 months and three children aged five. In addition, he or she can exceptionally look after a baby sibling of one of the other children and her own baby if parents and inspectors agree. That is up to eight children: three babies, two young children under five and three children under eight. One would think that that was already more than enough to ensure quality of care.

I will share my own experience. I regularly—with my husband—have my three granddaughters for whole days at a time, at least once a week. They are aged three, two and one. I can tell you, at the end of that day, all we can do is flop back and put our feet up. Getting the three of them out with coats on, in separate buggies or whatever, is a logistical challenge in itself. I think that, normally, six children—one baby, two toddlers and three others—is quite a challenge for a single childminder.

For nurseries, there must be one member of staff for every three children under two, one member of staff for every four children aged two to three, and one member of staff for every eight children who are over three, with minimum standards of qualification set out in regulations. In 2008, when my party was in government, the ratios for three and four year-olds were increased. Providers were given the option to increase the ratios to 1:13 for three and four year-olds, provided a qualified teacher had direct contact with the children. These ratios already seem to be as far as one would want to go. For example, a 22-place nursery with six babies, eight toddlers and eight three year-olds would be required to have just five members of staff. Again, that seems fairly challenging.

Professor Nutbrown, who was appointed by the Government to undertake an independent review, opposed increasing the ratios and restated the well evidenced facts not only that good-quality childcare benefits young children’s development, but that that quality is also directly related to the numbers and the qualifications and training of the staff concerned. These amendments do not mean that the ratios could never be changed, but they would mean that the Government would have to bring forward legislation to change them that would precipitate the detailed scrutiny that we think that they merit.

I am pretty sure that the Government will say that putting ratios into primary legislation would make it too difficult to change them. However, when it is judged to be a very important issue, this and previous Governments do and have put detailed requirements into primary legislation. We have at least one example in this very Bill, where the Government have include the maximum time limit for care proceedings, over which courts cannot go. They have put that time—a number—in the Bill. This is an equally important issue, justifying primary legislation. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I am one of the Peers who is concerned about the government proposals to change the ratios and I tabled an Oral Question on this which the Minister answered. I admire the work that the Government have been doing through Iain Duncan Smith, working in partnership with Graham Allen, on recognising the importance of the earliest years of a child’s life and ensuring a good attachment between the child and the parent. Andrea Leadsom MP is the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sure Start Children’s Centres and a leader of the 1001 Critical Days campaign, which looks at the period covering pregnancy and the first two years of a child’s life. It is thinking about how that time can be made into the best possible experience for both the parent and the child.

I was therefore very worried about the proposal to change the ratios for babies in baby rooms, particularly because one tends to have the least experienced and least educated young women working in them. I recognise that the Government are concerned about affordability, and we all want children to have the benefit of both good quality group care and childminding. In terms of affordability, three or four months ago an interesting editorial piece in Nursery World looked at the various factors that contribute to making childcare expensive or affordable. One of the things the editor emphasised was that the Government need to fund the entitlement properly—the entitlement that had been available up to three years old but has now moved down to two year-olds. The Government should come up with the full whack, and that is an aspect that needs to be addressed. The editorial highlighted that several different factors make this a complicated issue, which means that it is difficult to make childcare profitable.

I was very relieved when the Government decided not to go ahead with the changes in the ratios, and I hope that the Minister can now assure us that, for the foreseeable future, we will not see them changed, particularly for the very youngest children.

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, not for the first time the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has hit the nail right on the head. There is more than one way of making childcare more affordable for parents; properly funding the free entitlement is one of them while increasing the ratios is not. I was also concerned about the proposal and I am very pleased that the Government did not go ahead with it. It is not appropriate to put these ratios into the Bill. But, having said that, if the Government come up with another proposal to increase the ratios between now and 2015, I will be writing to Nick Clegg.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, that as a mother I would never regard child/staff ratios as being a dry subject. No doubt other noble Lords have had the same experience as she of what it feels like to look after three under-fives. However, coming home to find a childminder reading Captain Pugwash to my two spellbound little boys while at the same time spooning food into my baby girl, and everything being peaceful and quiet, demonstrated that some considerable skills are required. That was not quite how I managed it.

These amendments seek to set out ratios and minimum qualifications in primary legislation. As the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lady Walmsley have pointed out, staff/child ratios are currently set out in the Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage and are made under powers in the Childcare Act 2006. Ratios are currently linked to other welfare requirements which are also set out in secondary legislation. To put this into primary legislation would separate it from all the other welfare requirements covering child protection and the suitability of staff. These include health, the safety and suitability of premises, the environment and equipment. These are all equally important and interrelated areas concerning the well-being and safety of young children. In our view, all aspects of the welfare requirements are intrinsically linked and should stay together in secondary legislation.

As my noble friend pointed out and the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, will know extremely well, the ratios were in secondary regulations under the previous Government. It may very well have been the noble Baroness who took this through as Secretary of State.

18:45

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

The noble Baroness is correct. However, I would like her to acknowledge that we did not try to increase those ratios, nor did we expect a Government to try to do so. We thought that they were safe in regulations.

[Baroness Northover]

I think that the noble Baroness understands why it makes sense that they are there.

Noble Lords will be aware—again, reference has been made to this—that the Government brought forward proposals in January of this year to amend ratios where staff were more highly qualified; there is always a balance between how you make child care cost effective and how you ensure that it is safe. However, as my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Childcare, Elizabeth Truss, made clear in the other place on 11 June, the Government are not proceeding with the proposals to change the staff/child ratios for childminders and non-domestic providers. We do not believe that it is right to put staff/child ratios in primary legislation. I assure noble Lords, and especially the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that the Government have made it clear that we do not intend to proceed with the previous proposals to amend the existing ratios. I hope noble Lords find that reassuring.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, flagged up one or two issues such as the survey. The survey was intended to inform our understanding of what barriers might be preventing early-years providers from using an existing flexibility that is already there for three-to-four year-olds. We wanted to know why that arrangement, which would no doubt have come in under the noble Baroness’s Government, was not being used. Social media was used for that; it is a cost-effective and quick method of gaining some responses that might help to inform that. It was limited; it was live for just under a week and received 260 replies. The department will have a look at that as part of its ongoing work. It was looking at why the existing flexibility was not used.

I reassure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords that the Childcare Act 2006 provides a framework for the regulation of childcare which prescribes the detail in secondary legislation subject to the negative resolution procedure. These powers contain a simple but effective safeguard in that there is already a requirement that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education must consult Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills and any other appropriate persons before making welfare regulations. The existing process achieves the right balance between an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny and taking into account the views of providers, parents and other interested parties.

I hope that I have reassured noble Lords on the key point that the Government are not proceeding with the proposals which were initially put forward. It is important that all these areas should be looked at, addressed and considered, so that we see what their implications might be. However, in the light of that decision not to go ahead, I hope that the noble Baroness will be happy to withdraw her amendment and be reassured about those ratios.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

I thank the noble Baroness for her response and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for their contributions. The Minister’s response on the principle of something like this going into primary legislation was pretty much what I thought it would be. However, she did not quite answer the point about why the Government think some issues can be in primary legislation but not this one. However, the Minister did not just quote what the Minister, Elizabeth Truss, said rather ambiguously on 11 June, but on two occasions she said—I have written it down and will check in Hansard—that the Government,

“do not intend to proceed”,

with these changes and, “are not proceeding”, with the previous proposals. That is a bit more definitive. I will check those quotes in Hansard, but I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this point.

Amendment 235 withdrawn.

Amendment 236 not moved.

Clause 74: Childminder agencies

Amendment 237

Moved by

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

237: Clause 74, page 51, line 10, at beginning insert “If, after a consultation period of not less than three months, and the publication of a response to the consultation, the Secretary of State is satisfied with the provisions, he may make an order so that”

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

I will speak, on behalf of my noble friends Lady Jones and Lady Hughes, to Amendments 237, 239 and 240 in their names.

I have listened patiently for weeks to the deliberations of this Committee and have been very impressed with the standard of expertise and knowledge. I have been asked to speak to these amendments relating to childminders and childcare agencies because, when we started to discuss this, I became very animated. I felt that noble Lords were all at the grandparent stage while I am still at the mother stage. Having served as an MEP, rushing off to Brussels every week while my children were very young, and now abandoning them again to come to your Lordships’ House, I confess that I am utterly dependent on my childminder, Margaret. There are hundreds of thousands of other parents in the same situation. We all, of course, want the best for our children. We need to feel confident that they are in a safe and secure environment, especially if we are not there to protect them. Getting this right is critical, not just for the well-being of the children, but for the peace of mind of countless parents throughout the land and to ensure respect for the profession.

I will focus on the issue of childminder agencies, as mentioned in Clause 74. It is essential that a high standard of care is maintained and important to note that there have been many improvements over the years. In 2008, the early years foundation stage was a welcome development in the professionalisation of childminders, leading to increasing standards and better qualifications. However, I remember watching my own childminder despair at the paperwork that mounted up; a new and challenging part of her job. The purpose of this clause is the introduction of agencies which would take away the paperwork burden and allow childminders to concentrate on what they do best. At first, encouraging childminders to join agencies might seem like a sensible suggestion, as these agencies can give advice, share best practice and provide a useful network as well as lessening the burden of paperwork. The problem is that, however competent the agencies are, much of the paperwork involved is about observation, assessment and planning for the individual child. So I am not quite sure what they will bring to the party, other than an extra tier of bureaucracy and significant additional cost. This goes directly against the Government’s recently published paper More Affordable Childcare.

These costs will, inevitably, be passed on from childminders to parents, adding to their burden. Childcare costs are one of the key issues causing the cost of living crisis under which so many are currently suffering. In addition, as this is a dramatic departure from the current system, it would make sense to wait until this proposal has been properly piloted and consulted on, prior to putting it in the Bill. We seem to be putting the cart before the horse here. This is the general gist of what we are trying to address with Amendment 237.

On inspection, childminders are currently inspected by Ofsted, operating under the early years foundation stage statutory guidance. I want to probe further what the Government are suggesting in new Section 51D of the Childcare Act 2006:

“Inspections of early years childminder agencies”.

The new system would allow childminders to register with, and be inspected by, a childminder agency, rather than by Ofsted. Ofsted would not be responsible for assessing the quality of care of the individual childminders registered with the agency; rather, it would inspect the quality and support provided by the agency.

My concerns are threefold. If the nature of your private business—the agency—is to attract more people to use your service but you are at the same time policing the people who pay you on the quality of the service that they provide, there is a clear conflict of interest. Paid, privatised regulation should be regarded with a degree of suspicion. Is there not a chance that standards of care will be reduced if agencies are inspecting their own people? How can the Government ensure standards when individual childminders are not inspected? We all know the pressures that Ofsted is already under. In time, it is likely that fewer and fewer individual childminders, signed up to agencies, will be spot-checked.

Under the current system, the costs of inspection are borne by the local authority. In future, these costs will inevitably and dramatically fall on parents. The costs of childcare are already seriously impeding many from returning to the workforce, in addition to putting immense pressure on already hard-pressed families. Is the Government seriously suggesting that, in future, they will have to cough up significant extra money to pay for childminders to register with an agency? We are creating a two-tier system, and a lack of reference in new Section 51D to individual childminders being inspected seems to underline this. Amendments 239 and 240 draw attention to this two-tier system, and ensure that all childminders are treated equally, with no temptation for the agencies to cherry-pick which childminders they inspect.

The introduction of a two-tier inspection system could dramatically increase the cost of childcare for already hard-pressed families. Before launching into such dramatic changes which have not been well tested or consulted upon, surely we should see if they work through properly constructed pilot programmes which are endorsed by the profession and by the parents they impact on. I beg to move.

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, I have considerable concerns about this clause, which is why I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill, to initiate a probing debate. As I understand it, the Government’s objectives are to recruit more people to childminding, to improve quality and to make childcare more affordable for parents. Those are all laudable objectives with which I have no argument. I am yet to be convinced that these objectives will be achieved by setting up for-profit childminder agencies. I realise that it would be voluntary for childminders to sign up to an agency. If that was where it ended, that would be all very well. However, I fear that the existence of these agencies could affect non-participating childminders, parents and children. That is of great concern to me. I am aware that pilots are being carried out, but this measure will be in place before they have reported. In addition, when the pilots are assessed will that assessment cover just the agencies themselves, how many childminders they sign up and how satisfied the parents are, or will it go wider than that and study whether there has been any adverse effect on other early years provision in the area?

19:00

I will take the Government’s perceived objectives in reverse order. First, I cannot for the life of me see how this measure will make childcare more affordable for parents. These are profit-making organisations and they will have to set up a whole administration system, provide quality improvement services for childminders and comply with all the regulations. To pay for all that, they will either charge childminders to be registered or charge parents a percentage of what they pay the childminder. Both options will fail to cut costs for parents since childminders are low paid. If they pay the agency, they will have to pass on the costs to parents by increasing their fees. Alternatively, the agency will have to pay the childminder less if they are to keep the cost to parents the same. Childminders cannot afford to accept less money for their services. The average childminder only earns £12,200 per year and has no paid holidays or sick leave. They may earn much less than that.

Let us look at recruitment. I have to accept that it is possible that a new recruit to the job might be attracted by an agency that offered help in setting up the new business, getting registered and trained, and complying with safety regulations. However, good local authorities already do this for childminders so there is really no need for profit-making agencies to take over the role. It is the fear of many childminders, most of whom have declared that they are not interested in signing up to an agency, that, in places where there are several agencies, the services to independent childminders offered by the local authority will be severely depleted because of issues of scale. They will eventually be forced into agencies against their will. They are independent small businesses who decide when and how long to work and how to go about things, within the safety standards and the early years foundation stage. Those who have been in touch with me say they really do not want to be told what to do by an agency. Childminding will only become more attractive as a profession when they are paid more, but the agency proposal does nothing to achieve that.

Finally, on the most important issue of quality, I am very concerned that Clause 74 requires Ofsted to inspect only the way the agency supports its childminders—and a sample of its childminders. Since inspection is now moving away from local authorities and exclusively into the hands of Ofsted, parents will rely even more than they have done on the conclusion of an Ofsted inspection when choosing a place for their child. How can a parent be sure of the quality of an individual placement if it has not been inspected? On what basis would parents be able to rely on the judgment of an agency? Why should an outstanding childminder sign up to an agency that has only a satisfactory rating?

It seems to me that handing the responsibility for ensuring quality to the agencies is simply a way to take it away from local authorities, many of which have great expertise in assessment and improvement services—but could always do more. Replacing the successful Ofsted registration system for childminders with a fragmented combination of local and national inspection systems risks undermining standards, lowering the professional status of childminders and reducing the transparency of information on quality for families. Broadly, it is difficult to see a long-term future for a fragmented early years inspection system that hands responsibility for certain aspects of inspection to providers themselves. Some high-performing early years systems operate successfully with regulation devolved to local authorities, but there are no examples of privatised regulation. This is an approach that the Netherlands, whose example the agency model is based on, stepped back from after quality problems arose.

I can see only one possible advantage to parents, and that is when their usual childminder falls sick and cannot work. In that case, an agency may be able to provide a replacement at short notice. However, most childminders already belong to networks and often have friends in the business who can help out in an emergency, so even that is not a unique selling point. Why are we rushing to legislate now when there really is no evidence that this will be advantageous to parents or children?

I accept that many, although not all, foster parents are currently found by agencies. However, fostering is a very different situation. Foster parents are inspected by the local authority and have a close relationship with it. In the case of childminders and agencies, they would no longer have that, which causes me a lot of concern.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I want to ask the Minister how the vision and the application of this proposal will work together. The Government have a laudable wish to increase the level of childcare that is available to families—mostly women who find themselves unable to work because they do not have good childcare arrangements. The Government want to provide good quality childcare and ensure that the costs are manageable. They want to reduce bureaucracy and provide a focus for childminders so that they can share some of their understanding together. I appreciate the last point in relation to agencies, but the others I find very difficult. I cannot see how the solution fits the vision.

On transparency, I share the views of other noble Lords, which is that anyone who has been involved in inspections—noble Lords know that I have been a regulator in at least three different agencies—knows that asking a regulator to inspect its own is fraught with danger. That is my major concern with regard to ensuring that child protection issues are picked up. We know how easy it is, as they say, to consume your own smoke within an organisation. Transparency and protection issues in all this would be difficult.

It has been demonstrated that the increased costs would, in the end, increase the cost of childcare for families. Some childminders are already extraordinarily expensive. The childminder employed by my niece—who I brought up as my daughter and who has the equivalent of my grandson—is extremely expensive. That is because she is confident that the care is of high quality and meets the right timeframes for her. I would like the Government to find a solution to some of the issues they have identified that matches the vision which I believe they have for the care of children when mothers need to return to work in order to increase their own opportunities.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, to the Grand Committee. It is very helpful to have a parent who is bringing up her children taking part in the Bill and it was good to listen to her tribute to her childminder, Margaret. I am also grateful to the Minister for hosting a meeting on this matter. The discussion was useful, and it was particularly helpful to be reminded that childminder agencies will be one way to help childminders feel less isolated. I have visited childminders in the past. They were part of childminder networks which they found very useful. They would meet regularly and take on training together. That is the positive side of this.

I want to encourage the Government to be open-minded in terms of how they develop childcare in this country. Perhaps I may highlight the value of nursery schools and other things that the Government are involved in, but I should voice my concern that an over-emphasis on private provision may not be helpful. After all, the cost of this provision is in the pay and training of the women—and it is women—who do this work. Historically, it has been very difficult for these businesses to make a profit. These nurseries have found that they just do not get enough bums on seats and therefore it is costly to run the whole business which means that they have to drive down price by cutting training or pay. We know that pay in nursery care has historically been very low indeed. The risk is that by having too much provision in the private sector we will move towards something which may not be much cheaper but may be inferior in quality. From memory, the turnover of staff in nursery schools is about 4% whereas in some of the large private providers the figure can be 14% or 15%. I recall that the latter offer quite a different setting. It is so important that our young children have continuity of care and that their professionals stay around for them for long periods. There can be stagnation but in general we want that long-term relationship with the carer.

I conclude with a quotation from Childcare Markets: Can They Deliver an Equitable Service?, edited by Eva Lloyd and Helen Penn. Professor Penn states in her summary:

“The key question is whether the childcare market is a reliable and equitable way of delivering childcare. For neoliberal countries, the risks and complications involved in allowing entrepreneurs to provide childcare are either unrecognised or deemed acceptable—or a combination of both”.

I think this was what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was referring to—the possible extra costs of placing more emphasis on the private sector. Professor Penn continues:

“In other countries where there is a childcare market, it is carefully controlled and generously funded, and although there may be many kinds of provider, the type of funding and the regulatory framework means that for-profit companies have limited room to manoeuvre. In yet other countries the childcare market is altogether unacceptable, and the government takes on the responsibility for providing childcare”.

Given that we are having a clause stand part debate, I remind the Government that a range of options are available and they can benefit from taking a very active role in this regard. Professor Penn concludes that there are,

“limitations and tensions in relying on the childcare market. Viewing childcare as a commodity to be bought and sold undermines equity and quality, and regulation has to be comprehensive and wide-reaching in order to try and compensate for these failings”.

This also speaks to the concern that has been expressed about relaxing inspection in these new arrangements. I do not consider that I understand the area sufficiently to be particularly critical or to be either for or against what the Government are proposing but I encourage us all to be as open-minded as possible in this area.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

Will the Minister answer two questions given that the statement of policy intention talks about the 20 childminder agency trials that are now up and running, with which the Government are testing this idea? In summing up, will the Minister say how many of the agencies in the trials are private sector companies as opposed to local authorities or voluntary organisations? Do the Government have any knowledge or evidence from anywhere else in the world of private sector companies being given responsibility for the regulation and inspection of childcare providers?

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I would like to speak to the group of amendments including Clause 74 stand part, Amendments 237, 239, 240 and government Amendments 240A to 240Q on childminder agencies. As regards Clause 74 stand part, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue. There are superb childminders right across the country, but their numbers have fallen significantly in the past 20 years. Through the introduction of agencies we aim to increase the number of childminders in the market, and provide an affordable, high-quality service to parents. This is enabling legislation. Childminder agencies will be voluntary. No childminder will be forced to join an agency. However, some childminders, especially those new to the profession, may want to take advantage of the support that agencies can offer.

Securing high-quality outcomes for children is central to the agency concept. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton, the chair of Ofsted, told us when we met with Peers last week that when childminders work together, there is a clear improvement in quality. Ofsted regards this as a way of professionalising the sector and driving up standards. Ofsted will play an essential role in ensuring this through its inspection of an agency—including, for example, observing a sample of childminders registered with the agency to make sure that the agency is providing a high-quality service.

19:15

Affordability of childcare is a growing concern for working parents. Agencies will be able to operate more cost efficiently by reducing administrative burdens on individual childminders and helping them to fill their spare places. This and increasing the number of childminders will help make it more affordable for parents.

Amendment 237 tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes of Stretford and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, would delay the coming into effect of the childminder agency provisions until after a period of consultation. We already have plans for consultation on agencies. During the course of the passage of the Bill through the other place, my colleague the Minister for Employment Relations and Consumer Affairs committed the Government to consulting on the key requirements for registration for agencies, and we will bring forward plans to do so in due course.

On the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and my noble friend Lady Walmsley about piloting, we are supporting trials and will disseminate the learning so that others who may be interested may follow. No one will be forced to set up or join an agency. Twenty organisations are participating in these trials, including local authorities, schools, children’s centres, nursery providers and private companies. Of the 20 trials, six are private businesses, eight are local authorities and two are academies.

I will take the second question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, away, but I know that fostering agencies, which will probably be many of the organisations concerned and cover a large proportion of the fostering market, are expected to secure the quality of their carers. We do not expect Ofsted to visit every one.

[Baroness Walmsley]

Can my noble friend the Minister answer my question about whether the assessment of the pilots will include looking at the effect on the rest of the childcare provision in the area of the pilot?

[Lord Nash]

I will attempt to answer that question in a minute. All the organisations I mentioned are getting involved to explore new and innovative ways to deliver the quality childcare that parents and children need. There will be a full evaluation of the trials with a first report early next year, including the difference they make in the local markets. Moreover, key requirements for registration will be set out in regulations and subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way.

Amendments 239 and 240 seek to make all childminders registered with early years childminder agencies subject to individual inspection by Ofsted. However, we believe Ofsted will have sufficient powers to inspect early years providers registered with an agency. First, the Bill contains provisions that will enable Ofsted to inspect early years provision by those registered with an agency, as part of its inspection of an agency. Secondly, Ofsted retains its existing powers of entry to any registered childcare premises to determine whether providers are complying with requirements imposed by the Childcare Act 2006. If there are concerns about an agency-registered childminder, Ofsted will have the power to go in and investigate.

That is not dissimilar to the process for other organisations subject to Ofsted inspection. School inspections do not observe every teacher but instead observe a sample, although they pay close attention to the arrangements in place to secure good safeguarding. That is the approach we wish to see. We are working closely with Ofsted to develop a robust registration and inspection regime for childminder agencies to make sure that agencies are providing a high-quality service to childminders and parents. We expect Ofsted will consult on its inspection framework later this year.

A key feature of the agency model is that the agency rather than Ofsted is responsible for monitoring the quality of provision and compliance with registration requirements for its childminders. It is the agency that is responsible for communicating the outcome of monitoring evaluations to parents. The intention is for agencies to help remove some of the burdens that childminders currently face. It does not make sense for agency childminders to be subject to two separate inspections by different organisations. Agencies will be required to monitor the standards of care being delivered by the childminders they register and will be able to help childminders with training, business support and advice, and in finding parents needing childcare. They will also be a valuable service for parents who want to find a high-quality childminder. I therefore urge the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, to withdraw her amendment and the other noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones, not to push their other amendments.

I turn to government Amendment 240A. The Bill gives the Secretary of State a power to make regulations about the suspension of a childminder’s registration by a childminder agency. Amendment 240A seeks to make clear that those regulations must provide for a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for any childminder whose registration is suspended and should be included in the Bill.

Government Amendments 240B to 240Q seek to amend the disqualification regime set out for childminder agencies in the Bill. Safeguarding will be paramount, and agency-registered childminders will be subject to the same checks as independently registered childminders. However, agency staff who are involved in marketing support, for example, will not be caring directly for children. These amendments are required to ensure that the Government can make appropriate disqualification provisions for those who apply to register as, or work in, childminder agencies, which are in line with the roles that they will play and mirror the approach taken by similar bodies.

Amendments 240B and 240C will therefore amend the Bill so that the consequences of disqualification from registering as a provider relate solely to the delivery of childcare or any direct concern in the management of childcare provision. Amendments 240D to 240L will make corresponding amendments to the Bill so that the consequences of disqualification from registering as an agency relate solely to the running of an agency, in the sense of being involved in the management of an agency or working in an agency in a capacity which involves visits to childminders’ homes. Amendments 240M to 240Q are technical amendments which are consequential on those I have outlined above. They amend provisions concerning powers of entry to the premises of a childminder agency and offences by corporate bodies. Amendments 240B to 240Q should be included in the Bill.

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, withdraws her amendment, as I assume she will, I will just make a point about the Minister’s analogy that not every schoolteacher is inspected by Ofsted, but a sample from the school. We have a very different situation here. Childminders are working on their own, behind closed doors and on their own premises. Teachers in schools are all on the same premises and their work is quite visible and open to everybody to see. When I did my teaching practice, I was in an open-plan laboratory and my supervisor was the other side of the bookcase. It was terrifying. The fact is that it is very easy to know, in a school, if a teacher is not doing the right thing or is just not up to standard. It is not the same thing at all and I really would not accept that analogy.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for addressing some of those issues. I would like to pick up on a number of them. First, he suggested that childminders working together makes sense. Yes, absolutely that makes sense, but informal networks exist already. Local authorities are doing a lot of this work already. It also seems very odd that we are still in the middle of a pilot and are putting something into the Bill when we have no idea whether it will work. Even if it does, the sample we have is just six private companies out of 20. When the whole point of this is the suggestion that we move to a private sector approach, having just six out of 20 does not seem to make much sense.

The Minister mentioned that Ofsted can inspect any of these childminders. The question is: will it? The cost of inspection according to Ofsted is £701 per childminder visit. That is quite a lot when Ofsted is already under pressure financially. I am very disappointed that the Minister did not address the issue of the conflict of interest, because that is absolutely fundamental. If a private provider inspects childminders who are paying it, there has to be a conflict of interest. At this time of austerity, when people are really up against it financially, to suggest that costs will come down is fairy-tale land. The assumption that the Minister makes is that a childminder does not have enough children, and that they can go to an agency that will have a whole pool of children they can pick up. That is unlikely to be the case because we know that there is already a shortage of childminders. The probability is that costs will increase for childminders and they will pass that cost directly on to parents. That concerns me but—

[The Earl of Listowel]

What would stop the Government from injecting funds into local authorities to enable them to build more networks? Rather than going down the agency route to bring these childminders together, what obstacles would there be to a push to enable more local authorities to build on the networks they already have? Why would that not meet the Government’s aim of building the capacity of childminders?

[Lord Nash]

I will take that away. My first thought would be that we have not got any money at the moment. Secondly, the assumption that the public sector can run things more efficiently than the private sector is one that I would probably disagree with on principle.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 237 withdrawn.

Clause 74 agreed.

Amendment 238 not moved.

Schedule 4: Childminder agencies: amendments

Amendments 239 to 240 not moved.

Amendments 240A to 240Q

Moved by

[Lord Nash]

240A: Schedule 4, page 175, line 21, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations by virtue of subsection (1) which make provision about the suspension of the registration of an early years provider or a later years provider with a childminder agency must include provision conferring on the registered provider a right of appeal to the Tribunal against suspension.”

240B: Schedule 4, page 178, line 17, leave out sub-paragraph (3)

240C: Schedule 4, page 178, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (4)

240D: Schedule 4, page 179, line 32, leave out “member,”

240E: Schedule 4, page 179, line 32, after “of” insert “, or partner in,”

240F: Schedule 4, page 179, line 34, leave out “or otherwise work for such an agency.” and insert “be a member of the governing body of such an agency, or otherwise be directly concerned in the management of such an agency, or”

240G: Schedule 4, page 179, line 34, at end insert—
“(d) work for such an agency in any capacity which involves entering premises on which early years provision or later years provision is being provided.”

240H: Schedule 4, page 179, line 34, at end insert—
“(1A) No early years childminder agency or later years childminder agency may employ a person who is disqualified from registration by regulations under section 76A in any capacity which involves—
(a) being directly concerned in the management of an early years childminder agency or a later years childminder agency, or(b) entering premises on which early years provision or later years provision is being provided.”

240J: Schedule 4, page 179, leave out lines 35 to 40

240K: Schedule 4, page 179, line 41, leave out “(2)” and insert “(1A)”

240L: Schedule 4, page 179, line 41, at end insert—
“( ) A person (“P”) who contravenes subsection (1A) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (3) if P proves that P did not know, and had no reasonable grounds for believing, that the person whom P was employing was disqualified from registration.”

240M: Schedule 4, page 181, line 33, leave out “member,”

240N: Schedule 4, page 181, line 33, after “of” insert “, or partner in,”

240P: Schedule 4, page 181, line 34, after “agency,” insert “a member of its governing body or otherwise directly concerned in the management of the agency,”

240Q: Schedule 4, page 183, line 20, at end insert—
“ (1) Section 87 (offences by bodies corporate) is amended as follows.
(1) In subsection (1) for “This section” substitute “Subsection (2)”.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
“(3) Subsection (4) applies where any offence under this Part is committed by a partnership.(4) If the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any partner, that partner (as well as the partnership) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”(3) In the title, at the end insert (and partnerships”.”

Amendments 240A to 240Q agreed.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed.

19:30

Clause 75: Inspections at request of providers of childcare to young children

Debate on whether Clause 75 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, this is a probing debate because we now have a very new and different Ofsted framework for early years settings. Local authorities will no longer inspect them, although they will retain their duty to help improve quality, based on the Ofsted verdict. There is some confusion as to whether Clause 75, which allows settings to pay for an additional Ofsted inspection, only applies to early years providers operating on non-domestic premises. That would exclude childminders and, I think, Sure Start children’s centres. I hope that the Minister can clarify this point because I have received two different interpretations from the sector.

Referring back to our debate on Clause 74, it occurs to me that childminders who are signed up to agencies but who are not chosen in the sample of those to be inspected by Ofsted when they inspect the agency, may wish to ask and pay for an individual inspection in order to establish their own standards. Can this be done? I am doubtful about how many childminders would want to pay for an inspection if the Government decided to extend the provision to them. They are not highly paid and may not be able to afford it. A small nursery setting might also find it a burden. How much are the inspections likely to cost? We do not want to add to the running costs of settings, in order to avoid them putting up the price of childcare for parents. Could settings that did not previously have a “good” Ofsted rating make quick improvements and ask for another inspection? This might give them an advantage over other settings, since normally the inspectors turn up without notice. However, if you have just made improvements, ask to pay for another inspection and then the inspector comes along exactly when you are expecting to see him, that gives an advantage.

How often can settings ask for a paid-for inspection? Can they keep on going until they get to the quality they are looking for? The Secretary of State is against multiple GCSE entries; is he also against multiple Ofsted inspections?

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, the aim of this clause is to enable early years providers to request and pay for a reinspection from Ofsted outside the normal inspection cycle. We are aware of the impact an Ofsted inspection rating can have on a provider. Both reputation and the ability to offer funded early education for two, three or four year-olds will be affected. This could, in turn, have a dramatic impact on the viability of childcare provision, as much early years provision is run by private, voluntary and independent organisations.

We need to ensure a balance between maintaining high standards of provision and encouraging providers to make swift improvements in quality. While we recognise that Ofsted has introduced changes to its inspection framework for group providers from 4 November 2013 so that providers who receive “requires improvement” or “inadequate” ratings will be reinspected in six to 12 months, there are a number of providers, for example those judged “satisfactory” prior to 4 November, who will not benefit from these changes immediately and may wait a number of years for the opportunity to be reinspected, regardless of having made improvements much sooner.

The intention behind this clause is to enable providers to request a paid-for reinspection at an earlier date, should they wish to do so. This opportunity to demonstrate improvement sooner provides an incentive for providers to make improvements at a swifter pace. We appreciate that it would be unworkable if every provider requested and was given an early reinspection. That is why the Secretary of State, working closely with Ofsted and others, will set out in a remit letter the conditions under which such reinspections can take place. For example, we intend to have a minimum time between inspections to ensure that the provider has had an opportunity to make the necessary improvements. The situation will be kept under review and further conditions will be introduced if necessary.

My noble friend asked about costs. The fees will be set out in secondary legislation and the amount will be decided based on further negotiation with Ofsted and in the light of any consultation with the sector. Ofsted has indicated that the cost of childcare inspections is likely to range from around £700 for an individual childminder to £1,500 for group settings. Individual providers would need to decide for themselves whether or not paying for an early reinspection is worth it financially in terms of generating future additional income. I remind my noble friend that it is of course entirely voluntary. On her analogy with endless GCSE resits, I would say that costs could be a factor.

My noble friend also asked about the scope. It will include childminders and childcare within a Sure Start children’s centre. It does not include inspection of children’s centres’ wider functions. Childminding agencies could request reinspection, but not the childminders registered with them. If that does not sufficiently clarify, I am happy to write to my noble friend in answer to any of her questions. I hope that she has been reassured as to the intention of the clause and that she will be happy to allow it to stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Walmsley]

I thank my noble friend for her reply. As I said at the outset, this is a probing debate. The Minister has clarified one point about the scope of the application of this power to request another inspection. As I say, I have had briefings from two different groups, one of which said that childminders were not included and the other that they were. Having said that, I cannot imagine many childminders forking out another £700; they just cannot afford it. Of course, I am sure that we would agree that it is far better to provide a high-quality service and get a good inspection rating in the first place. My noble friend has clarified some of the issues and I am satisfied enough to withdraw my opposition to the clause.

Clause 75 agreed.

Committee adjourned at 7.37 pm.

House of Lords

Monday 11th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Monday, 11 November 2013.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Introduction: Baroness Goldie

Monday 11th November 2013 Lords Chamber

14:38

Annabel MacNicoll Goldie, having been created Baroness Goldie, of Bishopton in the County of Renfrewshire, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Sanderson of Bowden and Lord Selkirk of Douglas, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Power of Attorney

Monday 11th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

14:43

Asked by

[Baroness Trumpington]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to make it easier to nominate a power of attorney.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally) (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have taken the following steps to make it easier to make a lasting power of attorney. First, the Office of the Public Guardian has released a test version of a digital tool which allows donors to make lasting powers of attorney online. Secondly, it has redesigned its paper forms to make them easier to follow and is consulting on proposals to combine the application processes of the two types of lasting power of attorney and to introduce a digital signature. The fee for registering a lasting power of attorney has been reduced from £130 to £110 from 1 October this year.

[Baroness Trumpington (Con)]

My Lords, I wonder who has told who about that reduction because I was quoted £200 by the lawyers. Many women, and maybe men as well, are thoroughly put off by the amount of money it will cost simply to do what one used to do. If the Minister asks his more elderly relations he may find out that one used to get a bit of paper, write on it “I give you power of attorney”, sign it and send it to the bank—that is all you had to do. This whole business seems to me unnecessarily expensive and time-consuming. I ask whether we might return to having a simple piece of paper.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I have to tell the noble Baroness that the number of older relations I have is becoming increasingly small. I take the point that she made, but we also have to be careful in dealing with matters where often quite considerable sums, in terms of inheritance, are in question. There has to be an orderly process that can be much better checked than the noble Baroness’s scrap of paper with a line on it. We are trying—and the Office of the Public Guardian is making every effort—to consult on this, and the consultations end on 26 November. We are trying to simplify and make it easier for people to do this without having to pay expensive legal fees.

[Baroness Boothroyd (CB)]

My Lords, this is the document to register power of attorney: it is 12 pages chock-full of questions, cautions and warnings. It is the most verbose document that I have had to deal with either for myself or for those I have represented in over 30 years in public life. Of course there must be safeguards in all this. A doctor has certified in this document that I am capable of making decisions—I have all my marbles. Why then do I have to name from two to five people to be told that I am registering power of attorney so that they can object to it? Why? Can this bundle of red tape and jargon not be withdrawn, consolidated in a new draft and put in the Library so that I and people such as the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, who said it all, and lots of other people who might want to see this—solicitors and what have you—can inject some common sense into it?

[Lord McNally]

The last thing that I said to my officials was, “You realise I’m going to be addressing an informed and vested audience?”. I will make sure that the Hansard of these exchanges is taken as part of the public consultation, which I emphasise ends on 26 November. The reason for the consultation is very much to do with the noble Baroness’s point: there were, and continue to be, complaints about how complex this matter is. We hope that the outcome of the consultation will be a much simpler process which people can use.

[Baroness Turner of Camden (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very glad to hear from the Minister that simplification is intended. Recently I have had to deal with these complications because unfortunately my sister is in the early stages of Alzheimer’s and it has become necessary for me to find somebody to assume the power of attorney in that case. It is not easy. It is not only complicated and expensive but the person whom you nominate, and who has been nominated by me via our lawyers to handle the power of attorney, has his own job to get on with. It is also very time-consuming for the person who assumes it. I am grateful that a relative of mine has taken on this task, but it needed a bit of persuasion. It is not only the expense; it is also the time involved in doing it. It is important that it be really simplified so that people can take this job on. This is increasingly important as we are dealing with an older population in which people require this kind of service as simply and quickly as possible.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has put her finger right on it. We all know the change in the structure of the population that is going on. I am always amazed when I am in the corridor and pass a colleague who I know is as old as I am and who says, “I’ve got to go and visit Mother this weekend”. That is one of the responsibilities; and because of these increasing responsibilities, we have to make sure that as well as making this process simple, we also make it fraud-proof. That is the balance that we are trying to get.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, I am taking my life in my hands a bit by confronting the two noble Baronesses but, as an old solicitor, I wonder if my noble friend Lady Trumpington has taken account of the fact that the piece of paper that she so rightly said she could sign and waft off is still available to her. She can still go to a stationer and buy a general power of attorney for a pound, and that is all that she will need to pay. The problem is that the lasting power of attorney created in 2007 deals with people who have lost their capacity to command and deal with their own affairs. That is a hypersensitive issue, and within a family many people might be deeply uneasy about who gets that power, particularly in terms of life and death issues. Perhaps the answer is not as simple as it might at first appear.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful for that question. I look forward to witnessing the meeting of my noble friends Lord Phillips and Lady Trumpington in Peers’ Lobby after Questions.

Consumer Protection

Monday 11th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

14:52

Asked by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what legislation or other proposals they have to update the protections for consumers from unfair practices.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, rogue traders who mislead and bully consumers, some of whom are the most vulnerable in our communities, are a blight on society. Research by Consumer Focus found that they cause more than £3 billion-worth of detriment to consumers each year. The Government recently announced legislation to make it simpler and clearer for consumers to fight back by giving them new rights to seek redress and, where appropriate, compensation for the damage that they cause.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, we have range of people and companies ripping off people who play fair: those who mis-sell PPI, rogue claims management companies, dodgy builders, people selling fake goods and people breaching copyrights. For a whole range of services, the Government use premium-rate phone lines so that when people phone for help and advice they pay over the odds for the privilege. For example, when bereaved people phone the Bereavement Service for help and advice they are charged over the odds. Is not the Minister ashamed of that? When are the Government going to put people first?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

We agree that it is inappropriate for vulnerable people to pay high charges for accessing vital public services, and we are clear that a more consistent approach is needed. The Cabinet Office now runs a cross-departmental group to consider customer telephone lines. This group has made some good progress in drafting guidance on prefix number selection and establishing best practice. We will publish the guidance and have a standing remit to ensure that it is kept up to date.

[Lord Wrigglesworth (LD)]

My Lords, will my noble friend look at the plight of some bank customers with dormant accounts? Is he aware that a current account can be declared dormant after a year’s inactivity and a deposit account can be declared dormant after just three years? It can take six months for people to get their own money back in those circumstances. Will he ask the banks to notify customers more clearly and more readily that their accounts are to be made dormant and will he try to get the banks to speed up the repayment of people’s own money?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The Dormant Bank and Building Societies Accounts Act was passed in November 2008 and included a requirement for the Government to undertake a review. The legislation set out the specific questions that the review should cover: for example, how many banks and building societies have transferred balances; how much money has been transferred and how promptly; and how effective the arrangements have been for meeting claims. HM Treasury is currently undertaking the review. The closing date was 21 October, and the report will be laid before Parliament by March 2014.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the National Trading Standards Board. The Minister’s department is currently consulting on a new piece of consumer legislation. Will he tell us why it is in the interest of consumers that this legislation will require that two days’ notice is given before potential rogue traders are inspected by trading standards officers? Why is it in the interest of consumers for potential scammers—importers of counterfeit or unsafe goods—to have two days in which to destroy the material and the records that might otherwise incriminate them?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, the powers strike a balance between protecting civil liberties and reducing burdens on business and enabling enforcers to tackle rogue traders. Requiring enforcers to give 48 hours’ notice before carrying out routine inspections will benefit businesses by making it more convenient for them to accommodate these inspections. However, notice need not be given, for example, where it would defeat the purpose of the visit, as when a breach is suspected, such as with counterfeit DVDs.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister, in responding to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for protection of consumers from unfair practices, look at helping those people who find that, without their knowledge, they are signed up for membership of trade unions or the Labour Party?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My noble friend may be aware that there is a Bill going through Parliament at the moment and I am at the Dispatch Box later.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, it is not just consumers of the big six who are taken advantage of by their providers; many vulnerable customers will have to pay more in rent than they should, are taken advantage of by the banks and are unable to shop around. Will the noble Viscount tell us whether the Government are really on the side of consumers and, if so, why they wound up Consumer Focus, whose report he has just quoted? If they are on the side of consumers, what will the Government do to strengthen the power and remit of ombudsmen so that people can get redress for poor service?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The noble Baroness will know that we are on the side of consumers and that we have updated some legislation already, particularly focusing on estate agents. She brought up the issues of tenancies and lettings. All letting and property management agents will have to belong to an independent redress scheme; the process for redress has become much clearer since 2010.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware of the disgusting practice of payday lenders of targeting their advertising at children’s television programmes? Why do my grandchildren have to be subjected to that kind of advertising when they are watching “Peppa Pig”?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The subject of payday lending has taken up much time in your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord will know that we are taking action. The FCA announced last month that it has proposed tough action on payday lending, which includes a focus on children, and we welcome these proposals.

Nuclear Power: Procurement

Monday 11th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

14:58

Asked by

[Viscount Hanworth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that United Kingdom suppliers will be called upon to provide the components that will be required in building any new nuclear power station in the United Kingdom.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that the UK supply chain is able fully to capitalise on the opportunities that will come with the UK’s nuclear new-build programme. Investor confidence continues to grow with projects being taken forward by three consortia. These projects have set out plans to develop around 16 gigawatts of new nuclear power in the UK, which could support an estimated 29,000 to 41,000 jobs across the nuclear supply chain at the peak of its construction.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Recently, one of the EDF executives called into question the competence of the UK to supply high-tech equipment for the Hinkley C power station. This contradicts a current capability report of the Nuclear Industry Association, which maintains that, apart from a few large-scale items, the UK could supply almost all of the mechanical and electrical equipment, including the controls and the instrumentation. There are some essential misgivings concerning the possible wilful exclusion of competent UK suppliers. Will the Minister declare more fully what steps, if any, are being taken to protect their positions?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, EDF has indicated that around 57% of the opportunities in the construction of Hinkley Point C would come to the UK, while Horizon has estimated that it is expected that around 60% of the value of the first plant will be locally sourced. Nuclear is a key growth industry that provides highly skilled jobs. The 16 gigawatts of new-build capacity planned by industry would create a very large number of jobs, as I said. We in this country have the capability and the capacity.

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while there will be a wide welcome for the long-awaited return to nuclear power in this country, and not least, that it will be at Hinkley Point, which will make Bridgwater a boom town for many years, there is great disappointment that it is thought that it will not generate any electricity before 2023? Great efforts have been made by many people, not least by the landowner, who in a very constructive approach allowed all the preliminary groundwork to be done before any planning permission had even been given, to try to help this programme forward. Will the Minister ensure that every effort is made in her department to ensure that there is no hold-up with the state-aid permissions that we need to get out of Europe, so that we can get ahead with this programme?

[Baroness Verma]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend. He will, of course, be aware that these conversations are ongoing. Very constructive conversations are taking place and we are trying our level best to ensure that there will be no hindrance or obstruction.

[Baroness Wall of New Barnet (Lab)]

The Minister’s previous portfolio involved skills that are found in many of the businesses—small and medium-sized enterprises—that will act as suppliers. The Government and the previous Government have focused on those businesses, which provide more than 75% of the workforce. They are absolutely ripe for apprenticeships, which again, is another government aspiration. Can the noble Baroness give us more certainty that apprenticeships will not be damaged in the way in which this business is carried out?

[Baroness Verma]

The noble Baroness is right about the skills agenda. We have created the Nuclear Energy Skills Alliance, which brings together all the key skills bodies related to nuclear, to collaborate and co-ordinate all the skills development in the sector. However, she is absolutely right—there is plenty to do. We are pleased that this sector is progressing rather than standing still.

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, first, will my noble friend place copies in the Library of the memorandum of understanding signed by GE Hitachi with Babcock and Rolls-Royce, which allows them to participate in the manufacturing of components for the replacement of Oldbury and Wylfa power stations? Secondly, what are the prospects of British industry becoming involved in the two proposals that have been submitted by GE Hitachi and Candu Energy respectively for the use of the plutonium stockpile to generate electricity at Sellafield in Cumbria?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, on my noble friend’s first question, I will be happy to put into the Library the information that we have at hand. However, the memorandum of understanding is between two private companies, so I will go back to see if they will be happy to have something put in the Library. On my noble friend’s second question, while MOX remains the Government’s preferred option, we are in active talks with a number of providers. I reassure my noble friend that the conversations are ongoing, but we still have a preferred option.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

Does the Minister understand that in the context of the proposed new Wylfa B nuclear power station, the likely builders are a Japanese-led consortium led by Hitachi, which has also been looking at building nuclear power stations in Lithuania and possibly other locations on the European mainland? Does she accept that the uncertainty with regard to the future UK membership of the European Union may well mititate against maximising the number of contracts for British companies arising from situations such as that in Wylfa?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the fact is that we have a lot of interest from a lot of companies coming to the UK. We should be very proud that there is so much interest. We have an excellent skills base here and we should welcome all investors to our country.

[Baroness Worthington (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that Sheffield Forgemasters recently completed a large-scale forging for a nuclear reactor to be built in South America? The design was Canadian, but it is not a design that is licensed in the UK. Could the noble Baroness give us an update on whether that Canadian design could be licensed here and, if so, when?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, it is for operators to decide on the designs and it is for the Government then to approve them, as long as the regulators are satisfied.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has said that 57% will be sourced in the United Kingdom. Will she tell the House how much of that will be sourced in Scotland? If she cannot do that now, could she write to me giving me some indication?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the noble Lord knows that I will not be able to answer that at this moment. It would be better for me to take the question away.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, if that question were asked of the United States Government, the German Government or the French Government, I think there would have been a much more robust defence of jobs and companies. Why will the Government not do more?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I have just said to your Lordships’ House that between 29,000 and 41,000 jobs will be made available through what we are doing currently. Of course this is a growing sector and of course we want to see more job growth, but we also want to ensure that we get the right mix of energies in this country and this Government are doing that.

Children: Temporary Accommodation

Monday 11th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:06

Asked by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ameliorate the impact on children of living in temporary accommodation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are investing £470 million during this spending review period to help prevent and tackle homelessness. This investment has meant that the average time spent in temporary accommodation by those families who are at risk of becoming homeless has reduced from 20 months at the start of 2010 to 13 months as of September this year.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which, frankly, I do not believe addresses the seriousness of the current situation. Shelter estimates that this Christmas 80,000 children in Great Britain will wake up homeless. The number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation is the highest for nearly 10 years, with some 40% having to stay beyond the legal limit of six weeks, and more than 11,000 homeless households have been based in temporary accommodation in another area. All of this is damaging and disruptive to children’s health, to their education and to family life. I ask the Minister how the costs of all this to families, communities and society are weighed against the benefit restrictions that are fuelling the homelessness crisis.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, all of us are concerned to protect children and, thankfully, in this country we have a strong homelessness safety net, which is protected in law and ensures that families with children at risk of being homeless always have a roof over their head. As I said in my original Answer to the noble Lord, we have invested £470 million in preventing homelessness. Our effort is very much around preventing and avoiding people being put at risk in the first instance, but we are also working very closely with councils to ensure that they are properly equipped to provide the support that is necessary to anyone who is at risk at any time, never mind whether it is at Christmas or not.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, given that there is considerable anecdotal evidence of the health and education problems faced by young children in temporary accommodation, especially bed-and-breakfast accommodation, is any data collected to show the exact effect on children, specifically where they have to change GPs? Is there a requirement on local authorities to collect that data, particularly where children are in single-room accommodation for more than the maximum six weeks?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful to my noble friend. As I have just said, Ministers are working very hard with local authorities to ensure that those families who are housed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are not housed there for longer than six weeks. Yes, data will be collected and I am sure that I will be able to provide more information to my noble friend, but I emphasise the huge amount of effort that is being made in this area to minimise any of the effects on children.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister really think that bed-and-breakfast accommodation is ever suitable for children?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

What would be absolutely and totally unacceptable would be for any child to have no roof whatever over their head. If a child is at serious risk and the only option available to a local authority in an emergency is bed-and-breakfast accommodation, then, as long as it is for the barest minimum time possible, that is preferable to no accommodation whatever. However, clearly it should be for the very minimum amount of time.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, will the noble Baroness ensure that every effort is made across government to limit the impact that this disruption has on a child’s education? These frequent moves can be very disruptive for the education of children at a critical stage in their lives.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble Lord makes an important point, and of course we are working very hard to ensure that there is as little disruption as possible. It is perhaps worth saying to your Lordships that there is clearly great pressure on London versus the rest of the UK. I think that the term we are talking about is “out-of-district placements”, where people are moved from one district to another. However, it is worth noble Lords being aware that information collected by London Councils shows that, of the moves from one district to another, most are within London and only a very small percentage are necessarily outside London.

[Baroness Knight of Collingtree (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that even worse in the order of upsetting these children is when they are moved from one adoptive home to another? This can sometimes go on for years, with a long list of upsets for the children. Does she recognise that this is a real problem that needs attending to because of the misery that it causes?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My noble friend is right. In the efforts that we are making under the heading of prevention, certainly some of the money is used to ensure that families stay together so that as few children as possible are disrupted and moved out of their families to any other kind of home.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree with local authorities and with me that the number of children in temporary accommodation, and the length of time that they spend there, will both rise as a direct result of the Government’s policies—that is, the bedroom tax?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

There is no evidence at this time to suggest that what the noble Baroness asserts is the case. I emphasise the amount of funding that has been specifically set aside both for the areas where rent increases are causing a shortage of affordable housing and for all areas to help people transition and deal with the different welfare reform changes.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

Can the Minister give the House an indication of the number of local authorities and families involved in breaching the six-week rule?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

This is an area where we have focused quite a lot of effort. We have increased transparency by publishing information about the performance of all authorities in this regard, and we have provided £2 million for the seven councils with the highest numbers of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation to support them in reducing those numbers. Westminster and Croydon are two examples of local authorities that we have worked with, and they have now reduced to zero the number of families staying in bed-and-breakfast accommodation beyond six weeks.

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

Monday 11th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Committee (2nd Day)

15:14

Relevant documents: 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, 3rd Report from the Constitution Committee and 12th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

Amendment 94

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

94: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Professional lobbyists taking up employment in Government
(1) Any professional lobbyist taking up a senior position in Government shall—
(a) have their appointment scrutinised by a Committee; and(b) have restrictions placed on their activities as set out in subsection (3).(2) “Senior position in Government” means a position as Senior Civil Servant or their equivalent.
(3) The Minister, after consultation with relevant stakeholders, may make regulations about the activities specified in subsection (1)(b).”

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, we return again to what my colleague has just described as a Bill with a long title but a very short content. The amendment stands in the names of my noble friend Lady Royall and me. Last week, an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Rooker, called for the requirement under the Bill to publish meetings with lobbyists to be extended from Ministers of the Crown to the leader of the Opposition in the six months before an election. This is an interesting proposition, as it raises the question of those slightly outside the magic circle of Ministers and Permanent Secretaries, the lobbying of whom should be disclosed to the public.

However, the other side of that coin is the question of whether there are paid lobbyists—paid by industries to promote their interests—who have the ear of government in a particularly close way, but who would not be caught by the register rules, as they are not civil servants and they protest that when they do meet, for example, the Prime Minister, they are speaking not on behalf of those clients who pay them but about very different matters, such as how to beat the Labour Party, or, indeed—the Liberal Democrats should be warned—how to beat the Liberal Democrats. We therefore find that, for the strangest of reasons, meetings that the Prime Minister has with a very well paid lobbyist are not recorded, because, as it so happens, they are only to pore over opinion polls.

Furthermore, despite the Prime Minister’s promise to lead,

“the most transparent government ever”,

we understand that No. 10 has failed to reveal the identity of guests entertained at Chequers. We do not know whether these are lobbyists, mere donors to the party or ordinary friends. But what we do know is that Downing Street has traditionally published an annual list of guests at Chequers, but has not done so since July 2011.

In the context of this Bill, we would be interested to know how many times the lobbyist Lynton Crosby has been at Chequers. What sounds odd is that even after the Bill becomes law, Mr Crosby’s lobbying consultancy would have to disclose any such visits—and therefore publish more than the Prime Minister would have to about such conversations—because Mr Crosby would be defined by the Prime Minister just as a strategic political adviser. But how easy is it to make such distinctions, with the Bill as it stands?

Mr Crosby was hired in November 2012. That month his lobbying firm signed a contract with Philip Morris. In December, he allegedly chaired a meeting at which he advised tobacco companies about plain packaging. In January, he started work for the Conservative Party. In March, a senior Whitehall source told the BBC that Australian-style plain packaging would be introduced here. In July—surprise, surprise—the plan was dropped.

Similar questions have been raised about minimum unit pricing for alcohol. Of course, we have tried to find out the names of Mr Crosby’s clients, which would have had to be disclosed if the Government had produced this Bill rather sooner after their 2010 promise rather than now, as his lobbying company, being a consultancy, would have had to register and disclose its clients. As it is, Mr Shapps said on 17 July, it is a matter for Mr Crosby who his clients within the company are. That is because, as the Minister reiterated to me in a Written Answer on 29 July, Lynton Crosby was not employed by the Government—although, as we know, he was employed by a lobbying company, and by the Conservative Party.

In passing, we might note that although the Minister claims that Part 2 of the Bill is aimed at keeping big money out of politics, the Conservative Party can afford to pay Mr Crosby £500,000 to do his best to keep Mr Cameron in Downing Street. That sounds like big money to me.

Putting that to one side, this example—and there are others—raise two significant questions. One is about a possible conflict of interest caused by a lobbyist working on the Conservative Party leader’s political strategy, but there is also the wider point about the revolving door between government and the lobbying industry. We have just heard about the appointment of a former lobbyist, who also happened to be a Conservative campaigns officer, to oversee public appointments, which sounds to me like double jeopardy. The Civil Service Code states that Whitehall mandarins should be politically independent—a former Conservative worker does not look too independent. The lobbying transparency campaigner, Tamasin Cave, referring to this appointment, said that Ms Wyld had been a lobbyist. She went on to say:

“This job needs someone impartial. It does not bode well”.

Last July, the Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee also looked at the issue from the other end: the revolving door between the Civil Service and the private sector. It urged the Government to adopt a joined-up approach to lobbying regulations and to consider changes to the ACOBA alongside lobbying regulations. All of this needs flushing out if the public are really to see who has the ear of government and whether the Bill’s objective of increasing transparency is to be achieved.

Our amendments tackle the issue of lobbyists coming into the system, either as civil servants or employed by a governing party, rather than the outward move, but both should be of concern in any Bill dealing with the openness and transparency of the lobbying industry. I beg to move.

[Lord Swinfen (Con)]

My Lords, I am not an expert on lobbying by any means, but I wonder whether lobbyists employed by opposition parties should also have their position made public. Opposition parties from time to time can form Governments after an election. The work of lobbyists in opposition is just as important as the work of lobbyists for those parties in government. The noble Baroness needs to redraft her amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I shall start by welcoming the at least partial support expressed by the Labour Front Bench for Part 1 of the Bill, and indeed the commendable sentiment that has been expressed for strengthening Part 1 further. I am sure that as we proceed, the same sort of constructive spirit for the Bill’s aims will be provided by the Labour Front Bench. The revolving door is an issue all the way across politics, which no Government have yet entirely managed to resolve. We recognise that people moving in and out of different private and public forms of life create some problems, and a number of things are now in place to cope with those who move from private industry into government and back again. It is not a new problem with this Government.

For Amendment 95 to cover all three parties, one would need to add,

“those who are employed in voluntary capacities”,

because my party would love to employ a number of these people but could not conceivably afford to pay them. Indeed, I am aware of a number of people associated with consultant lobbyist companies who have advised my party in the past. Perhaps that is an area that might also be considered.

I am conscious that this is very much about Lynton Crosby and Crosby Textor. In listening to the beginning of the speech of the noble Baroness, I felt that in some ways this was an amendment with a very long text but very little content, if I may slightly adapt what she said when starting out.

I note her comment on guests at Chequers and I will take that back. However, I googled Crosby Textor this morning and I can assure the noble Baroness that it would be caught by the new register, since it has offices in both Sydney and London, and would be forced to register and declare its clients under the new Part 1. That is part of what the Bill is about and Crosby Textor would therefore be entirely covered by it. The question of what happens when a member of a consulting company is employed under a contract part-time—as he is—by one of the political parties in government takes us close to the difficult area of how far political parties in government should be covered by this scheme. I have checked and I can assure the noble Baroness that he has not discussed the tobacco question with the Government. I realise that the tobacco question—I was not so aware of the alcohol question—is very sensitive in government. I merely say that Part 1 of the Bill would catch Crosby Textor. We would then know exactly who its clients were; that is part of the justification of Part 1.

Professional lobbyists taking up employment in government is a rather broader issue. We would of course need to know what sort of a committee would look at this. It would be easier to absorb it into the current arrangements for checking on people who move into government from the outside and, indeed, those who then leave government and go back into these sorts of activities, for which Whitehall already has arrangements. However, I think in some ways these two amendments are in order to make sure that Crosby Textor gets on to the agenda, and possibly into tomorrow’s “Today” programme. Having said that, I say: well played. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, the amendment was not short on content and certainly not on intent. However, before I make one comment to the Minister, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that my passing reference at the beginning was exactly the point that he raised. I did not reiterate what we did last week. It was about the leader of the Opposition in the run-up to an election possibly making the same declarations as we are now asking for from Ministers. I do not have full backing yet from the powers that be in the party, but we came as close as we could to a nod in that direction last week in a way that I think the Minister understands.

The Minister slightly misunderstood the point of the amendment. We know that Crosby Textor would be caught, which is why we were trying to get the information before the Bill became law because it was taking such a long time. The interest was, of course, that the Prime Minister would feel that he did not have to declare that because the person he is meeting at the moment is not a Permanent Secretary and therefore would not be covered in that way. The two really do need to dovetail together.

This is something that we will want to come back to on Report, maybe not exactly in this form. However, it will be important for the aim of the Government, which is to make sure that those who have the ear of the most senior people in government declare theirs. We will need to make sure that we have captured that in a suitable amendment. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 94 withdrawn.

Amendment 95 not moved.

Clause 8 agreed.

Clause 9: Notice to supply information

Amendments 96 and 97 not moved.

Clause 9 agreed.

Clauses 10 and 11 agreed.

15:29

Clause 12: Offences

Amendments 98 to 106 not moved.

Clause 12 agreed.

Amendment 107 not moved.

Clause 13 agreed.

Clause 14: Civil penalties

Amendment 108 not moved.

Clause 14 agreed.

Clause 15 agreed.

Clause 16: Imposition of penalty

Amendment 109 not moved.

Clause 16 agreed.

Clause 17 agreed.

Clause 18: Civil penalties and criminal proceedings

Amendment 110 not moved.

Clause 18 agreed.

Clauses 19 and 20 agreed.

Clause 21: Guidance

Amendment 111 not moved.

Clause 21 agreed.

Clause 22: Charges

Amendments 112 and 113 not moved.

Clause 22 agreed.

Clause 23: Power to make further provision

Amendment 114 not moved.

Clause 23 agreed.

Clause 24: Regulations

Amendment 114A not moved.

Clause 24 agreed.

Amendment 115 not moved.

Clause 25: Interpretation

Amendments 116 to 118 not moved.

Clause 25 agreed.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, we gave an indication to the House that the Statement would take place after Amendments 94 and 95. This was for the convenience of, and to give certainty to, all those taking part in the transparency Bill, and to give some certainty to those who wished to be here for the Statement. The rationale behind this is that we have just heard the last of the amendments to Part 1 of the Bill and the House determined last week that Part 2 would not be considered until the middle of December. Therefore, during the rest of the day we will consider Part 3.

I can see that my noble friend Lady Warsi, like others, thought the first amendment would take a little longer. It was commendably briefly dealt with—it was a model for the rest—and at this stage I will have to move that the House adjourn during pleasure to enable others to take their places. As we are in Committee, I will first move that the House resume and then that it adjourn during pleasure, I suggest for 10 minutes.

House resumed.

15:34

Sitting suspended.

Iran and Syria

Monday 11th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Statement

15:45

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in the other place. The Statement is as follows.

“With permission, I will update the House on developments in the Iran nuclear negotiations and our work to bring together a peace conference on Syria. I returned yesterday from E3+3 negotiations with Iran in Geneva. This was the third round of talks in the past month and it began last Thursday at official level. On Friday and Saturday E3+3 Foreign Ministers joined the Iranian Foreign Minister at the negotiations.

The threat of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is one of the greatest dangers to the peace and security of the world. That is why we must build momentum behind the Geneva negotiations and why we and Iran must ensure that the opportunity of making progress does not slip away in the coming weeks.

We had two days of intensive negotiations with Iran which finished in the early hours of yesterday morning. These were complex and detailed discussions covering every aspect of Iran’s nuclear programme. Our aim is to produce an interim, first-step agreement with Iran that can then create the confidence and space to negotiate a comprehensive and final settlement.

The talks broke up without reaching that interim agreement because some gaps between the parties remain. Although I cannot go into the details of the discussions while the talks continue, I can say that most of those gaps are now narrow and many others were bridged altogether during the negotiations. As we concluded the negotiations on Saturday night, all six E3+3 Foreign Ministers presented the same united position to Iran which gives an extremely strong foundation for the next round of talks which are to be held on 20 November.

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, and my Foreign Minister colleagues, including Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif. He is a tough but constructive negotiator who displayed a sincere and open approach throughout the talks. He and I took the opportunity to discuss further the bilateral relationship between Britain and Iran, and today both our Governments have formally appointed our new chargés d’affaires. I expect the new UK chargé to make his first visit to Iran this month.

The Government are firmly in favour of reaching an interim agreement with Iran as an essential step towards a comprehensive settlement, but given the extensive nature of Iran’s programme and the history of its concealment, the detailed terms of any agreement matter greatly. An agreement has to be clear and detailed, cover all aspects of Iran’s programme and give assurance to the whole world that the threat of nuclear proliferation in Iran is fully addressed. Such a deal is on the table and there is no doubt in my mind that it can be reached. I am convinced that the agreement we were discussing would be good for the security of the entire world and we will pursue it with energy and persistence.

An interim agreement would involve offering Iran limited, proportionate sanctions relief. In the mean time we will be vigilant and firm in upholding the international sanctions which have played an indispensable part in creating this new opening with Iran. Sanctions are costing the Iranian economy at least $4 billion a month and this cost will be maintained until we reach an agreement.

Until such a moment there is no question of us relaxing the pressure of sanctions in any way. We are determined to take every opportunity to reach a diplomatic settlement to the Iranian nuclear crisis because the alternatives—nuclear proliferation or conflict—could be disastrous for the peace and security of the world, including the stability of the Middle East.

That stability is being severely undermined by the deepening crisis in Syria. Our objectives remain to reach a political settlement to the conflict—thereby also protecting UK national security—to alleviate the desperate humanitarian suffering and to prevent the further use of chemical weapons.

On 22 October I hosted a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the 11 countries of the core group of the Friends of Syria, as well as the president and the senior leadership of the Syrian National Coalition. We gave our united support to the UN-led Geneva II process, which should establish a transitional governing body with full executive powers, formed by mutual consent. There was unanimous agreement that Assad and his close associates can play no role in a body formed by mutual consent. We also agreed to provide the national coalition with additional political and practical support to give the Geneva conference the best chance of success, and urged the coalition to commit itself to taking part in it.

It has now done that, which I strongly welcome. Last night, its members agreed by consensus at a general assembly to attend the Geneva talks, on the basis that this meant that Assad and those with blood on their hands would have no role in a transition. They also rightly called for humanitarian access and the release of detainees ahead of Geneva II. We continue to push for a date for a peace conference to be agreed, and the UN and Arab League envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, has reiterated that he is still trying to convene a conference before the end of the year.

In the light of that decision by the coalition, we will provide practical and political support to help them prepare to lead the opposition delegation. I will shortly lay before Parliament a proposal to increase our non-lethal support to the Supreme Military Council of General Idris. This life-saving equipment will take the form of communications, medical and logistics equipment. There can be no peaceful settlement to the conflict in Syria without a strong role for the legitimate, moderate opposition. I also welcome the vote last night by the national coalition to confirm the inclusion of the Kurdish National Council, which adds further to its broad representation of Syrian people.

We are also particularly determined to ensure that the peace talks include a direct role for women’s groups, in accordance with Security Council decisions on women, peace and security. It is vital that women participate fully in the future government and institutions of Syria, as they have an indispensable role to play in rebuilding and reconciling Syrian society. We are ready to work with Mr Brahimi, his team, international NGOs and other countries to make that a reality. We will also work with the UN and its agencies to ensure that we give the women’s groups the support they need to participate effectively. In addition, we are encouraging the Syrian National Coalition to include women members in its delegation.

So far, we have committed more than £20 million to support opposition groups, civil society, human rights defenders and media activists in Syria. This ranges from training and equipping search and rescue teams to providing up to £1 million to help survivors of sexual violence gain access to justice, and we will develop this assistance further.

The humanitarian situation in Syria is one of unimaginable distress and suffering. Well over 100,000 people have died, and 11.5 million people, more than half of Syria's population, are now in desperate need of assistance either inside the country or as refugees in the region. The UN estimates that 2.5 million people are trapped in areas in Syria which aid is not reaching, including an estimated 500,000 men, women and children living under siege conditions. Severe acute malnutrition is emerging among children, and polio has reappeared 14 years after the country was certified free of the disease.

Appalling human rights violations are being committed, including the use of incendiary bombs against civilians, torture, rape, massacres and summary executions, and attacks on hospitals, schools and even aid convoys. The regime has shown that it can facilitate access to chemical weapons inspectors when it wishes, and it could do so for humanitarian relief if it showed a shred of humanity and wished to do so.

We need to address this crisis to save lives and to improve the prospects for the Geneva II talks. On 2 October, we helped to secure a UN Security Council presidential statement which said that humanitarian aid must be able to reach all Syrians. This statement is clearly not being implemented. I spoke last week to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, urging his Government to try to persuade the regime to stop blocking the delivery of aid, and we would like to see stronger action in the UN Security Council, including a resolution if necessary.

In the Security Council and through all other avenues available to us, we will press for full humanitarian access and freedom of movement for trapped civilians, the evacuation of civilians from besieged areas, safe passage for medical personnel and convoys, the creation of hubs for the delivery of aid, cross-border assistance and the lifting of bureaucratic burdens imposed by the regime. We will also work with the coalition to improve access to aid in areas under its control.

The UK is contributing £500 million to relief efforts, much of it to assist neighbouring countries, and the international community as a whole has provided $3 billion in funding for this year. But the fact that the existing UN appeal for this year is still nearly $2 billion short underlines just how extreme the humanitarian crisis is, and we are calling on all countries to do more.

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has confirmed that the destruction of Syria’s declared chemical weapons production, mixing and filling equipment is now complete. But some warheads and all of the bulk chemical agents and precursors remain, and must be removed from Syria and eliminated. The UK has provided £2.4 million of support for this process, and we will continue to support the mission until Syria’s chemical weapons capability is eradicated.

Diplomatic progress on all of these issues often seems intractable and difficult, but it is vital that diplomacy succeeds, and we will persist undeterred by the frustrations and delays. At the same time we will strongly support the Middle East peace process, which remains central to international peace and security. We do not underestimate the challenges, but firmly believe that if Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas show further bold leadership, a negotiated two-state solution is possible. We are working with European partners to provide practical support to both sides, including bilateral assistance to the institution of a future Palestinian state.

We are likely to face a long period of turbulence in many areas of the Middle East in the coming years, and if we do not succeed in diplomatic solutions in these three crucial conflicts and potential conflicts then the outlook would be dark indeed, for the region and for the peace and security of the world. In the coming weeks we will continue to maintain every possible effort to succeed”.

15:56

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Foreign Secretary’s Statement in another place, and I also thank the Government for advance sight of the Statement itself. On both issues there have been some significant and important recent developments, and we very much welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary chose to come to Parliament today to update the House.

On Iran, I start by also paying tribute to the efforts of our colleague and former Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, who, as the Minister said, clearly played a crucial role in driving forward these latest talks. I also pay tribute to the clear commitment shown by all of the P5 plus one leaders in attendance at Geneva. We remain of the view that the UK Government should continue to pursue the twin-track approach of sanctions and diplomacy. President Rouhani campaigned—and, of course, was elected in June this year—on a platform of taking the steps necessary to ease the pressure that sanctions are currently putting on the Iranian economy. We believe that sanctions have been effective, and continue to be important.

Of course, alongside continued sanctions, sustained diplomatic engagement remains key. We welcome the Government’s announcement today that a chargé d’affaires has been appointed, and we wish him well. Yet it is a matter of real regret that, despite historic progress at this weekend’s talks, they did not succeed in producing an agreement. The Minister knows that reports emerged over the weekend describing a French veto which prevented any deal from being signed, and yet this morning Secretary of State Kerry said of the deal,

“the French signed off on it, we signed off on it, and everybody agreed it was a fair proposal. There was unity, but Iran couldn’t take it at that particular moment, they weren't able to accept that particular thing”.

In the light of these differing reports, I wonder whether the Minister would set out what the British Government believe were the key barriers which prevented a deal being reached this weekend. Can she also set out what steps are now being taken to help agree a deal that is likely to secure the support of all parties in the next round of talks? In particular, given the reported disagreements over Iran’s plutonium production capabilities, can she set out whether she expects that stopping or simply delaying the development of Iran’s reactor at Arak will be a component of any future deal?

It is inevitable and understandable that as the terms of a deal begin to emerge, it will become increasingly called into question by those parties which have a higher stake in these important issues. In the light of that, can the Minister set out what assurances have been offered to regional partners, in particular to Israel, which are concerned that the principle of an interim deal will by definition not provide sufficient guarantees that Iran will cease all activity which could contribute to developing a nuclear weapons capacity? Is there any possibility that a deal is in principle achievable and does that mean that there is an urgency to test what is now deliverable in practice? We welcome the commitment, of course, to renewing talks between negotiators on 20 November. Can the Minister set out whether any plans are in place for renewing talks at Foreign Minister level?

I turn now to Syria. As the Minister made really clear in repeating the Statement this afternoon, the humanitarian situation in Syria remains desperate and continues to worsen. Only today, Human Rights Watch published a report documenting the continued use of incendiary weapons in Syria and last week the UN confirmed that 40% of Syrians are now in need of assistance. Clearly, the most effective way to ease the suffering is to end the war itself but while efforts to broker a peace deal continue, it is vital that the international community lives up to its responsibilities to protect those most in need. We on this side welcome the important work that Her Majesty’s Government have been doing but, despite our country’s contribution, the United Nations appeal is still less than half funded. Can the Minister set out what steps the Government will be taking to try to help ensure that other donors now deliver on their unfulfilled pledges?

Since the last time that the Foreign Secretary addressed the other place on this issue, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has confirmed that Syria’s declared equipment for producing, mixing and filling chemical weapons has now been destroyed. That country now has until mid-2014 to destroy the remaining stockpiles of chemical weapons. However, given that the OPCW team confirmed that it was not able to visit two out of the 23 chemical weapons sites in Syria because they were too dangerous, can the Minister say what assurances are being sought for the protection of OPCW personnel who are due to carry out their further significant work in conflict zones across the country?

The real breakthrough needed that would improve the situation on the ground is, of course, a diplomatic one. That is why we welcome the recent focus that the international community has shown on trying to secure a date for the next round of the Geneva talks. It is indeed welcome that the SNC has today voted to accept the invitation to attend Geneva 2 as the representatives of the Syrian opposition. However, as its acceptance is conditional on the granting of humanitarian corridors by the Syrian regime, can the Minister set out the Government’s present assessment of the likelihood of that condition being met?

In the light of the Foreign Secretary’s recent discussions with representatives of the Iranian regime, can the Minister set out her assessment of the likelihood of Iran actually taking part in or offering its support for the peace conference? We support what the Statement said about the importance of women’s groups being represented in peace talks too. Our view is that Geneva II still offers the best prospect for securing a more stable future for the people of Syria and that the Government should be focused on ensuring that in the weeks ahead unstinting efforts will continue to be made to try to bring about this long-delayed but much needed conference.

16:05

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, I thank the Benches opposite and the noble Lord for his support for the work that has been done so far. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, for the way in which she has led what are incredibly difficult negotiations. These are tough negotiations, with a long history, but we have narrowed the gaps where there were disagreements.

Talks in Geneva have made a lot of progress. There is no doubt that the parties are now much closer together. If a year ago we had tried to predict where we would be it would not be where we are now. Two months ago I could not have anticipated that so much progress could have been made. E3+3 has reached a consensus and we are firm that our goal for the process should be an agreement that offers real assurance on all our non-proliferation concerns, and we are confident that a deal is achievable.

The noble Lord spoke specifically about Arak. Iran has made it clear that it wants to have a right to enrich and wants that right recognised. At this stage we do not recognise such a right, but we have repeatedly said that once Iran addresses the international community’s concerns, its nuclear programme will be treated in the same manner as that of any other non-nuclear weapons state that is party to the NPT. This is the position of the E3+3. I shall not be drawn into the detail of the discussions on Arak at this stage. We want the negotiations to reap results and have agreed with Iran that proceedings will remain confidential. We are clear that there are a number of areas where gaps between the positions of the parties remain, but as I have said these gaps are now narrower and we need to maintain the momentum for negotiations. Iran needs to reflect seriously on its position before the next round of talks later this month.

We are also clear that we will agree a deal only if it offers us real assurance regarding the whole of Iran’s nuclear programme. A first-step deal will create the space and time for negotiations on a comprehensive solution, but it is in all our interests to reach a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue and vital now to maintain that momentum. Partners in the region understand that this is going to be part of a comprehensive agreement in due course.

In relation to Syria, the noble Lord is right. There is still a severe shortfall in humanitarian access and support. We pushed successfully for further progress at the G20 and at the UN General Assembly, where more than $1 billion of new funding was pledged by the international community. This was a step in the right direction, but we accept that more needs to be done. The presidential statement has been helpful to some extent in supporting this progress, but the noble Lord may be aware that there is a further donor conference taking place in January of next year. The UN has announced that that pledging conference will be hosted by Kuwait around mid-January—on the 15th and 16th, we think—and the UK will push for it to raise significant finance to meet urgent humanitarian needs for Syria and the surrounding region. We will continue to lobby our donor partners to put forward high and ambitious pledges to support the Syrian people, but I accept that we are constantly playing catch-up in a region with probably the largest humanitarian disaster that the world has seen.

In relation to the OPCW and its inspectors in Syria, I had an opportunity to discuss this matter in some detail with my noble friend Lady Williams, who is not in her place. She raised concerns with me about protection. I assure noble Lords that we take the protection of these inspectors incredibly seriously, and we have seen real support and assistance from the Syrian regime for the work that was set out for the OPCW. Syria has declared a formal destruction plan and the OPCW is analysing the documentation and seeking clarification where necessary. We feel that detailed technical analysis will be required before any conclusions can be reached about whether it will complete the work that the inspectors are doing.

I hope that I have addressed most of the concerns that were raised by the noble Lord, but if I have not, I shall follow up in writing.

16:10

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

I, too, thank the senior Minister for repeating the Statement in such a timely manner. Does she agree that Iran is more relevant to securing international peace and security than it has been for some time? This is a pivotal moment in the history of the Middle East. Were a deal secured on the NPT, it would give us an opportunity to restart discussions on a nuclear-free Middle East. The Minister mentioned Syria, and Iran is key to a negotiated settlement there. Is she able to tell the House what discussions the Government are having with the United States? We hear very disturbing reports about how the Senate is preparing to have tougher sanctions against Iran here and now, in the next 10 days, before we can agree to the next round of discussions, and that Congress and the Senate are prepared to continue to obstruct a deal. In that case, should an obstruction of that kind occur, are there any plans for European Union countries to move away from UN sanctions into some other method of helping Iran, should a deal be available?

[Baroness Warsi]

My noble friend makes an important point. We must remember that it is because sanctions were imposed and were biting that we have reached this stage. Sanctions have brought Iran to the negotiating table in a serious way, so it is important that sanctions remain until we reach agreement. I hear what the noble Baroness says about the politics of what is happening in the US, but we feel that at this stage we need to push to reach agreement, at least on first steps, before any substantive discussions can take place in relation to sanctions.

I accept that Iran is an important and vital issue on which we must move forward, not just in the light of the nuclear issue but because of its role in Syria. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, asked about the role of Iran in any further discussions at Geneva II, and I think I did not answer. No decision has been made at this stage about the participation of Iran in Geneva II. The UN Security Council has agreed that the Geneva II conference should implement the Geneva communiqué. At this stage, Iran has not publicly endorsed the Geneva communiqué or made it clear that it supports the purpose of Geneva II; it is hard to see how it can play a constructive role without endorsing that communiqué. We continue to have concern about fighters, including the IRGC Quds force, which continue to operate within Syria.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, like everyone else in this House, I warmly welcome the fact that the negotiations gap between the two parties seems to have narrowed very considerably. I shall make two points to the Minister and ask her to regard them as chilling realities. First, for 20 years, Iran has cheated time and again over all negotiations relating to nuclear development—as far Arak is concerned, there is no heavy water facility and, with regard to Natanz, no question of enriching uranium—up to the point when it would have been impossible and childish to have maintained such denial.

Secondly, the main thrust of negotiations in relation to Iran, with all that has been very properly said about human rights, is to see to it that it does not become a nuclear power. If it becomes a nuclear power, the Middle East will be jeopardised with a ticking bomb under it. That must be avoided at all costs.

[Baroness Warsi]

I take on board what the noble Lord said. Exactly these kinds of concerns are uppermost in our minds when we are in negotiations. I think that I can give the noble Lord some comfort by saying that we feel that the new Iranian regime, following the election of President Rouhani and the appointment of the new Iranian negotiating team led by Foreign Minister Zarif, has taken a constructive approach. We believe that Mr Zarif wants to resolve this problem and that he is out to do a deal. We feel that Iran is under serious political and economic pressure and that it recognises that it is in its interest to reach an agreement with the E3+3. I hope that we will be able to reach that point soon, but we take part in these negotiations with our eyes wide open, and take fully into account the context in which we are operating and have been operating for a number of years.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, is there not a much more difficult problem about Iran? There are effectively two Governments there. The Minister is talking about discussions taking place under the Rouhani leadership, but back in Tehran, there is a religious leadership that has already tried to rein in the new Government back, in respect of the steps that they have taken towards rapprochement with the rest of the world. What confidence can the Minister—and, indeed, negotiators—have that any eventual settlement will not simply be rejected by the religious leadership in Iran, as it has already tried to distance itself from some of what is going on?

Secondly, I have a question about Syria. In a former life, I was the envoy to Bashar al-Assad and I had to deal with a lot of the people around him who were deeply unpleasant, very sinister and, in many ways, far more unyielding than Bashar al-Assad. Can the Minister give us an assurance that none of these people will be left to wield any power when eventually we see the end of this regime? There have been suggestions that the vice-president would have a role; the vice-president whom I met was certainly not a man I would want to see having any power in Syria in future.

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Baroness comes to these matters with great experience and expertise. She has made valid points about the different seats of power within Iran. At the moment, we feel that the Foreign Minister and President Rouhani have a mandate under which they are operating. We have had a number of meetings with them; the Foreign Secretary has met the Foreign Minister on three separate occasions, and we genuinely feel that progress was recently made in Geneva. The offer on the table now being considered by the Iranians is something that they will have to come back to discuss; it may well be that on 20 November we will be much clearer about how committed all aspects of the Iranian seats of power are in taking this matter forward. At this stage, however, we feel that progress has been made and that there is an acceptance that this is in Iran’s interests.

In relation to Syria, the noble Baroness made an important point. It is why the statement from the national coalition issued only yesterday said clearly that the transitional council must not include al-Assad or others who have blood on their hands. I think those are exactly the kind of individuals to whom the noble Baroness refers.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, it is of course right that we should negotiate with Iran, with a clear eye and a suspicious mind. Surely the point of the sanctions in the first place is to get the Iranians to the negotiating table so that we can find some diplomatic solution to their nuclear programme. We should, therefore, be enthusiastic about the process, while being very suspicious about the detail. With that in mind, the Minister has emphasised the united front that our negotiators put up to Iran. That is not the perception one gains from the media. Does the Minister agree that that is very unhelpful, particularly as regards people such as the Israelis and the US Congress, who are already suspicious of the process, and that unhelpful and unguarded remarks made by people, such as those made by the French Foreign Minister to journalists, are likely to damage our cause rather than help it?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble and gallant Lord will be aware that a number of tracks—sometimes bilateral and at other times multilateral—usually take place before these negotiations are finally concluded. It was important that the E3+3 came to the same place and that they presented a united front. I assure the noble and gallant Lord that that offer is now clear and that the E3+3 are all behind that united position. On sanctions, we are clear that Iran needs to take concrete steps which give assurance and build trust; by that I mean not words but actions. Once we see that change in actions we will be ready to act proportionately and respond.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, on Palestine-Israel, no doubt the noble Baroness will have listened to the important speech made by Secretary Kerry, which warned of a possible future intifada. Is it correct that because of the impasse, the Palestinians are now demanding that the Americans take the lead, put their own proposals on the table and press for them? On Syria, the noble Baroness spoke of the legitimate moderate opposition. However, is not the bulk of the fighting, and certainly of the effective fighting, done by jihadists? How representative, in her view, are the people who now speak for the opposition? Is it at all realistic to seek to have peace talks without Iran, a key regional player, being present?

[Baroness Warsi]

On the Middle East peace process, I have stood at this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions over the past 12 months and have said that this year is in many ways a definitive year for real progress to be made. I am heartened by the incredible amount of personal time and energy that Secretary Kerry has put into moving this forward. I think we all accept that the Middle East peace process is an intrinsic element of resolving the tensions in the region. At this stage, we continue to support the initiative led by Secretary Kerry in any way we can and are asked to. The noble Lord makes an important point on the opposition. Of course, I have read many papers and briefings on the make-up of the opposition. There is the national coalition, the armed section—which I think is called the SNC, although I am trying desperately to think of what that stands for.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

The Syrian National Council.

[Baroness Warsi]

Thank you. We are aware of a number of groups who have openly distanced themselves from the national coalition and the Syrian National Council—for example, al-Qaeda and affiliated groups. However, we are confident that the national coalition continues to represent a broad perspective of Syrian opinion and that that is the view of the Syrian people. We find that many of the armed groups that operate within Syria are not part of the national coalition or necessarily representative of the Syrian people, but have taken advantage of the situation that has arisen in that country.

[Lord Roper (LD)]

Will the Minister comment on the report this morning that an agreement has been reached between the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Iranian authorities in Tehran on inspection of the Arak plutonium site? If that is the case, would it facilitate the negotiations and discussions on 20 November?

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, I am not familiar with the details of that report. I was aware that a round of talks was taking place. Perhaps I can write to the noble Lord with further details.

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for not being here at the start of the Statement. I listened to her colleague deliver the same Statement in another place so I am familiar with it.

It seems to me that it is impossible to exaggerate the gravity of the situation faced in that whole region. The chances of Syria surviving as a single country, under the present pressures that it faces and the danger that it may split into three separate countries or separate organisations, seem to be very slim indeed. Against that background, it seems to me to be hugely important that the momentum of this effort to try to find peace through diplomacy is vital. I welcome the announcement about the chargé. The sooner he goes to Iran and establishes a base in Tehran the better.

The other key element in this surely is Russia. In this situation one can see a whole region in danger of collapsing into total confusion. Everyone has an interest in seeing a better outcome. I very much hope that we will press on, notwithstanding the comments, which I strongly support, that there is clear evidence that hardliners in Tehran, the Israeli Government, with their present attitude, and elements in Congress will do everything that they can to obstruct it.

[Baroness Warsi]

I can give my noble friend confidence by saying that the chargé whom we have appointed is someone who has served in Tehran before; in fact he was the deputy ambassador there. Indeed, when I spoke to him this morning, he was brushing up on his Farsi. He knows the country well, is incredibly well equipped and is the right man for the job. Of course, it is an important role and we hope that he will visit the country before the end of the month.

The Russians have been working closely with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, in relation to Syria and Iran as part of the E3+3. They have indeed taken a leading role in relation to the destruction of chemical weapons. It is a strong relationship; it is a relationship which we know we need to continue to work on because their role is crucial to achieving a settlement.

[Lord Desai (Lab)]

My Lords, in the Statement read out by the noble Baroness it was clear that there are three conflicts: the negotiations with Iran, the Syrian conflict and the Israel-Palestine negotiations. Is there scope for expanding the Geneva process to be much more inclusive and to take these various things together because they are interconnected? The Minister mentioned, for example, that the Syrian National Coalition has recognised the Kurdish Syrian party and I am sure that the Turkish Kurdish party and the Iraqi Kurds are also trying to get together. We might be at a crucial juncture in the Middle East and it might be helpful to have a much more general Geneva conference, expanded to include all these problems together.

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord makes an important point but I think that he will probably accept that although each of these situations has overlapping issues, they are uniquely complex in their own ways. To try to bring the various issues together might make it too difficult to resolve any of them.

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

Monday 11th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Committee (2nd Day) (Continued)

16:28

Clause 36: Duty to provide membership audit certificate

Amendment 118A

Moved by

[Lord Monks]

118A: Clause 36, page 39, line 1, leave out “in relation to each reporting period” and insert “if—
(a) a formal complaint is received by the Certification Officer that would result in the Certification Officer requiring a membership audit in relation to the reporting period when the complaint was verified, and(b) the Certification Officer determined that a certificate was required.”

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 118B and 118D standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stevenson, and shall also oppose the Question that Clause 36 stand part of the Bill. I will also speak in support of the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Whitty and Lord Lea of Crondall.

We are in some difficulty in dealing with Part 3. We had assumed that this was going to come up at around the end of the month because that was the original schedule. However, with the pause to Part 2 agreed here a week ago, it has all been rushed forward. Part 3 has been jinxed from the start. It was a very late addition to the Government’s programme and to the Bill. The short consultation period was in August, which is not a particularly busy month for many of us, and now, given the attention that has been given so far to Part 2, we are dealing with Part 3 on the run in this House before many people are remotely aware of its significance or of what it is about. However, our contention on this side is that this part of the Bill is very important. We hope that today we will at least be able to raise awareness of the issues at stake and appeal to fair-minded Members on all sides of the Committee for their support in looking in detail at what this part involves.

We have raised our opposition to the clause standing part as part of an attempt to persuade the Government to think again and to think further about what resembles a vindictive attempt to load on to trade unions a great new dollop of red tape—a new layer of bureaucracy that is unnecessary by any objective or fair-minded standard. Of course unions should keep accurate records. Indeed, they are already required to do so under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. They are required to make detailed returns on an annual basis to the certification officer. They are required to have independent scrutineers in all elections, and invariably those scrutineers check the membership registers. The certification officer—the union regulator—has the power to order a rerun if there is a complaint of sufficient importance.

I note from yesterday’s press that there are allegations by a defeated candidate about a recent election in Unite. By the way, that election was supervised by Electoral Reform Services—the old Electoral Reform Society. I also understand from the press that a complaint has now been made to the certification officer. If it is upheld, the certification officer will have appropriate powers, if necessary, to order a rerun. He does not need new powers as foreseen in the Bill. As far as I know, the certification officer has not asked for any new powers. He does not feel that he is lacking any ability to deal with issues that are referred to him. Therefore, I do not believe that there is any basis for heaping extra requirements on to unions. Likewise, industrial action ballots can be, and occasionally are, challenged by employers on the grounds either that inappropriate people are balloted or that people are missed out of a ballot. Therefore, unions have every incentive to keep accurate records.

I should like to know from the Government why they are doing this. What is the motivation for it? Why are they incurring considerable expense on all sides—unions, employers, the Government and the taxpayer—for this particular non-event? There is no rationale for this provision, which will involve extra bureaucracy and extra costs. This Government were anti-red tape when they were on the other side of the House, but they are obviously making an exception for trade unions.

The cry has gone up that we need more assurance and more confidence. I see the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, in his place. He suggested, among other things, that this was necessary because a union has a political role. Lots of other organisations have political roles, but are their membership rolls to be supervised by a public official? Are the political parties going to be thrown into the mix? Do we need some assurance about how many members they have? That would be very interesting for some of us to read. No, it is unions, again, that are being scapegoated and picked out to be given a kick on this issue.

By the way, only a small minority of unions have anything directly to do with the Labour Party, yet many, such as the Royal College of Nursing—which is, I may say, a good way off the Labour Party—will be affected by this part of the Bill. It is a blunderbuss, aimed at just one section of society that plays a political role. If I were paranoid, I would say that we were being persecuted.

The stated intended effect of the Bill is to ensure that voting papers and other communications reach union members, and so give greater confidence that members have the chance to participate in union affairs. There will be a new statutory duty to provide the certification officer with an annual membership audit certificate that provides an opinion on the union register, with the larger unions having to appoint an independent “assurer”—I have not come across that interesting title before—and a duty for the certification officer to appoint inspectors to investigate and make orders, and for those officials to issue declarations and enforcement orders for non-compliance. Heavy-handed, or what?

That is tough administration. Again, if unions were getting a litany of great numbers of complaints, I might be able to understand the reason for it. But there is no such evidence. As I and others pointed out at Second Reading, there is absolutely no practical reason for these measures to be in the Bill.

Are union membership records defective? They are not perfect; I would be the first to acknowledge that. How can they be? Unions collect their money in one of three ways. The traditional way was through regular cash collections by voluntary officials such as branch secretaries, shop stewards and others. That is very difficult in some circumstances—in construction, for example, with a fluid workforce and many people on very short-term contracts. It is difficult in many other places, too, as anybody who has ever collected money for a political party or a voluntary organisation knows. The record keeping could sometimes slip, depending on the efficiency of the individual collector; I have no doubt about that.

The second way to collect subs is by the so-called check-off method, using deductions at source by an employer, for which the union usually pays the employer a handling charge. In one of my other roles, helping to secure auto-enrolment for pensions, we are having a lot of trouble with the quality of employer payrolls. With some of them, as many as one in four workers is not properly reflected on the payroll. I know that unions and employers together have big problems handling the check-off. In certain sectors, such as retail, there is a high turnover of labour: a third of the members of USDAW, the main retail union, have to be replaced each year just for membership numbers to stand still. Keeping those records up to date is a huge administrative job. The employer is probably paying a quarter in arrears anyway, so for a significant part of the quarter a union may be some way out with its membership register. The third method is by direct debit and standing order. They tend to be more accurate, so I shall not dwell on those.

Where are the problems with all this? It is not perfect, I agree. If I were the assurer I would not quite know how to deal with some of the sectors where unions have to collect their money and organise their members. Between 2000 and 2004, a total of six complaints were received by the certification officer, five of which were dismissed—and even for the sixth one he did not issue a declaration. He just expressed an opinion that some things could have been done differently. There had been no complaints in respect of a vast majority of unions. In fact, I did not know about another one at all until I read the Sunday Times yesterday.

I stress that there is no real problem. This is a remedy in search of a problem. I would like to think that many noble Lords on the other side of the House would be embarrassed about this waste of effort and time. The cost to unions of this part of the Bill on the Government’s own estimate is about £460,000. By the way, that is an underestimate, which fails to take into account the necessary changes to rule books. Some unions have to have rules revision conferences and some have them only every five years or so. It does not reflect the continuing cost of having the assurer and annual audit done year after year. It is not only unions that will have to pay. Business will have to pay and the estimate is about £400,000, £100,000 of which will end up on the Government’s budget, and therefore on all our budgets as taxpayers.

Some noble Lords will no doubt be thinking, “As a former general-secretary of the TUC, he would say that, wouldn’t he? It’s predictable stuff from the TUC”. But they do not need to take my word for it on this occasion. They need only glance at the report of the Regulatory Policy Committee, a business-dominated government committee attached to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills whose sole purpose is to curb red tape. I emphasise that the committee is composed largely of business representatives from the chambers of commerce, the Institute of Directors, and others. It has issued a rare red card to the Government on this matter—a stop notice in effect on Part 3. Unfortunately, this was not available at Second Reading. The House as a whole needs to be alerted immediately to the report, and I hope that it will be prepared to look afresh at this proposed legislation.

Some noble Lords may not care too much for trade unions; they may think that they deserve all the flak they get. But I ask the fair-minded to take a look at the report. I shall quote some points. It says that the impact assessment of the Bill,

“needs to provide a more detailed assessment of all likely costs to trade unions … supported by further evidence that was gathered … It is unclear how accurate and up-to-date a membership register will have to be for a union to be considered ‘compliant’ … or what process of investigation would be undertaken by an independent qualified assurer, or how rigorous that process would be”.

It also refers to the recurring costs. The committee illustrates that it was only after the Bill was published that the short August consultation period was started. It highlights the failure to follow appropriate better regulation processes—hence the issue of that very rare red card.

Our case today is not just about red tape. Individuals sometimes have to be careful who knows they are in a union. Countries that require a public official to know who is or is not in a union tend to be despotic tyrannies. Although I do not belabour the Government with that charge, information on union membership is very sensitive. Blacklists do exist. Eight major construction companies have recently admitted that and more than 2,000 workers are in line with legal cases against some of the biggest household names in British construction. There are worries about membership information finding its way to the unscrupulous end of employers. Worries have been expressed by parliamentary committees about breaching the confidentiality of union membership records. There are concerns, too, that Part 3, despite what is in the Bill, is not compatible with Articles 8 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights or with certain obligations concerning the International Labour Organisation.

The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has asked the Government to address these concerns during the course of proceedings on the Bill. There is plenty of criticism from around the House of this part of the Bill. Part 3 in fact confers powers on state officials in relation to voluntary organisations that seem odd in a liberal democracy—organisations which, under these international obligations, are protected from too much state interference. Only if there is a proportionate need, is the theme running through them, should curbs be brought in. I have not seen anybody yet demonstrate that there is any sort of proportionate need. Therefore, in the period between now and Report stage, we will be trying to raise general awareness about Part 3 and its rather vindictive, malicious nature. The Government did listen to reason on Part 2 and I hope that they will listen again on Part 3 in this intervening period. We are looking for support for our contention that Clause 36, a keystone clause in Part 3, should not stand part of the Bill.

16:45

I hope too that there will be support for the other amendment’s. I refer briefly to Amendment 118A, which would adjust the reporting duties so that it would be only once a complaint was received that the process laid out in the Bill would have to kick off. Amendment 118B would introduce an appeals mechanism for unions to say, “Come on, this is ridiculous”. I leave the merits of Amendment 118C in the capable hands of my noble friends Lord Whitty and Lord Lea. On Amendment 118D, I simply point out that the amendment is part of a series that seeks to make the Bill less onerous, complicated and costly to unions and employers. It aims to probe whether the Government are really hell-bent on a Bill based on anti-union prejudice or are open to constructive ideas. It seeks to do this by deleting the requirement on a union in relation to these reporting periods—a duty to submit the membership audit certificate in relation to each reporting period—which would be at least one year. We seek to alter this to require a union to submit a membership audit certificate if the section is invoked.

At the moment the Government resemble Don Quixote, tilting by reflex at the trade union windmill, dreaming up remedies before they have identified the problems, and prodding unions with a stick, like little Albert in Stanley Holloway’s piece, to try and incite some reaction and make a rather shabby political point. Polishing up union-bashing credentials seems to be a rite of passage for some on the other side of the House. Just remember this. A recent poll has shown that 78% of the population believe that,

“trade unions are essential to protect workers’ interests”.

The Government therefore should think again before Report. They should start to act in a fair-minded way and not be blinded by ill-informed prejudice. I beg to move.

[Baroness Turner of Camden (Lab)]

I rise to support these amendments. This section of the Bill is yet more evidence of the opposition of the Government to the interests and desires of ordinary working people—to their need to organise to represent their legitimate interests at a time when employment rights are constantly under government attack. Now we have this attempted legislation, which is a direct attack on unions and their ability to represent their members and provide a service to them. There is already legislation in place as we have heard, in the 1992 Act, which requires unions to maintain a register of members with a certification officer in charge of implementation. As my noble friend has pointed out, there have been hardly any complaints under that legislation and only one with any substance requiring further examination. The Government have not produced any evidence to support the amending legislation they are now proposing.

Government spokespeople often stress the importance of voluntary organisations, but unions are among the largest voluntary organisations in the country. Although the media, most of which seek to demonise unions, refer only to union bosses, most local and workplace work is done by willing volunteers. Yet unions are the only voluntary organisations to have this kind of internal bureaucracy imposed upon them and at their expense. The CBI, employers’ organisations, organisations representing bankers and the fiscal industries do not have this; only unions are to have this additional expensive official, an allegedly independent person, who is not voted for by them but is imposed upon their internal administration.

What of the privacy of ordinary members? What of their confidentiality? It is clear that the Government are intent on making things much more difficult for a union affiliated to the Labour Party. However, not all of them are. Most are affiliated only after a ballot of those who pay the political levy, which is surely a matter for union members themselves. The TUC has made substantial criticism of the Bill, which it regards as an attack upon democracy. It believes that it would make organising a conference in advance of the general election, even its own congress in 2014, a criminal offence, because it would be in advance of an election.

The campaigning organisation, Liberty, has also opposed this section of the Bill, believing it to be a breach of Article 11 of the European employment rights legislation. The Government, of course, disagree. I regard this section as undemocratic and a further attack on the employment rights of ordinary people. The Government pretend that it is not. However, to weaken the ability of the unions to adequately do the job for which their members belong weakens those members. Strong unions mean better pay and conditions, which is one of the reasons why millionaires do not like them much.

We in this House should not be misled by media misrepresentation of unions and should recognise the contribution that they make to the support and welfare of ordinary working people. This section of the Bill should therefore be opposed. I fully support what my noble friend said in his introduction to this section.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I have been a member of the GMB for 40 years this year and was a member of other unions prior to that. I therefore have an axe to grind—not a pecuniary one—and I share that interest with millions of our fellow citizens and with many who are not in trade unions but who, nevertheless, benefit from the way in which trade unions operate in the market.

My Amendment 118C seeks to delete from the clause the reference to this peculiar new invention of an assessor. The Government have seen fit to invent a whole new profession and office for reasons which, as my noble friend Lord Monks said, are not entirely clear. The role of the assessor is dealt with in more detail in Clause 37, and I will return to make more detailed remarks in that respect. The central point is why the Government think that they need to invent a relatively costly new bureaucratic structure when they already have the powers in the role of the certification officer, who can deal with any complaint received, intervene and censure a union if inadequate documentation is provided. As my noble friend has said, there are already substantial penalties available to certification officers if ever one of the few complaints they receive is upheld. In this section of the 1992 Act, there is also the possibility for individuals to complain, not only to the certification officer but to the courts, about the failure of trade unions to maintain proper records and many other provisions of that Act.

So why is a new structure being proposed? As my noble friend Lord Monks has said, there are problems in maintaining a register of trade unions with names and addresses and accurate records. By and large, most of the population moves every four years, and the impact assessment recognises this. People change their address every four years and tend to move job slightly more frequently than that. In some cases, they change the way in which they pay their union dues, or the name of the company for which they work changes. At any given point, it is difficult to maintain a 100% accurate register, but the Act rightly says,

“so far as is reasonably practicable”.

That is the basis on which the certification officer makes a judgment.

It is not clear in this Bill whether the Government intend to invoke more stringent principles of how to decide whether or not it is an accurate register. If they are, it is not in the Bill. Is the assessor, or whoever advises them, to develop new codes? If so, the House should be told before we proceed. I will return to the role of the assessor, which appears in the next clause.

I also strongly support the aim of the amendment of my noble friends Lord Monks and Lord Stevenson to delete this clause and this whole part of the Bill. We have looked at the impact assessment, which estimates the costs to unions, the Government and employers. For unions, it is assessed at around £400,000. I have had representations from all sorts of unions—my own, the National Union of Teachers, which is not affiliated to this party, and the Royal College of Nursing, to which my noble friend has referred and which is not affiliated either to the TUC or to the party. These indicate clearly that the cost of implementing these provisions and initiating the changes in procedure and rules that is required would be substantially more than that.

Even more interesting is that only £140,000 is allocated to additional costs to the Government, whereas if they were really trying to enforce this, they should give the certification officer significantly more powers. It is arguable that under the present rules the certification officer may need more resources, but that is not what this Bill is about. It is about an entirely new approach to this area. The even more interesting part of the impact assessment is that the benefit at one point is described as nil. That is a pretty telling internal report on a proposal from Ministers: at a cost of £400,000, which I think will be rather larger, plus £100,000 or so to the Government, the benefit is nil.

My noble friend Lord Monks has already cited the Regulatory Policy Committee, which basically says that this is one of the daftest proposals that has ever come before it, and there is no justification for it. Even the Government, who have been scraping around for supporters of this Bill during a rushed consultation period over the holiday month, could not get more than lukewarm support from the CBI, which said that it would not be its first priority. Where are the Government coming from on this? The benefit to restating and providing a bureaucratic infrastructure to enforce the requirement of unions to keep membership records effectively is not justified in anything the Government have so far said about this, either in the impact assessment or in speeches in the House of Commons, which was of course very late in the proceedings.

16:59

That has naturally given rise to various levels of paranoia from the trade union movement. I should say on behalf of me and my colleagues: “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you”. There are some hints in the impact assessment that they may really be talking about strike ballots, which are not relevant, as my noble friend Lord Monks said. The issue in a strike ballot is whether the people who are balloted are those, and all those, in a particular bargaining unit. That depends on the definition by the union and the employer; it does not depend on the totality of any union’s register of members and their addresses. An alternative suggestion was that the proposal relates to internal elections within unions because the Government, in some way or other, do not like the people who are being elected. Occasionally the Labour Party leadership does not like them, either. The fact of the matter is that if something is wrong with an election, the defeated candidate can complain to the certification officer, as happened in a recent case to which my noble friend referred. If an officer finds in favour of the complainant, then the election is run again. What additional powers do the Government see coming out of these changes that would affect that situation?

My final reason is perhaps the most sinister. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has left the Chamber, even though he made remarks at Second Reading that suggested that the Liberal Democrats in particular were on about trade union political funds, which, of course, are dealt with in entirely different legislation. I agree that decent membership records are required but political funds are not dealt with in this part of the Bill. Even if the Government were out to bankrupt the Labour Party, this proposal would not do so. I therefore have to say to Ministers that if those more Machiavellian motives were their real motives, they have got it wrong. If, however, the proposals were a reasonable and fair-minded attempt simply to improve the situation, then again they have got it wrong because the present powers are sufficient.

The Government are introducing something which, if they had imposed it on any other entity within our civic society, would have been regarded as otiose or even oppressive. We shall come later to the oppressive aspects of these proposals. We have yet to hear from the Minister today on this; we certainly did not hear from him at Second Reading. Unless he can give us a more coherent and persuasive argument as to why these matters need to be addressed and why this new structure has to be imposed, this clause—indeed, this whole section of the Bill—would be best left out and we should not proceed further with it.

That would be a drastic measure but there is time in which the Government could think up some new reasons as to why they are making these proposals. There is a pause in relation to Part 2: if the Government use that time to engage in a proper consultation, they may conclude that these proposals are unnecessary, or they may be able to concoct more convincing reasons as to why they are necessary. However, for the moment, as it stands, the Bill is nonsensical and unnecessary, and imposes a cost on trade unions and their members that does not deliver any benefit, as the Government’s impact assessment suggests. That is good reason enough for them at least to pause but possibly abandon this part of the Bill.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords, I should like to pick up from where my noble friend Lord Whitty left off. The more that the British public start to understand the Kafkaesque nature of the Bill—Part 3 in particular—the more, during the pause to which my noble friend referred, people around the House, not just on these Benches, will recognise that it is an outrageous measure.

I take this opportunity to list the very onerous administrative burdens that, as my noble friend Lord Monks was saying, are going to be placed in addition to those that exist at the moment. It is a rather formidable list. This is what the Bill would do in addition to what is done at the moment: it would require unions to submit to the certification officer a membership audit certificate. Secondly, it would require unions with more than 10,000 members to appoint a qualified, independent person to act as an assurer who will provide the union membership audit certificate and carry out such inquiries as they consider necessary to provide the certificate.

Thirdly, the Bill will give new, substantial investigatory powers to the certification officer who will be entitled to: require the production of relevant documents or authorise another person to do so; require explanations of those documents from their producer or any person who is or has been an official of the union, including assurers; and appoint an inspector to investigate compliance with the duty to maintain a register of names and addresses of members if circumstances suggest that the union has failed to comply with that duty or the duties relating to the membership audit certificate.

Lastly, the Bill will give new enforcement powers to the certification officer, who would be able to make a declaration of non-compliance with duties relating to the register and subsequently to issue an enforcement order that would impose requirements to take steps to remedy the failure. Then, of course, there will be penalties at the end of that.

Where would one normally go in a democracy to find out an evaluation of such a lengthy list of new requirements? As my noble friend Lord Monks has said, it is not exactly a bonfire of red tape. One would go to a Select Committee or a Standing Committee. I think there is scope here for a Select Committee but there are different ways in which you can skin this cat during the pause. One of them is the report from the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee which says that this Bill has requirements which are disproportionate to anything that the Bill wishes to achieve. It states that,

“other than in cases of emergency, all Bills should, as standard practice, go through pre-legislative scrutiny in Parliament”.

We are touching on a really serious feature of the way this has been done.

To me, the most significant part of the Regulatory Policy Committee’s damning report is the way it puts the finger on Ministers who, for political reasons, make use of Whitehall expertise so that the business department in effect invents a problem in order to solve it. In other words, the RPC says, in terms, in the impact assessment statement—I have pity on those who have to draw it up—“What is the problem that we are trying to solve?” Because it had not been told exactly, it had to postulate what the problem was. It finds itself going around in concentric circles. In the words of the RPC:

“The IA is not fit for purpose”.

That is not to do with the probity of the people writing it. If I was a former Permanent Secretary of a government department or a former Cabinet Secretary, this would to me be a further example of the way in which respect for the quality of the Civil Service, which, from the famous mid-19th century Northcote report, has been a model for the world, has vanished. Now, civil servants are being used as footballs. It would be very useful to hear from judges, former Permanent Secretaries and others without a political axe to grind—as we obviously can be said to have.

The committee states:

“The IA is not fit for purpose”,

and that it,

“needs to provide a more detailed assessment”,

of the costs. It finds that the impact assessment probably underestimates the cost to trade unions by 100%. In other words, instead of being £400,000 it is probably £800,000. It depends to some extent on the cost per hour of a typical person responsible for those matters in a trade union. The IA puts it at £12 an hour, in line with a voluntary organisation. I may say that the houses that trade union officials live in are not palatial, but trade union officials with those responsibilities get more than £12 an hour. It is that on which we base the rest of the edifice of cost, which the Regulatory Policy Committee says is grossly underestimated.

As we go through the clauses, the case will build for the whole measure being a long way over the top. It is then quite embarrassing to have to ask people: what can we do to amend it? Frankly, the concept is so flawed and so politically motivated that actually clause stand part is the only way to approach it; you might say that about this whole section of the Bill.

Submissions have been made by individual unions. The mindset on the part of the Government is that all those unions are affiliated to the Labour Party by some wicked connection. “Did you know?”, they might say. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but in terms of the number of unions, I think that only 20% or so of unions are affiliated to the Labour Party. My noble friend Lord Whitty says that I have overestimated it, but I will say 20%. We are talking about unions being affiliated to the Labour Party, but not all unions are affiliated to the TUC. In a later amendment, I will be presenting some of the detailed concerns about the Bill from the Royal College of Nursing. It is not affiliated to the TUC. I do not think that it will ring the same bells in the mind of many members of the Conservative Party as unions which are part of the TUC. It makes a point, which is well made in the TUC’s main submission, that people jump to the conclusion that there may be civil liberties issues in Part 2, but there are not civil liberties issues in Part 3. That is not the case at all when one thinks about the circumstances in which people can be identified in reports to independent assessors. There is no regard to information which is supposed to be private, in some cases because names and addresses are sensitive.

At some stage during this pause, between now and the new year, a process must take place to test whether we on this side of the House are right, or whether people on the other side of the House are right. It will not be easy to judge this today, but I think that the case we are putting forward, and will continue to put forward, will prove overwhelming.

17:15

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not want to repeat points which have already been made by other noble Lords, but two points do bear underlining. First, the consultation period has already been mentioned, but I am not sure that noble Lords know its exact dates. It opened on 17 July this year and closed on 16 August. I would like to ask any fair-minded person whether they thought that to be a sufficiently long period for consultation, and whether that was the right time of year to have such a serious constitutional consultation. My second point, which has already been made but bears repeating, is that the Regulatory Policy Committee stated that:

“The impact assessment lacks a sound evidence base and is insufficiently robust to justify RPC validation of the estimated costs to civil society organisations (trade unions)”.

That is a damming indictment of the process that this Government have adopted. Even if the proposals were valid and fair, and even if we understood their motivation, I would say that the process is not just flawed but a public disgrace.

Let us look again at the impact assessment. I should emphasise that I am not criticising the civil servants who drafted it. They are magicians; they have conjured up some window dressing for this crackpot idea, which puts them on a par with Tommy Cooper. I blame the crackpot idea. The impact assessment states:

“Anecdotal evidence from a few employers provided as part of informal consultation with stakeholders suggests that some employers would benefit from being provided greater assurance that membership lists are accurate”.

“A few employers”; “suggests”; “some would benefit”: how in the name of bureaucracy are some employers going to benefit from a certificate? That is all that they are going to get. In the next paragraph the impact assessment states:

“Given the complexity of maintaining up-to-date registers there is a danger that trade union members, employers and the general public will not be confident that unions are complying with their duty to maintain an accurate and up-to-date register”.

Who says that there is a danger? Here is another quote:

“We have received views from some employers that there is a perception”—

this is going further and further back—

“that trade union membership details may be inaccurate”.

Yet the impact assessment then goes on to state:

“But we have no direct evidence that unions are not complying with the existing statutory duty to maintain their list of members”.

Let me repeat that. This impact assessment—which the Government expect us to take seriously, even though it was not actually published at the same time as the Bill—acknowledges that there is no evidence that unions are not complying with the existing statutory duty to maintain their list of members. This is a shocking example of a complete failure to produce evidence to justify this dubious policy.

The finances are also way out of line. We are told that independent assurers will be appointed from professional bodies such as solicitors, auditors and scrutineers. The cost to the trade unions for these assurers is estimated by the impact assessment to vary between £5,000 and £15,000. I have never met an auditor yet who would get out of bed for those sorts of figures. I could go on. The intellectual base and the rationale for this proposal are absent, but the petty prejudice of this Government is only too obvious.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend asked at the beginning of her speech whether the Committee thought that a 30-day period—no more than that—was adequate for consultation. It is quite clear that the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, which has reported on consultation matters, thought that such a period is inadequate and that a six-week period ought to be regarded as a working minimum. As my noble friend pointed out, the period in question partly covered a holiday period as well. That is just one flaw in this process, which is another example of this Government’s propensity to cobble together wholly unrelated issues into a single Bill.

I said at Second Reading on the anti-social behaviour Bill that it was not so much a curate’s egg as a curate’s omelette, combining as it did a variety of different substances. I said on that occasion that there were unsavoury ingredients; I have to say in connection with this part of the Bill that these are certainly unsavoury ingredients. It is strange, is it not, that this is a Government who have taken so long to begin to do anything about the massive scandals in the banking industry, the regulation of letting agents—my noble friend Lady Hayter has been pursuing that for some years—the energy companies or payday lenders, none of which are effectively regulated but are all matters of huge public concern? Yet they do not get legislation, let alone legislation in the form in which it emerges in this Bill.

The Explanatory Notes give some justification for Part 1, the part of the Bill that was contained in the coalition agreement. I think it was also in the Conservative manifesto. It was certainly the Prime Minister’s intention to deal with the “next scandal” which he, perhaps rightly, identified as political lobbying. Three years on we get a Bill which deals with that, after a fashion, but with these additional elements thrown in—and in a quite unjustified and unexplained way.

The Explanatory Notes do not touch on the rationale for these proposals. Just as the anti-social behaviour Bill includes such matters as dangerous dogs, firearms, court fees and policing, all dragged together in a Bill which is supposed to be dealing with anti-social behaviour, in this Bill we get proposals, out of nowhere, affecting trade unions in a way that is not imposed on any other sector. It is not imposed on professional bodies or, in anything like this form, on the world of charities. It is purely a question of singling out trade unions. As others of my noble friends have said, perhaps these proposals were intended to convey the misguided view that these are all political organisations pledged to support the Labour Party, which is palpably not the case. It is an unfortunate example of recidivism on at least the Conservative part of this coalition Government that they should hark back to that kind of divisive and inaccurate view of the trade union movement, which is much broader than they would like people to think.

There is no justification for Part 3. We have yet to hear from the Government why at the last minute they have chosen to add this dubious ingredient to the legislative omelette to which I have referred. It will be interesting to hear what explanation the Minister can give over and above the flimsy grounds that have been referred to by my noble friends already, particularly my noble friend Lady Donaghy, and the handful of responses that conditionally seem to raise concerns that have not been adequately explored or explained. This is an unworthy addition to a Bill that should have dealt with the much more serious problem of the impact on our parliamentary democracy of lobbying, which the Prime Minister identified all that time ago. This is hugely important.

When it comes to compiling information, perhaps the Government should give more attention to ensuring that we have a fully complete electoral register underpinning that parliamentary democracy, while expressing their concerns in this very party-political way about the membership of trade unions organisations, which are already significantly regulated. I hope that this debate will persuade the Government to have second thoughts. I am not over-optimistic, but they really ought to have second thoughts about pushing forward a measure that is irrelevant, in this part anyway, to the needs of our country, to the role of the trade unions and to industrial relations.

It also imposes a significant financial burden on the sector. In local government, we have something called the new burdens theory, under which, if new responsibilities are laid on local authorities, the Government are supposed to make financial allowance for them. There is no indication whatever that they will do so here. Yet this is a Government who, in their legal aid provisions, scramble round to find areas for cutting back on access to justice for minimal savings. They are prepared to inflict on organisations representing millions of people costs in excess of those that they are seeking to achieve by legislative measures in that area. It is a disgrace and the Government should think again.

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

I support my noble friends Lord Monks and Lord Stevenson. Trade unions are a very important part of civil society. In their contribution to it they have many proud achievements: the equal treatment of part-time workers; the financial assistance scheme for pensioners whose companies go bust; and the national minimum wage, to mention just a few. These concepts were challenged at the time, but are now accepted as an integral part of a civilised and advanced society.

A free and independent collective voice for ordinary working people is also an essential ingredient for a secure democracy, whether we look back to the 20th century or to what is happening in some emerging economies. Oh, for some of the mature, stable, free, independent voices to address some of the issues that have occurred in those civil societies! In spite of that, at the moment we have a narrative that quite crudely says, “Unions bad, employers good”.

We are seeing in this Bill an opportunity to give extensive powers to part of the state to access trade union membership records, allowing third parties, whoever they may be, to make complaints. These powers are being granted in the absence of coherent reasons for the Government to make this necessary, or of a problem that they are seeking to remedy. We are struggling to understand that. This is a sizeable attack on an important, voluntary set of organisations in their contribution to civil society, and they are being subjected to potential onerous conditions.

Much mention has been made of strike ballots. I confess to having conducted quite a few in my previous existence. As my noble friend Lord Whitty commented, they are about bargaining units and who are the union members within those units. The employer wants to know exactly who is involved in the strike and which employees will be absent. Employers can readily seek injunctions if they are unhappy with the information that unions provide. I know to my cost—I have experienced those injunctions and have had to stand there and explain in detail. I do not bite ankles, but I still found myself facing an injunction.

17:30

If you have a very large employer and employees move around a lot, it can be quite difficult. You have a very good database of the members and their membership, but you do not know which operational unit members may have been moved into by that employer. There are some quite significant challenges on trade unions to keep on top of their membership records, and to keep on top of them for strike ballot purposes, which seem to be being swept away as somehow not fit for purpose and really quite trivial, as if we really needed these more onerous conditions to come into play.

The right to freedom of association should not be made too onerous or undermined too lightly if one values democratic society or if one is having difficulty with the terms of political debate, because the price is really quite high. I fear that the Bill may have unintended consequences, because it is being rushed through. It has not been thought about and there is no evidence of the compelling reason for these changes.

The Bill provides the certification officer with extensive new powers to access and retain the registers of members’ names and addresses, and several other documents that he may wish to get his hands on when he has reason to decide that he needs them. It is a fact of life—I have gone to factories in my coat when it is quite cold and spoken to employers and union members—that employees are frightened of letting their employer know that they are a trade union member. Even if there is not black-listing, it is quite scary when you feel that your company, your factory or your workplace is getting really bad, with random redundancies and wages being cut. You cannot articulate that as an individual, so you take the initiative to try to find a collective voice or some lady or man who will come to speak for you, because it is quite frightening to speak to your employer. People say, “I want to join the union, and I want the union to come, but don’t tell them I’m a member because I’m petrified of the consequences. When you’ve got enough members and you’ve got recognition, fine—but I don’t want it to be known that I’m a union member”. That is the reality in some workplaces. They are not all colossuses, striding around; a lot of it is about frightened people without a voice, and sometimes the trade union is their only prospect of getting a collective voice. I have had it said to me, and I have done it myself. You have to put their details on the central membership record, but you take action to make sure that their details are not circulated; you promise that you will not bandy around the details of their membership but will protect them. I worry that with third parties and whoever—and who knows how the provisions of the Bill could evolve, when we start getting into the granularity of challenging membership records—things might be done to vulnerable individuals that were never intended as a consequence of the Bill. We may start to undermine the freedom of association and the right to the collective voice of which, I hope, we are all so proud and which are such an essential part of an independent democracy.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I start, as I did at Second Reading, by declaring my interest as a member of a union. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. There have been some excellent speeches, which, taken together, have put the onus on the Government about the content, consultation, timing and purpose of the Bill in such a way as to leave one with the very strong impression that this is, in some sense, a very partisan measure.

If I were the Minister and had felt the strength of what was being said, I might want to crawl away and lick my wounds at this stage. The Minister does pick them. He has had this experience before, so perhaps he will learn from it.

We believe that Part 3 is unnecessary. It has been described as a confidentiality-breaching, red-tape-increasing solution to a problem that does not exist. So I invite the Minister to demonstrate to us that there is a serious public policy issue behind this proposal. When he responds, will he state as clearly as possible what he thinks the problem is, what this Bill will achieve that current legislation does not achieve and why the measures he is proposing will do more than simply increase regulatory burdens on trade unions? I hope he will do better than simply repeat what is in the BIS consultation which states:

“Trade union activity has the potential to affect the daily lives of members and non-members. The general public should be confident that voting papers and other communications are reaching union members so that they have the opportunity to participate, even if they choose not to exercise it. As a result, unions also have a responsibility to give public assurance that they are keeping up-to-date registers”.

It is motherhood and brown bread.

We agree with that, but as the Minister well knows, union membership is already regulated by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act. Section 24(1) puts a duty on unions to maintain an up-to-date register of members’ names and addresses so far as reasonably practicable. This legislation has stood the test of time since the days of Mrs Thatcher. In recent times, unions have always had a legal obligation to maintain accurate membership lists. As it happens, it is in their own interests to do so, and the certification officer already has sufficient powers to deal with inaccurate membership records, but has not needed to do so for many years. So the Minister should, in words of one syllable, explain precisely what is wrong with that legislation.

As has been said already, we are not aware of any calls having been made to the Government to extend this provision. BIS, the certification officer and ACAS have confirmed under freedom of information requests that they have received no representations for such a measure. Not even those employer and right-wing groups that consistently call for further legal restrictions on unions have ever campaigned for this change. Can the Minister explain precisely what public concern he is responding to with these proposals?

There are a number of organisations whose list of registered members is of real importance to the public; doctors, lawyers and chartered accountants come to mind. If someone wants to check whether a professional is on the list, the accuracy of that register is key to the assurance such a register provides, so one would expect that on the lines now being suggested for trade unions there must be external, independent checks and there must be certificates in place to provide comfort to patients or clients that the relevant registers are up to date. What do we find? The Library kindly carried out a survey for us of some bodies.

Chartered accountants must belong to a recognised body, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales or other membership organisation which protects the quality and integrity of the accountancy profession. I am a qualified accountant with the ACCA. Our Library’s research has failed to locate any independent membership verification of its membership list. The ICAEW’s members elect members of their council but still have no independent assurer to check the list of voters, their addresses or whether the details held are accurate and complete.

The Bar Council represents barristers, but is not a trade union, although it represents the interests of the Bar on all matters relating to the profession: trade union, disciplinary et cetera. Although the Bar Council is the source of information about whether someone is a barrister, it told the Library that its membership list is not independently verified. Solicitors are represented by the Law Society, which aims to help, protect and promote them, but its list has no independent outside person to assure the public of its accuracy and completeness.

The strangest is doctors. Doctors are required by law to be registered with the GMC before they can undertake medical practice, and the GMC’s list includes details of their qualifications and their fitness to practise problems. It is the doctor’s responsibility to be on the register, and there is no independent assurer to certify the accuracy of that record. However, the trade union to which doctors belong—the BMA—will have to appoint such an assurer to confirm its records. Perhaps the Minister could explain why it is more important to have an externally verified list of BMA members than the far more significant list of medical practitioners held by the GMC.

As is now well known, this Bill was published as the summer Recess started and was rushed through the House of Commons—so rushed that the regulatory impact assessment for Part 3 was published only in September. It has only just been made available, during the Committee stage of the Bill in the other place. As we have heard, however, it has been considered by the Regulatory Policy Committee—an independent body largely composed of senior industrialists—and has been given a rare red rating by that body. The last one was in connection to “shares for rights” in a Bill that the noble Viscount might well recall, it having been debated rather vigorously in this House.

On the impact assessment, the Regulatory Policy Committee said:

“The IA is not fit for purpose. The assessment is not sufficiently robust to justify validation of the equivalent annual net cost to business figure … It is unclear how accurate and up-to-date a membership register will have to be for a union to be considered ‘compliant’ with the proposed new requirements; or what process of investigation would be undertaken by an independent qualified assurer, or how rigorous that process would be. Thus, the accuracy of a union’s register, the time costs of the assurance process, and the fee payable to the assurer, all remain highly uncertain”.

Therefore, it is not just saying that it does not believe what is there; it is saying that the way the Bill is constructed is so vague and imprecise that it is not possible to draw a conclusion as to whether the costs outweigh the benefits that have been provided. As we have heard, the benefits are rather low. As has already been mentioned, the committee notes that the very short consultation period and the failure to follow appropriate better-regulation framework processes put in place by the Government are both factors that may contribute to the lack of a sound evidence base. This is a truly shameful state of affairs.

My noble friend Lord Monks asked the Minister to explain why the department did not follow the better-regulation framework processes. On the points of substance, will more evidence be gathered? Will we get a more detailed assessment of all likely costs to the trade unions? Will there be more evidence gathered from consultation with stakeholders? All these points were made by the Regulatory Policy Committee. Will we get a figure for the estimated cost to unions of changing the rules before the Bill finishes its consideration in this House? We need this if we are to consider this measure in the round, so we really need a reworked impact study addressing the complaints made by the independent committee. Will we have this and, if so, when will it be ready?

Having said that, there is one section on the impact assessment that is positive. Again, I would like to ask the Minister what he reads into this. It says, on the question of the one-in, two-out rule:

“The measures contained in this impact assessment are in scope of the one-in, two-out rule. The Bill will impose a net annual direct cost on trade unions, which are classified as civil society organisations”.

That being so, could we please learn what the “two outs” are that will be given to the trade unions in return for the “one in” that has been proposed?

Ministers have stated, as they are required to do, that the Bill is compliant with the Human Rights Act, but the Minister will be aware that Liberty believes that the introduction of additional compliance and scrutiny measures on trade union registers of members may constitute a breach of Article 11. That article protects the right to freedom of association, including the right to form and join a trade union. As has been said, restrictions are permitted only if they pass a test of pressing social need and proportionality. Will he explain why he thinks that this additional burden of measures on trade unions does not breach the right in Article 11(2), in the light of its potentially intrusive nature into the private affairs of union members and unions’ internal affairs? Can the Minister set out the legitimate policy aims that pass the strict test expressed in that article?

Without an adequate explanation of what the Government are trying to achieve here, far better arguments about why the existing legislation is deficient and the information to judge whether the costs imposed justify the regulatory burden being introduced in the larger unions, it is hard to see why we should not proceed to oppose the clause stand part Motion, as we have proposed. As my noble friend Lady Drake said, the unions in Britain play a significant part in the modern economy. They should be cherished, not castigated. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, if the Government had brought forward such a burdensome set of duties to any other section of civil society, there would be an outcry. There is indeed an outcry and we should listen.

17:44

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)]

My Lords, my first point is that I do not wish to make any reference to reports that I read in the Sunday Times yesterday. As the noble Lord, Lord Monks, correctly said, the certification officer has been called in to investigate; it is not for me to comment further and it is for him to progress or otherwise.

Secondly, I want to acknowledge the many distinguished Members opposite who have led unions and have had substantial responsibility for individuals within the unions in the past. Some of these unions have been very big, with many hundreds of thousands of members, so I want to thank those noble Lords for their contributions. I realise that in the past they have been very much in the public eye with all that has gone on over several decades.

I shall deal with the amendments to Clause 36 and the question of whether the clause should stand part together. Clause 36 is intended to give widespread assurance that unions are able to contact their members and that, as a result, union decisions reflect the will of their members. This should enhance the democratic credibility of union actions to a wider audience. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, could not have put it better. This is important because unions have extensive influence—in public life and in the daily lives of their members. Actions they take can also have an impact on non-members. As the noble Lord, Lord Monks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, have rightly highlighted, the statistics demonstrating the value that the public place on the unions is high. This is why there is a need to be sure that the registration lists are up to date.

Union members work across a range of critical areas, including in the public sector. Union membership is around 56% in the public sector and 14% in the private sector. We do not want to change or inhibit the vital role that unions can and do play in society—which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake—but we want to ensure that there is confidence in their accountability to their members. Since 1984, there has been a statutory duty on unions to maintain a list of members’ names and addresses. This is currently enshrined in Section 24 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which requires unions to keep the list up to date,

“so far as is reasonably practicable”.

This register will be a union’s primary source for ensuring that its communications, including ballot papers, reach members. I think everyone agrees with the principle of maintaining the register. That principle is not under scrutiny today, and the existing duty remains unchanged. However, there is no mechanism to require reporting on compliance with the statutory duty.

Clause 36 introduces a reporting regime that is proportionate to the practicalities of the duty to which it relates. Unions will be required to supply an annual membership audit certificate to the certification officer, alongside the annual return. As this provision is about giving widespread assurance, all unions will have to make the most recent certificate available to those who request to see it, either free or for a reasonable charge. The certification officer will also have to keep copies of all certificates and allow the public to inspect them. This addresses the fact that there is currently no real way for members, employers or the wider public to check how far the existing duty is being complied with. Finally, Clause 36(3) and (4) ensure that a trade union can discharge the new duty on behalf of its branches and that federated unions must comply with the new duty.

Amendment 118A—and Amendment 118D, which is consequential on it—seeks to limit the duty on unions so that they do not have to submit a membership audit certificate every year, but only if a complaint is made. In practice, if a complaint is received by the certification officer and he investigates, he will want to be satisfied that there is no breach of the duties in relation to the register. If he discovers such a breach, it would be more appropriate to provide a remedy as soon as is reasonably practicable, rather than to impose a reporting requirement. If there were no annual reporting requirement, the legislation would not achieve the level of routine assurance that we want for union members and the wider public. Only individual union members have the right to check their details on the membership register, and they must be predisposed to do so. Even if the member does this, he or she has no right to see all of the register and, in any case, cannot know whether other names and addresses are up to date. Nor can the member know who should or should not be on the register. Therefore the member cannot ascertain or guarantee the accuracy of the register in its entirety. If the member checks the register and finds problems with the accuracy of his or her details, they can make a complaint to the certification officer. However, only the member has the right to do this and, as I have said, they will not be able to determine the accuracy of the register as a whole. If anyone else has reason to believe there might be inaccuracies, they could not make such a complaint. Even if the certification officer received allegations about the union’s register, under the current law he would have insufficient powers to investigate.

I am aware that unions and some noble Lords have argued that there have been a very low number of complaints about union registers. However, given the limitations of the existing regime that I have just set out, that is not a particularly effective indicator of the overall accuracy of union membership registers. Over the summer we carried out a targeted consultation exercise, which was mentioned by noble Lords opposite. Evidence from that suggests that unions face difficulties in keeping their records updated. The noble Lord, Lord Monks, stated that in his opening speech and I will say more about the consultation on it later. The CIPD commented:

“Unions have stated difficulties at times maintaining the addresses of members”.

A member of the Engineering Employers Federation also commented that trade unions,

“do not have a unified way of tracking membership and it remains difficult for them to do so”.

I believe that most noble Lords opposite acknowledge that.

When these measures were debated in the other place, a number of references were made to the challenge of maintaining registers because of the high degree of turnover in members, which was alluded to this afternoon. Around 2 million people move in and out of union membership a year, which equates to around one in four union members. That means that if a union does not regularly update its register, it could quickly become inaccurate. We propose a modest and proportionate approach to providing greater assurance that registers are as up to date as is reasonably practicable. We are not changing the way in which unions record member details, nor are we changing the existing duty to keep a register. Our focus is on the reporting requirements and effective enforcement. That means greater confidence that union members are receiving all necessary information, including the opportunity to vote on key matters such as a new general secretary. That also means greater confidence that when unions decide that they need to take industrial action—which is entirely their right—those affected know that members have been contacted and given the opportunity to vote. Membership audit certificates will be beneficial to unions, give confidence to individual members and more widely enhance the credibility of their decisions.

Amendment 118B would amend Clause 36 to allow a union to delay submitting a membership audit certificate if it is launching an appeal against it or the certification officer’s acceptance of it. I appreciate that unions will want to ensure that an assurer does not, mistakenly or otherwise, send a qualified certificate to the certification officer without the union knowing about it. I hope that I can provide some reassurance that this amendment is unnecessary. The current drafting of Clause 37 ensures that the assurer will send a copy of the membership audit certificate to the certification officer only,

“after it is provided to the union”.

Therefore the union will have seen the certificate and will have an opportunity to engage with the assurer. If the union is able to demonstrate that the certificate is inaccurate, it should be able to remedy it at that point. Furthermore, unions will themselves appoint their assurers and agree their contractual relationship with them. That gives a union discretion to require an assurer to allow the union to comment on any draft certificate or to discuss concerns before it is issued to the certification officer. However, we believe that it is reasonable to require that qualified certificates are sent to the certification officer as soon as reasonably practicable after they are given to the union so that he can decide what steps to take. We regard this as a necessary part of the assurance process.

If a union is required to appoint an independent assurer to provide a certificate because it has more than 10,000 members, that certificate is the membership audit certificate for the purposes of Clause 36. Clause 36 also sets out what is necessary for unions with 10,000 members or fewer. Those unions will be able to authorise a union officer to sign off the certificate, with a statement that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, the union has complied with its duties under Section 24. As we expect smaller unions to have a less complex register, we think it is reasonable to consider that a union officer will have sufficient familiarity with the content to be able to make such a statement. Amendment 118C seeks to alter Clause 36 so that the assurer would no longer provide the membership audit certificate for unions with more than 10,000 members. That would mean that all unions would provide a self-assurance that they are complying with the statutory obligation under Section 24 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act. This amendment would not give sufficient assurance that unions are maintaining accurate and up-to-date registers and can contact their membership. We already have a regime which relies on individual union members actively checking their membership details.

Nowadays, some unions can be extremely large organisations. For example, as many noble Lords opposite will know, UNISON has 1.3 million members and Unite has 1.5 million. To put that in context, the NHS has around 1.7 million employees. Record-keeping for such large organisations is likely to be complex, and maintenance will need to be ongoing to ensure that the register is up to date, particularly given the high level of reported churn in union membership. Equally, where a union consists of many individual branches with individually held membership information, regular and diligent maintenance of the membership register as a whole will be critical. The noble Lord, Lord Monks, recognised that. We acknowledge that these lists cannot and will not necessarily be 100% accurate. In addition, the larger the organisation, the more probable that communication between the union and its members relies on being written rather than oral. Branch secretaries are unlikely to know all their members and may not even have met some of them. It is therefore appropriate that there is independent assurance for larger unions.

This amendment could also have the unintended consequence of placing additional burdens on larger unions. In defining the independent assurance, we have focused on the assurer awarding the membership audit certificate to larger unions on the basis that they have adequate systems in place to allow them to comply with Section 24. That is because we considered it unduly burdensome and unreasonable to expect the assurance to be an audit of every individual record. The effect of the amendment, however, would be to require these unions to give assurance that they have complied with Section 24 to the best of the union officer’s knowledge and belief. That means that the officer who signs the certificate essentially guarantees, to the best of their knowledge, that the register is accurate and up to date—again, so far as is reasonably practicable. We believe that this could be much more onerous for larger unions than what the Government propose. The annual assurance of unions’ compliance with this duty will demonstrate to members, employers and the public that unions are diligent in their maintenance of such complex records. It will also provide greater confidence that union activity is accountable to the membership.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

Will the Minister address the point made by many of us about the report of the business advisory committee, which reached the conclusion that the so-called cost-benefit analysis carried out by the department and the impact assessment are not fit for purpose?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I was about to attempt to answer the many questions that were put to me. However, before I come to answer the noble Lord’s question, I wanted to say that the noble Lords, Lord Monks and Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, basically said that they considered Part 3 to be a politically motivated attack on the unions. I think the noble Lord, Lord Monks, used the expression “vindictive attack”. Perhaps I should not be surprised at their reactions, as we are perhaps being accused of placing our tanks on their lawn. That is just not the case; if anything, it may be only the front of the front wheels. However, this is not intended to make it harder for trade unions to operate. They are membership organisations, and as such have a responsibility to their members to keep their register of members’ names and addresses accurate and up to date so far as is reasonably practical. That general principle is already a statutory obligation, and it is right that the Government should try to ensure that these requirements on unions to fulfil this responsibility are adequate. As I said earlier, trade unions are vital participants in the economy. They work with employers to maximise employee engagement and deliver practical solutions to workplace issues. This is why we currently engage with trade unions on key policy areas, much more widely than we are talking about today, such as employment rights, skills and manufacturing strategy. The Business Secretary regularly meets the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss current policy matters.

18:00

I would like to address the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, and by the noble Lords, Lord Monks and Lord Whitty. That concerns the RPC report on the BIS impact assessment and the shortfalls and the evidence base, as it was put to me. I am aware that the RPC has argued that we have underestimated costs, particularly with regard to changing union rules. We have received no information on this from unions, despite seeking their estimates on impact. We would be pleased to take any figures into account should they wish to supply them, but we anticipate that unions will have routine written communications with members and also an annual conference and that should allow them to include those routine activities to take steps to make the necessary changes. Perhaps I can reassure noble Lords that we will continue to work with the RPC to see how we can improve the evidence base further and we will take into account any further data that unions and others can supply and choose to supply.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raised the issue of whether there would be any change to the definition of the phrase “so far as is reasonably practical”. The test for unions that they maintain a membership register that is up to date and accurate so far as is reasonably practical has actually existed since 1984 and has been interpreted by the certification officer in decisions made under Section 25 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. We do not intend statutorily to define it further. It is important that the legislator recognises that the duty takes account of the fact that unions of different sizes and types compile and maintain their membership data in individual and varying ways. At the moment, we anticipate that an assurer will want to check how the union collects data from new joiners, how they remind members about keeping records up to date, the ease with which members can notify changes and how quickly changes are made. We would also expect that an assurer would be interested in the data cleansing processes that larger unions use for electronic databases.

The noble Lord, Lord Monks, raised the issue of the cost to unions. I would like to say a word or two about costs. He said that they would add considerable burdens on the unions. We have assessed the average annual cost as being 6p per union member. I think the noble Lord would have read that earlier. That equates to an average of half a penny a month. However, union monthly subscriptions vary but typically they range from £1 per month to something around £35 a month. We have sought to take an approach which is proportionate and seeks to minimise the burdens on unions.

[Lord Monks]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Is it not quite incredulous to use the cost in that way, breaking it down person by person in that way? We are talking about half a million pounds to be spent on a purpose which he believes gives confidence, assurance and so on but, if there is no real problem in the first place, the whole thing is built on a piece of tissue paper. That 6p becomes even more important to people like me. It is not so much that you have your tanks on our lawn, you have your hand in our pocket.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

These are the figures that I have presented, and it is fairly natural to break it down on a per-head basis. I would like to focus on costs. As set out in the impact assessment, I expect the cost to the public purse of implementing the provisions to be around £150,000. The additional responsibilities of the certification officer will mean hiring two to three extra staff members in his office. Some expenses may also be incurred if a complex investigation has to be undertaken, although it is likely that those investigations will be rare. We believe that the changes we are making are relatively modest. The new powers for the certification officer are largely consistent with activities that he undertakes at present. The Government have no plans to make wider changes to the role of the certification officer.

The noble Lord, Lord Monks, raised the issue of, as he put it, state intrusion into unions. That goes back to the first question that I answered for other noble Lords. The Data Protection Act will apply to the certification officer, his inspectors or assurers and they will be required to use any personal data, including data on union members, consistent with the protections that it contains. The Information Commissioner has powers to enforce the data protection principles and can impose substantial fines for some breaches. In addition, there are confidentiality obligations contained in the Bill so that an inspector or assurer can use or disclose information only if they do so consistently with the exercise of functions in relation to the membership register or criminal investigation or proceedings or where consent has been given.

I would like to address two further questions. The noble Lord, Lord Monks, raised the issue of a perceived breach of Articles 8 and 11 of the ECHR and the report of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which I believe I have answered already. The Government have responded to the committee’s report, explaining that these do not breach rights to privacy or freedom of association. That is because there are legal safeguards in place already. The Data Protection Act will continue to apply and the Bill introduces new safeguards as well.

The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, challenged the length of consultation. Perhaps I may address this directly. BIS published a discussion paper which received 42 written responses from a range of groups, including trade unions, legal firms, businesses and charities. The Deputy Prime Minister, BIS Ministers and BIS officials have discussed the proposals with the TUC at various points throughout the progress of the Bill to date. The evidence base in the impact assessment is based on what unions have told us and we will continue to listen. The Minister for employment relations has already said in the other place that the Government will consult further on the role of the assurer; for example, we are committed to allowing unions flexibility in the implementation of these new measures while supporting a smooth transition. We are also committed, as I said earlier, to continuing to work with the RPC as well on the evidence base for the impact assessment.

I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and beg to move that Clause 36 stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Monks]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in what has been a wide-ranging debate, at least from this side of the House, which I suppose is only to be expected on this kind of subject. I ask fair-minded Members of the House, of which there are many on all sides, to consider this measure. The case for it is extremely flimsy. Are there not better things for the people from the department and the Minister to be doing? In a period of economic difficulty, the business department is messing about getting extra confidence and extra assurance about union membership records when, over many years, the complaints have been negligible. The existing requirements, which have been put in place during and since Mrs Thatcher’s time, have proved robust and effective. In a sense we are adding something on. As I mentioned before, it is almost like a rite of passage for every Conservative Minister in this place to have at least one kick at the trade union movement. I think that is very much what is happening now.

On this side of the House, we do not intend to press the amendments today but we are giving notice that, after a pause which will take place to enable Part 2 to catch up with Part 3, we will be making the point again on Report. It is an absolute waste of time.

Amendment 118A withdrawn.

Amendments 118B and 118C not moved.

Clause 36 agreed.

Clause 37: Duty to appoint an assurer etc

Amendment 118D not moved.

Amendment 118E

Moved by

[Lord Monks]

118E: Clause 37, page 40, line 9, at end insert—
“(c) to have a duty of confidentiality to the trade union and its members; and(d) to abide at all times by the trade union’s obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 to protect the information of members”

[Lord Monks]

I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. They deal with confidentiality and administrative complexity, as well as some points concerning the position of the assurer. Incidentally, I rather liked the earlier comment by my noble friend Lord Stevenson that this provision amounts to job creation for chartered accountants, of whom he is one, but I believe that it will very much benefit a small part of the population.

I shall deal quickly with each of the amendments. The Bill has been much criticised by civil liberties organisations for allowing potentially significant breaches of data protection law. A legal opinion by Michael Ford QC, acting for UNISON, points out that under the European Charter of Fundamental Rights only a substantial public interest would justify the disclosure of this membership information. As we have said before—I shall not labour the point—where is the substantial justification in this case?

Nor is it absolutely clear that the Bill contains any suitable safeguards to protect sensitive personal data. An inspector would owe a duty of confidentiality to the certification officer but not, it seems, to the union or its members, and no duty of confidentiality is placed squarely on the shoulders of the certification officer. We are advised by legal advisers that the Bill may well not be permissible under the data protection directive, and Amendment 118E seeks to remedy that.

Amendment 118F seeks to ease the requirements on the union to appoint or terminate the appointment of the assurer and to put it in line with the terms under which scrutineers are employed to oversee union elections and ballots. Currently, the Bill tells unions to alter their rules but, notwithstanding that, the Bill’s provisions override the rules. An assurer could be removed only by resolution of a general meeting or conference. Not too many people have that requirement on them as far as auditors are concerned. It is not necessary to call a special shareholders’ meeting to get rid of KPMG or Deloitte or whoever, but there would be a requirement on a union in this area if this part of the Bill went through.

Amendment 118G would improve a union’s ability to remove an assurer who had breached the confidentiality of the union or breached certain other requirements. It stresses that the obligation is to the union and its members, and there is not necessarily a general airy-fairy commitment to give confidence to the wider world. As it stands, this provision would be extremely intrusive to the union’s right to keep its information confidential. As others have said, some of that information could be quite explosive in certain industries with more unscrupulous employers.

Amendment 118H would qualify the requirement for a system to be “satisfactory” by adding,

“so far as is reasonably practicable”,

which is very much in line with Section 24 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act.

Amendment 118J is rather important for employers, and I am surprised that some of them have not made more noise about this. The check-off system operates when the employer deducts the union’s subscription from the employee’s pay and, probably on a quarterly basis, sends the payment and an administrative charge off to the union. If the assurer finds any inaccuracies in some of the information and data that a union is holding, they may well be traceable to the employer—they may well be traceable to the payroll system or the way it is administered. In a sense, under Amendment 118J, we are asking, “What about the employer having to comply with investigations in this area launched by the assurer or the certification officer or one of his proposed inspectors?”. Amendment 118L would follow that up. It would provide the assurer with the ability to seek information from an employer for the same purpose.

Amendment 118K would put the obligation regarding record-keeping squarely where it should be if this provision goes through, and that is on a union nationally, not on the officer in charge of data handling in the union. It is not fair to put the obligation on a branch secretary, who may be a lay person. It is not fair to put it on the East Anglia regional committee, for example. The responsibility for good record-keeping should be very much on the national office, and I ask the Minister to look at that.

18:15

Amendment 118M stresses the obligations under the Data Protection Act, and this is also relevant to Article 11 of the European convention.

Amendment 118N refers to the test of reasonable steps that need to be taken by an assurer in the current draft of the Bill. How about raising the bar a bit and inserting the rather stronger requirement of “necessary” rather than “reasonable” steps? It is a very important matter that he or she is handling.

The purpose of Amendment 118P is to reduce the scope for the assurer to disclose information where a member is involved in criminal activity or some kind of corruption. We are trying to limit the scope of the assurer to make information available on a wider basis. At the moment, there are too many opportunities for an assurer to disclose information and perhaps data protection requirements, and thus breach the obligation to individual union members.

Those are the key points that I wish to put before the Minister. I beg to move.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Monks has made a sophisticated case to the Government for making this whole clause and the invention of the assurer more palatable, or at least more workable. He has had to do so in a very complicated way because of the nature of the proposition. My opposition and that of my noble friend Lord Lea to the clause standing part is a more straightforward proposition: we are basically seeking to delete the clause.

We still have not had a proper explanation of why there should be an assurer. Incidentally, I need to apologise to the Committee and to Hansard: on occasion in the previous debate, I referred to an “assessor” rather than an “assurer”. I also apologise to the Minister. It was almost certainly down to my writing. The term “assurer” has a nice touch about it; it is as though the man from the Pru is coming round to collect your life assurance every now and again. However, it is not quite like that. What qualifications and what legal requirements does the assurer have to have? He or she is going to be employed by the union but approved by the state. This person may well be somebody with auditing qualifications but he or she is not an auditor, an accountant, a lawyer or a scrutineer in the sense of the ballot scrutineer, to which my noble friend referred. The post is an entirely new invention.

I go back to my earlier point. Why do we need this new invention? If the Government’s intention is to tighten things up, why do they not do that? Can we not rationally look at a proposition saying that the certification officer should have more powers or that the requirements on the union should be clearer or more stringent? However, that is not what the Government have proposed. They have simply proposed this intermediary, which is very strange.

I do not know how the general public will take to this. What is the assurer? It sounds to me like a third-rate television series: “The Assurer—Licensed to Check Membership Records”. Even more sinisterly, as in Nineteen Eighty-Four, it could be the kind of person who meticulously took notes of the proceedings of a committee in the old Soviet Union. He sat in the corner and nobody quite knew who he was, but you knew he was reporting on you, and you knew he was reporting to the Central Committee. Such a role is not of the organisation; it is not of the state; and it is not of a recognised profession; it is a new invention. To do exactly what? I do not think that, in all their interventions so far, or in what they have done with their advisers, the Government have come up with a clear definition of what this person is to do.

For the smaller unions—those with fewer than 10,000 members—the requirements in Clause 36 relate to an audit certificate. That is slightly more understandable. It has to be signed off by senior officers of the union. That is a procedure that many organisations know about. They have to bring in external auditors to check it and, if it is complicated, they have on occasion to ensure that their lawyers have seen it.

However, this new profession is not known to science or to society—or, so far as I am aware, is it known to legislation. If the Minister can point to a precedent I would be grateful, but it is not in any part of society that I am aware of, or in any part that bears any relationship to the context in which trade unions and employers operate.

If I were the Government, I would think that the best thing would be to delete this whole new proposition and instead get around to telling us clearly what this part of the Bill is supposed to do. Then we could have a rational debate. We might still disagree, but at least we would know what we were talking about. The main proposition here is to introduce into a very delicate and sensitive area—the issues of human rights and data protection have already been touched on, and will be again—an entity and a role that is unknown to all the players and unknown to the courts. If the Government were sensible, they would approach this in a cleaner way. They would make a proposition as to how they want unions to change their behaviour and what standards they want them to meet, and we would be able to see whether those were reasonable, rather than putting things in the hands of an entirely new concoction.

I therefore propose that Clause 37 should not stand part of the Bill. I hope that by the time we have completed our consideration of the Bill the Government will either have deleted it entirely or put something much simpler and more straightforward in its place.

[Baroness Turner of Camden (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend. One point struck me particularly, from my recollection of my own work as a full-time official in connection with recruiting in areas where there was no trade union membership. I am referring to people who were new to the trade union movement. The lack of confidentiality implied in this part of the Bill would be a deterrent to recruitment. Obviously, if you are trying to recruit people who have never been in a union before and are not organised, the last thing they want is for their details to be made available to anybody. They want to keep things close to themselves until they have recognition. Obviously that is important to them. A number of us have raised the issue of confidentiality, which is threatened unless this provision is either removed entirely or substantially amended.

I do not see why we should have to vote for yet another official—this so-called assurer. Where is he to come from? What sort of background is he to have? What kind of voice will the ordinary members have in relation to this individual? We do not want this new individual. We do not think the role is necessary, and I personally oppose this clause altogether—although the amendments tabled by my noble friends would undermine to some extent the opposition that some of us have on grounds of confidentiality. This is very important to new members, particularly those who have not been in a union before and who need some assurance of confidentiality if they are to remain with the union and support it as it struggles for membership and recognition. I therefore completely support my noble friends in their opposition to this part of the Bill.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, I add my support for the amendment. Orwell has been mentioned, and I have mentioned Kafka—but now I shall give a more homely sort of picture. One of the children says, “Mummy, what does Daddy actually do?” and Mummy replies, “Well, he’s an assurer.” I think that after that Mummy might have a bit of difficulty and wonder whether she had actually answered the question.

Let me apply the provision to electoral rolls. This is one of those phantom tasks on which you could expend the whole resources of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party and still not solve the problem. The Minister has said that there is a problem with churning, and people moving house and so on, so we are to have more of the Central Committee investigatory branch investigating and then doing something about it. I do not know what it would be able to do if it is true that the rationale for the action, and the analysis of why there is a problem, is the changing nature of the economy and the churning of people in the trade unions. When would you have won the game? If that is the analysis you can never win the game. To use a different metaphor, you can always move the goalposts.

I hope that the Cross-Benchers in their massed ranks, between now and Christmas or a bit after, will be able to decide whether we are right or whether the Government are right in this way of stating, or inventing, a problem and begging the question to which there is not an answer as there cannot be an answer to the problem as stated.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I have to confess that my experience of the unions is obviously much less extensive than that of opposition Members. I suspect that it is also out of date and rather specialised. I was a member of the National Union of Journalists for a decade or so. I never aspired to be an officer of the chapel, although I attended regularly, so my contribution to our consideration of this part of the Bill will have to be very limited. But it is genuine. I am really interested and concerned to ensure that we get this right.

I am listening very carefully to the debate on part 3—not least the two extremely important clauses that we are now looking at—and I want to speak specifically on whether Clause 37 should stand part of the Bill. I believe that we should retain it until we have seen something better, and I am not yet persuaded by the amendments. From what noble Lords on the other side of the House have said, I am not clear whether their principal concern is with the direction of Part 3 or the detail. Is it with the principle or is it with the practice? Different Members of your Lordships’ House have touched on both. Is it the intention or is it the impact? It may be both, but it is not entirely clear to me yet whether they think that the problem does not exist or that it is not being addressed in an appropriate way. The noble Lords, Lord Monks and Lord Whitty, said that accuracy was a problem. So it is not a problem that does not exist. There is a problem; the question is whether we have the right remedy for it.

I am not yet entirely clear, either, why those opposite seem to have so much fear of what is proposed. It seems to be an effective process for auditing membership records annually and having them independently signed off. That, surely, is healthy. Is there a problem with it? Surely it is not a burden for the smaller unions either. I am not quite sure where the National Union of Journalists is these days in the league table of membership; I suspect that it is not very big. I do not think that 10,000 members is an unreasonable cut-off point in Clause 37 for the smaller members not to have to self-certificate.

18:30

It seems to be not only a reasonable, moderate approach with benefits for ensuring that the electorate for ballots and other union processes are accurate, but a measure with potential future constitutional benefits. As other Members of your Lordships’ House may recall, I recently published a draft Bill with input from a number of parliamentarians at both ends of the building, and from across parties, to reform comprehensively the whole issue of party funding, including a donation cap. Labour Members have said to me regularly and consistently that for such a cap to work it would have to exclude affiliation fees from individual trade union members. If that is the case, surely it will be essential that everyone can have confidence in exactly how many of them there are before we can know that they have consented to pay into a political fund and that they want their money to go to the Labour Party.

That, of course, is not the purpose of this clause or this part of the Bill, since the Government are not yet committed to radical reform of party funding. But since the cross-party talks on that issue concluded in June, there have been some important signs of real progress that could make real development possible. After all, Mr Ed Miliband, having had his emissaries refuse to budge on the relationship with unions during the funding talks, has now made it clear that he does want to reform that relationship. Noble Lords will recall that he courageously made an important statement to that effect in July. He said:

“I do want any individual to be paying money to the Labour Party in affiliation fees unless they have deliberately chosen to do so. Individual Trade Union members should choose to join Labour through the affiliation fee, not be automatically affiliated. In the twenty-first century it just doesn’t make sense for anyone to be affiliated to a political party unless they have chosen to do so. Men and women in Trade Unions should be able to make a more active, individual choice on whether they become part of our Party. That would be better for these individuals and better for our Party”.

Labour Members cannot want both individual choice for members of trade unions on how they contribute to any party, and at the same time resist measures to make membership records more accurate and more robust. How can anyone suggest that individuals making that choice should be confident that it will be recorded in a sensible and accurate way year by year if they do not know that those records are up to date? Like many other measures in this Bill, I think that they will pave the way to make serious reform of party funding easier and more effective in the future. I hope, therefore, that the Leader of the Opposition’s commitments earlier this year will make it easier, too.

This part of the Bill may not be perfect, but it is potentially an extremely important part of the jigsaw that will have to be put in place if the Leader of the Opposition’s proposals for a new relationship are taken forward after the conference that he is proposing next year. To that extent, these clauses and this part of the Bill must be welcome to those of us on all sides of the House who are genuinely determined to try to take big donations out of British politics.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I think that at Committee stage I can make a point. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was out of the Chamber at an earlier stage when I said that I did not believe that it was the Bill’s aim to attack the funding of one political party. The Minister should respond to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I agree with him on most of his issues, including potential reform of party funding. However, he suggested in his intervention here that the Bill is not about better measures for trade union members and more transparency but about taking a serious step towards undermining the funding of the major opposition party. If that is indeed the case, this is an entirely different sort of Bill and one that raises even more important issues than have been raised so far. I should like to hear the Minister’s views on that.

[Lord Tyler]

I think the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, presaged his remarks with , “before the noble Lord sits down”, so I presume that I am still on my feet. I do not think that the noble Lord was listening entirely to what I was saying. I was saying that if the Leader of the Opposition’s proposal for a new relationship between his party and the unions is to be on solid foundations, surely one of the most essential elements of that new relationship has to be accurate membership records for the unions. This part of the Bill is important in that new relationship. I hope, therefore, that the Labour Party and its leader will think very carefully. If they want to improve this part of the Bill, I am sure that the Government would be interested—although I cannot speak for them. It is important that everybody should have confidence in the accuracy of membership of the unions.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I do not want to prolong this but the noble Lord said that this Bill was about Parliament defining the internal constitution of an independent political party. There may be all sorts of things wrong with the constitutions of all the political parties represented in this House, and we all have views on that, but when the Government presented the Bill, that is not what they said it was about. We have now gone into huge new territory as a result of the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and we need the Minister to come clean. I hope that he will make it absolutely clear that the Government’s intention is not primarily to knacker a leading opposition party. If it is, it is a far more serious attack on democracy than even we supposed.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

That was interesting. What have we learnt? We have made two rather important steps forward down the path of trying to understand why we are here today and why the Bill is being considered. The first is the Minister’s, I think off-the-cuff, but rather interesting comment, that he resisted the idea that he had planted tanks on our lawn—presumably the trade union lawn—but that the wheels were on the lawn, even if the whole tank was not. I know about tanks, and they can fire very large and rather dangerous weapons; they do not have to be on your lawn to do damage but, if they are on your lawn, it shows real intent. I am afraid that that cat is now out of the bag, so we have that logged.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, so much for being present for at least part of the debate, and for being able to enlighten us as to what exactly is going on in the corridors behind the party front that we call the coalition. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, he has given us the answers to the questions that we have been asking the Minister all evening and to which we have not had responses. I asked 14 questions in my speech and got not a single direct answer to any of them. We now know that this is the set-up for the battle still to come on the question of party funding.

Well, well, well. Here we were thinking that we were talking about important issues such as rights, civil liberties, and so on, when the real debate was about trying to establish a hegemony in terms of party activity that would perpetuate the Conservatives and possibly the Liberal Democrats—I have my doubts about that—against the opposition party as it is presently constituted. Presumably, that gives credibility to the theory that I have heard advanced around the place, which is that this part of the Bill was originally considerably longer and dealt with the question of party funding in relation to the unions, but because of the demarche by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Edward Miliband, it had to be changed considerably, and all we have left is a warming pan in the political bed that we are addressing. It keeps the issue on the table so that, when and if the parties opposite get their act together, they will move in on party funding in a way that, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is so crucial to the future of both his party and, presumably, the Conservatives. Okay, they can change the rules—but at least that is helpful to us in knowing how to address the Bill in more detail when we come back to it on Report.

The amendments tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Monks were difficult for us to frame because, like my noble friends Lord Whitty and Lord Lea, we felt very strongly that what was proposed in Clause 37 was not appropriate and did not satisfy the test of being in response to significant public concern, which we put to the Minister in Clause 36, but which he failed to answer. We felt that it was appropriate in the spirit of this House to table amendments in an attempt to ameliorate some of the harm that would be done otherwise. Our hearts are with clause stand part on Clause 37, and we will consider very deeply over the pause whether to come back to it.

As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, nobody has ever heard of an assurer. It is not a term that appears in any dictionaries that I have consulted. We do not know what it is. It is obviously important that jobs are created in our economy. We are grateful to the Treasury for thinking that they should do this, and the fact that there will be 10, 15, 20 assurers is obviously a great blow in support of the economic policies that the party opposite are trying to put forward. Really, the job is not worth the candle. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, it would be much better if we were discussing practical things that could address a particular public policy.

It may be that a better self-certification system could be an advantage; it may be, because we do not know what the problem is. That would at least give a frame to the debates we are having. It may be that additional powers for the certification officer would also be of use. These things are matters that we could discuss. Cloaking them, as we have had already in Clause 36 debates, in some spurious idea that there is some concern out there that would be remedied by having an initial arrangement, is simply not sufficient. The Minister and the Government more generally should think again about this whole area.

During the debate, we raised questions about whether the confidentiality of the material made available to the assurer would be sufficiently robust to satisfy the points raised by my noble friend in other parts of the debate about recruitment and retaining members. I am sure that the Minister accepts that, for the confidentiality of trade union registers, these are really important issues. For many employees, their membership, or lack of membership, of a trade union is an extremely private choice, and one which they desire to keep confidential for many legitimate reasons. Indeed, the strength and legitimacy of these concerns was recently underlined by HMRC’s decision to back down in a dispute with Equity about providing personal information relating to its members following a strong response by the union, supported by Liberty, calling in aid Article 11 of the ECHR protections. The knowledge that under the new powers, trade unions could be required to provide their membership register to a Government body for any “good reason” may act as a disincentive for workers to join unions, particularly in light of the current concern over union blacklisting.

As this test is highly subjective, there is the potential for the power to be subject to abuse. For example, the Government may decide they have a good reason beyond that of ensuring public confidence in accurate records—their present argument—for wanting to know whether particular individuals have joined unions, and under proposed wording will be legally entitled to inspect registers under the guise of checking whether the register has been properly updated to include the suspected new members. Can the Minister guarantee that this will not happen? It is evident that the stated aim of ensuring public confidence in the status of union registers is already adequately addressed by the current system, which gives members the power to challenge registers at any time and requires the appointment of independent scrutineers at the key points when ensuring accuracy of the registers is important. Introducing wide-ranging powers of investigation by Government bodies and third parties that do not owe any duty of confidentiality to trade unions, coupled with a second layer of external auditing, is surely an overly intrusive measure, which will have an unwarranted detrimental effect on the members’ trust in the confidentiality of the union registers. These measures clearly go beyond what is necessary and proportionate to achieve any legitimate aim behind the proposals, if indeed there is one at all, and may constitute a breach of Article 11 of the convention.

It should be remembered that the Government are introducing this series of measures at the same time as the full extent of the scandal of blacklisting in the construction industry is gradually coming to light. This is by no means the only industry in which members of a union may wish to keep their membership confidential for fear of being subject to discrimination. On another Bill, the Minister was forthright in his condemnation of blacklisting. Does he not recognise the possibility of double standards here? Will he comment on that?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I will now respond to the group of amendments tabled to Clause 37, focusing on the role of the independent assurer, their appointment and removal, and the assurance process. I will deal with the question that the clause stand part of the Bill at the same time.

The Bill will provide greater visible assurance of the maintenance of trade union membership registers to members, employers and the wider public. Clause 37 gives credibility to that assurance by requiring independent scrutiny. Increasingly, a number of unions have become large organisations, serving a membership that frequently covers a variety of employers and workplaces. With this comes administrative complexity, as well as increased public interest in a union’s scope of influence. The nature of union membership data means that they decay easily, as has been mentioned. It is reasonable to think that someone moving house might forget to notify their union, for example. This is recognised in the existing duty for a union to maintain an accurate membership register,

“so far as is reasonably practicable”.

18:45

Unions currently provide assurance in relation to financial matters. Their accounts are given credibility as they must be validated by an auditor. I believe that when in future a large union provides an annual membership audit certificate assurance, it should constitute a similarly independent assurance. Clause 37 therefore requires trade unions with more than 10,000 members to appoint a qualified independent person—an assurer— who will issue the annual membership audit certificate, stating whether the union’s membership system complies with the duties set out in Section 24. The assurer owes a duty to the union to provide the certificate and to carry out inquiries as necessary. They have the right to access the membership register and other relevant documents, and to require information from the union. Exactly which information may be relevant will vary between individual unions. It will be for the union to agree terms with the assurer. Clearly, the union does not have to provide information to the assurer unless it is relevant to the register of members’ names and addresses.

Amendment 118E is one of several amendments that reflect concern regarding the handling of union member data. The Government understand the sensitive nature of union membership data, and have ensured that there are legal safeguards in place, both through existing legislation and introduced by the Bill, to protect them. I therefore hope that I can reassure noble Lords that their concern here is misplaced. The assurer will not be able to provide assurance of a union’s compliance with the duty in Section 24 without access to the membership register. However, this access is subject to existing legal protections, as well as additional safeguards in the Bill.

The amendment would make the assurer owe a duty of confidentiality to the union and its members, and would require the assurer to comply with the union’s obligations in the Data Protection Act. The amendment is unnecessary. The assurer will already owe a contractual duty of confidentiality to the union, as stipulated in the Bill. The assurer is prohibited from disclosing member data unless in specific permitted circumstances. Furthermore, the Data Protection Act will apply because the assurer, in performing their statutory functions, will be a data controller under the Data Protection Act.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has a lively mind, as he chose to provide his own definition for the assurer. If I read him correctly, it was perhaps someone from an insurance background who came to knock at your door—or perhaps someone in a tea-break TV programme. However, I will attempt to clarify the role of the assurer. It is essentially to give an assurance. It is important that the assurer has widespread credibility with unions, their members and the public. They will therefore be an independent and expert third party and the Secretary of State will make an order setting out either which organisations are eligible or listing the criteria that must be met for a person to be able to act as an assurer.

At the moment we anticipate these to be recognised professionals such as solicitors, auditors, or independent scrutineers. In discussions with unions and others during the summer, there was general agreement to these professionals. This is similar to the existing system for scrutineers. Currently scrutineers, which are eligible to oversee ballots carried out by trade unions, are listed in an order made by the Secretary of State. In the other place, the Minister for Employment Relations and Consumer Affairs committed to consult on the order setting out who would be eligible to be an assurer. Clause 37 provides an order-making power for the Secretary of State to set out who is qualified to be an assurer. A person is disqualified should their independence or capability be questionable. However, beyond these conditions it is for the union to appoint an individual and define their contractual terms. Union rules will need to be amended to include provision for appointing and removing an assurer.

Amendment 118F would remove the provision for individual unions to define in their rules a process for the appointment and removal of an assurer. The intention appears to be to require unions to comply with specific requirements similar to the appointment of independent scrutineers. This would significantly limit the discretion afforded to unions in their compliance with the new requirements. The amendment would also remove some of the minimum requirements in the clause for the appointment and removal of an assurer. The Government’s approach is to allow individual unions the flexibility to identify the best process for the appointment and removal of an assurer. This reflects the unique nature of trade unions and the fact that they vary hugely in size, type and complexity.

The minimum requirements set out in the clause are to protect the longstanding principle that unions are accountable to their members—a principle which has been supported by all sides during the progress of this Bill. The Government believe that it is important that the removal of an assurer is by a resolution of the union’s membership or delegates.

The clause also provides an exemption from the requirement to appoint an assurer for newly created unions and those with 10,000 members or fewer. For larger unions, it is appropriate that a credible independent assurance is obtained. However, we are anxious not to prohibit the creation or existence of smaller unions, and this is one of the key ways in which we are ensuring an appropriate implementation of the Government’s overarching policy objective.

Amendment 118G is another that reflects concern about the handling of sensitive data by the assurer and is intended to test the strength of the provisions for protecting this. The amendment would prevent the appointment or reappointment of an assurer in the case of a breach of the union’s confidentiality, a breach of their statutory duties or terms of appointment, or where there are reasonable circumstances not to reappoint. I agree with the importance of rigorous safeguards with regards to the handling of union data and with the view that an assurer who has breached these obligations must not be reappointed. However, the amendment is unnecessary as this is already achieved by current legislation and the Bill as drafted.

First, the Secretary of State will define who is qualified to be an assurer. Secondly, the union will have discretion both to select the assurer and to define the detailed terms of their role. If for any reason the union has doubts about the assurer’s suitability for the role, including their handling of sensitive member data, it can pass a resolution to remove the assurer.

Amendment 118H examines the nature of the assurance and effectively raises the level of the test that is assessed. Instead of giving an opinion on whether the union’s systems for maintaining the register are satisfactory, it requires the assurer to state whether the union is compliant with the duty in Section 24 to maintain a register that is accurate and up-to-date.

I understand that noble Lords may be keen to explore the assurance process further. The Government, while allowing unions flexibility to define this, are also keen to support a smooth transition and will therefore produce guidance. However, I am concerned that a consequence of the amendment would be to make the assurance process far more costly and onerous to the union, both in terms of the role of the assurer and in the test that the union must meet with regards to its register. A systemic assessment is the appropriate and desirable approach. The appropriate method for assessing the maintenance of membership records will differ hugely between a narrow, sector-specific union with 15,000 members, such as the British Airline Pilots’ Association, and a union with a million members across a range of employers and job types.

In practical terms, I envisage that the assurer will need to understand how the records are compiled stored, and updated. Specifically, they may look to establish whether the union collects the data accurately from new members, reminds members to keep their addresses up-to-date, makes it easy for members to do this and updates the register promptly once changes are notified. We also expect that an assurer will be interested in the data-cleansing processes that larger unions use for electronic databases. Some assurers may also choose to undertake a number of spot checks of the accuracy of a proportion of member entries. However, we have not specified this detail in statute because the requirements will vary between individual unions.

It appears that Amendment 118J is designed to ensure that a union will not be held accountable for inaccuracies that were outside of its control. The amendment would create an additional element of the membership audit certificate, requiring the assurer to state whether, in the assurer’s opinion, the employer had shared “timely and accurate” details with the union and whether,

“any other aspects … have been out of the control of the trade union in the maintenance of the membership register”.

This amendment is unnecessary for achieving the intended outcome. The existing duty to which the new provisions relate is for unions to maintain a register that is accurate and up-to-date but only “so far as is reasonably practicable”. This reflects the fact that it is impossible for union records to be 100% accurate all of the time. I am also concerned that this amendment could potentially increase the costs of assurance for the union by adding to the role of the assurer in this way.

Amendment 118K would limit the assurer to only being able to require information from the union’s data controller rather than the union’s officers. The intention here is to ensure that only those who are required to comply with the Data Protection Act will deal directly with the assurer. This amendment is unnecessary because wherever any individual handles sensitive data they will always be required to comply with the Data Protection Act. The flexibility in the clause as drafted is necessary because the assurer may need to approach both those responsible for handling member data and those who have experience of the processes by which this is maintained in providing the assurance.

The purpose of Amendment 118L appears to be to allow the assurer to approach the employer to request information, presumably to allow for instances where the employer may hold more recently updated information than the union. As I have already stated, the union is already sufficiently protected from being penalised for errors that are outside of its control by the wording of the original duty in the 1992 Act. I therefore consider this amendment unnecessary. I am also concerned about the assurer directly approaching an employer requesting information and the risk that this allows the employer a level of knowledge about union membership that the individuals may not be comfortable with. This matter was raised earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, who is not in her place.

Amendment 118M is another example of seeking assurance that sensitive union member data will not be placed at risk. The amendment states that the assurer must comply with the Data Protection Act. As I have set out already, this is unnecessary because the assurer will already have to comply with the Data Protection Act by virtue of their role. The assurer will also be subject to the additional confidentiality provisions that are introduced by the Bill and may be subject to other contractual terms that are agreed with the union.

Amendment 118N appears intended to strengthen the steps an assurer must take to prevent the disclosure of union member details. However, I cannot see how the amendment would work in practice. It would require the assurer to take “all steps necessary” rather than “all reasonable steps”, which seems to suggest that there are some steps which would be necessary but would not be reasonable.

Amendment 118P seeks to amend these permitted circumstances by preventing the disclosure of member data in any circumstances except with their consent or where required as part of criminal proceedings. The effect would be to defeat the Government’s policy intention of giving assurance of unions’ compliance with the existing duty in Section 24. The amendment as drafted would, in practice, prohibit the certification officer, inspector or assurer having the necessary access to the register as they would be unable to identify the member in order to seek their consent.

The additional protection of member privacy that is sought by this amendment, and by many others discussed today, is unnecessary. There has been broad speculation that the provisions in this part of the Bill present a potential risk to sensitive membership data. I wish to reassure the House that this concern is misplaced. The changes that we are making are modest.

The powers of investigation introduced for the certification officer are consistent with those he already exercises in other areas, and there is no evidence of a problem here. The certification officer, the inspector and assurer will all be bound by a set of strict obligations in their treatment of union member data. Furthermore, the proposals in the Bill will not allow other parts of government or employers unauthorised access to member data.

The noble Lord, Lord Monks, raised the issue of how the new regime could be justified on human rights grounds, and I would like to answer his question. As I have said before, the existing duty to maintain an up-to-date membership register has been around since 1984. Having agreed that a membership register is necessary, it follows that there should be an appropriate and effective enforcement regime. These provisions deal with inadequacies in the existing regime. At the moment a member cannot know whether there are widespread inaccuracies in the register, and the certification officer cannot know if there are inaccuracies because the union is under no obligation to disclose documents. If there is good reason to believe that a union may not be complying with Section 24 duties, it is important that this can be properly investigated. This investigation offers protection for union members. If the union is not complying with the overarching duty in Section 24, there is also the possibility that it is not complying with other obligations regarding the handling of sensitive data.

18:59

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and my noble friend Lord Tyler discussed the political affiliation of trade union members. The Government’s position is very clear. We have no current plans to look at trade union legislation more widely. We have offered to assist the Leader of the Opposition with his planned reforms of union member participation in trade union political levies, if he wishes. I just wanted to make our position extremely clear on that point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said that these provisions will act as a deterrent to prospective new union members due to the concerns about confidentiality. I do not believe that the certification officer’s access to the membership register will interfere with the individual’s right to join a union. The certification officer already handles membership data under the current regime and there is no evidence of a problem with his handling of sensitive data; nor is there evidence that this has acted as a deterrent to joining a union. Protections in the European Convention on Human Rights and in the Data Protection Act will continue to apply as they do now.

I hope that in my rather lengthy response I have answered all or nearly all of the questions that were raised. I may owe the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, some answers to his questions. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Monks, to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Whitty]

I want to ask the noble Viscount two questions. He has been slightly more explicit about the role of the assurer, but why is it not possible just to add it to the role of the auditor for the trade union? I am grateful for the offer of help to sort out the Labour Party’s internal constitutional matters, but the Minister did not reply explicitly to the point I was making. I would like to have it on the record that the Government do not intend this Bill to be the paving stone for reforming political funding; that is, an attack on the funding arrangements of the major opposition party. Can we have it made clear that that is not the motivation behind this part of the Bill?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

In answer to the noble Lord’s first question, I went some way forward in attempting to define what the role of the assurer will be. We have made it clear that the assurer is a new role and we should stick with that. The noble Lord’s point was that it should be commuted in with the role of an auditor, but they have distinctly different roles. The best thing is for me to write to the noble Lord to clarify the position of the assurer. I should re-emphasise that the union has a say in choosing the assurer from the approved list, which is originally approved by the Secretary of State. The role is currently being drafted and put together. We have some clear key powers and safeguards that are laid out as part of that role, but it is work in progress and I owe the noble Lord a letter to provide further clarification.

On his second question, I do not wish to go any further—and there is no need to go any further—other than the reply that I have given him. I hope that it has reassured not only the noble Lord but noble Lords opposite in terms of the position.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

We have had a very clear statement from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, about what he thought this Bill was about. If the Minister cannot give a specific answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will he turn to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and give him a straight rebuttal of what the noble Lord alleges?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I intend to stick exactly to what I have said.

[Lord Tyler]

I apologise to my noble friend for quoting at such length the comments in the summer of the leader of the Labour Party. The Labour Party and its leader will benefit considerably if this part of the Bill, in whatever form, is enacted as there will then be a much more secure and robust form of record of all the membership of the unions. That is the point I was making.

[Lord Monks]

I thank the Minister for that disappointing reply and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for introducing an element which has not calmed or reassured anybody on this side of the House about the Bill. We thought that landing extra red tape on the unions was just an administrative muddle with a bit of political spite. Clearly, at least some on that side of the House have other motives in mind. It is rather difficult to follow the track. The Minister shakes his head, but that is not what he said. He had the chance to rebut the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who introduced the party political funding item into this debate, and he has not done so. He had a chance to play the role of an assurer: he could have been a pioneer, but he blew it when he had that chance.

The Minister may have reassured some people. Employers must be fairly pleased. They will not be asked for any information. A big firm employing lots of people can screw up a payroll and so on. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in her place. Tesco has 140,000 USDAW members. I am not saying that Tesco would have screwed up a payroll, but if it did and somebody went to the assurer, it could not even be asked to provide information. The union will be the one in the dock.

Let us not pretend that this is some sort of friendly exercise, just tweaking the quality of union administration and helping people to get their records rather better when they are organising a construction site or when they are at the rough end of the retail industry. This is not about that at all, as the terms, to which we have drawn attention, on which an assurer can be got rid of involve going to the annual general meeting or a conference. It is almost as though this is a conflict and the assurer needs to be protected against what a normal auditor would be subject to, which is being fired by the decision of the board or, in the union case, the executive. The assurer is being protected on the suspicion that this person will be in conflict with the union.

That might be a reasonable assumption to make. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, asked why people should be worried about it. It is because it will mean the job having to be done twice. Furthermore, he is an outside person who will get access to union membership records. The union prizes those records as well as their confidentiality. I will not press my amendment today. I will withdraw it, but noble Lords have not heard the last of this.

Amendment 118E withdrawn.

Amendments 118F to 118P not moved.

Clause 37 agreed.

Amendments 119 to 137 had been renumbered starting at Amendment 157.

Amendments 138 to 140 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List..

Amendments 141 to 143 had been renumbered starting at Amendment 181.

Clause 38: Investigatory powers

Amendment 144

Moved by

[Lord Monks]

144: Clause 38, page 43, line 18, leave out from “union” to first “to” in line 19

[Lord Monks]

My Lords, this group of amendments covers similar territory to the previous debate, so I shall not go over all that ground again. The amendments continue to emphasise the extent to which the Bill engages with both Articles 8 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and EU and UK data protection requirements. Amendment 144 limits who can be directed to comply with requests from the assurer. We emphasise the need to do that centrally rather than it being done by some voluntary branch secretary or district office. The responsibility should be at head office with the person who controls data.

Amendments 147 and 150 would allow an inspector to request information from employers. We have just been debating that important issue, which employers are hiding from. I do not see how an assurer could do his job properly without that kind of right. Amendment 151 aims to ensure that the inspector owes a duty to the trade union that is employing him or her, as well as to the certification officer, especially not to breach confidentiality. The amendment seeks to disqualify from acting in this role an inspector who commits breaches. Amendment 152 again tightens the parameters of what an inspector has to do to maintain confidentiality—not just to take all reasonable steps but to take all steps necessary. Without being repetitious, I beg to move.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I have four amendments in this group that relate to roughly the same territory—Amendments 145, 146, 148 and 149. In the previous clause we were concerned about the access of the assurer and those who approach the assurer to the membership records of a trade union. My amendments relate to the certification officer and the inspectors, or staff, of the certification officer.

Obviously, when there is a complaint from a member about the way in which his records have been dealt with, the certification officer or his agent needs to be able to look at that part of the records. However, the totality of the records of the trade union needs to be protected in almost all circumstances. My amendments propose that the documents that can be demanded by the enforcement authorities will not normally include the complete register of members.

On earlier amendments, my noble friend Lady Drake and others emphasised how important this is to civil liberties. When you are organising a trade union against employer hostility and the employer can go to the authorities to find out who in his workforce, or which potential recruits into his workforce, are members of a trade union, that is a serious restriction on the right to join a trade union with no detriment.

Taken one stage further, this relates to the issue of blacklisting. It has probably been a serious underestimate that some 2,000 people have been blacklisted over the years through the mechanisms established by certain companies in the construction industry. If all that the employers needed to do was get sight of a list of registered members of a trade union, or if there was a requirement after a third-party complaint for the certification officer to produce that list, the incidence of blacklisting would go well beyond the confines of the construction industry and the other areas where historically it has applied.

There is an important civil liberties, human rights and data protection issue here. I seriously counsel the Government to look again at the provisions here and to build in some safeguards themselves. The last thing that they want to do, I should have thought, would be to transgress data protection provisions. I hope that they would not wish to transgress the European Convention on Human Rights or the ILO conventions on the freedom to organise, join or not join a trade union. Yet these provisions in this part of the Bill and the role of the assurer move in that direction, and we need far firmer protections than are in the Bill to ensure that that is not exactly what will happen.

19:14

I know that the Government sometimes appear to be pretty nonchalant about international obligations to the EU and the convention on human rights. However, I hope that in the area of employee protection this is not a policy emanating from the heart of government that states that these things do not matter. Protection from abusive employers and others over the right to choose whether to be a member of a trade union must be stated clearly in law. If the law is moving in a different direction to a new form of regulation, as this Bill purports to try to do, those protections need explicitly to be built into the legislation.

As my noble friend Lord Monks said, there are lawyers who say that the form of words in the Bill runs into difficulties on both the human rights side and the ILO convention side. I have no doubt that the Government could find a lawyer who would say the opposite. You can always find another lawyer, but as this is grey territory in which the Government could find themselves, instead of being a beacon for democratic and human rights, condemned in the councils of the world for breaching them, given that we are preaching democracy and freedom of association to less well favoured regimes in other countries.

I am not saying that the Government have yet got into that territory, but they are pretty close to it, and I hope that before the Bill disappears from this House we can see—from the Government preferably—some protections in this regard, not simply airy-fairy assertions that the Bill does not conflict with human rights legislation.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

Will my noble friend comment on the dangers of blacklisting? An investigation carried out in Scotland by the former MP for Maryhill, Maria Fyfe, uncovered a list of people who were blacklisted. Among them was my name. I know that that might sound a bit ridiculous now, but that could have affected my employment and public record. Does my noble friend accept that it is quite right to emphasise the dangers of blacklisting?

[Lord Whitty]

Indeed, my Lords. The Scottish Affairs Committee in another place have performed a very good task in bringing this issue to light, but we have not seen everything; a lot of names on those lists were destroyed. Among them were people who some of us on this side knew, including my noble friend who obviously chose a change of career at just the right point. So far, at least, he has not been blacklisted from being a Member of either House of Parliament. This matter does not affect just some lunatic subversives out there; it can potentially affect solid citizens trying to conduct their trade, such as my noble friend in his earlier existence. This is a threat to liberty and freedom of association, and a threat to the Government’s reputation in the councils of the world. Please take this seriously.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

Perhaps I may mention in this connection the comment of the Royal College of Nursing—a union that is not normally associated with industrial difficulties. However, it states:

“Both the Government appointed Certification Officer and the Government approved Assurer would have powers to access unions’ membership records. In addition, the bill also proposes that any third party would be able to lodge a complaint about union membership—there is a potential for this to be abused during periods of industrial dispute. A complaint would be considered by investigators who would, in turn, also have access to union membership records. These proposals pose a serious risk to confidentiality of trade union membership and place undue bureaucratic and costly burdens on trade unions”.

I thought that it would be good to place on the record that comment from the Royal College of Nursing.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this group of amendments is different from the others we have considered this evening because it does not contain a clause stand part. The reason for that is because we think, certainly in relation to the ones in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Monks, that they are sensible safeguards and measures that we would recommend to the Government as being appropriate and proportionate in relation to the aims set out for the Bill. I gather from the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Whitty, and to a certain extent from those made by my noble friend Lord Lea that they shared this approach. So we are not, in this mode, trying to be as aggressive—as it could perhaps be considered—in relation to the Bill as we were in Clauses 36 and 37.

That does not remove from our side the feeling that these provisions are still aimed in the wrong direction, and that they lack a sensible underpinning in terms of public policy and have not been properly consulted on. However, in relation to the generality of the proposals, there is a case for the Government to move a little way towards us. I suggest that even if they cannot accept every one of the points made in this group, they might consider taking them back and reconsidering them. That would certainly give us a little more confidence that they were taking us seriously in these debates rather than simply retreating into the rather partisan approach that has been evident so far.

The underlying concerns that have been mentioned by noble Lords about blacklisting are important. It was perhaps unfortunate that my noble friend Lord Whitty referred to my noble friend Lord McAvoy as a solid citizen because that would in no sense reflect on his ability to do the work that he was no doubt being considered for before he was unfortunately blacklisted. I jest of course—I think. The point is well made. This is not something that is happening over there and far away. This is happening to real people in real time and it is affecting lives and blighting careers. Its cause is largely due to the circulation of lists, and therefore, by following back that logic, it is something that we are very concerned about. Everyone should be concerned about that and we should do everything in our power to make sure that datasets of the type that could cause solid citizens to be affected are protected in a way that allows them to be kept as close as possible to what is required and necessary so that they are not in any sense open to the risks mentioned during this debate.

We do not have any particular issues that make one point more than another, but it is important to recognise that for many years this country has been proud of its effective and well working relationships between unions and employers. We want to see them continue. As I have said, it is an important part of the contribution that can be made by industry and also by those working on the services side towards economic growth. While we object to the measure before us in general terms, we think it could be strengthened if it has to be turned into law, and these amendments are therefore recommended.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, at the outset I want to address the issue of blacklisting that was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord McAvoy, as we take any allegations of blacklisting very seriously. It is unlawful under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to refuse to employ a person because they are a member or not a member of a trade union or because they refuse to join or leave a trade union. It is equally unlawful for an agency to refuse employment services on those grounds.

In 2010, in response to the Consulting Association blacklist uncovered in 2009, the Government strengthened anti-blacklisting legislation and increased the penalties for unlawful processing of data. Data controllers can now be fined up to £500,000 for serious offences. Despite several allegations of new evidence of blacklisting, to date we have seen no evidence of this practice recurring. As noble Lords will know, the Scottish Affairs Select Committee and the Information Commissioner are both currently investigating the potential for ongoing offences, and the Government continue to take a close interest in this issue. I thank noble Lords for raising this particular point.

Let me now turn to the individual amendments that have been proposed. Amendment 144 seems intended to prevent the certification officer and any authorised person from being able to require any branch or section of a trade union from supplying relevant documents. Even if the amendment had the desired effect, I do not believe such a change would be necessary or desirable. The phrase,

“a trade union, or a branch or section of a trade union”,

is used elsewhere in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, for example in the context of financial investigations. I would imagine that a union would want the certification officer to make every effort possible to obtain relevant documents. If its record keeping is decentralised, a union’s head office may not know if there is a problem.

Amendments 145, 146, 148 and 149 are probing the protections for unions with regard to the new investigatory powers of the certification officer and any inspectors he may appoint. These amendments all seek to restrict access to a union’s register of member names and addresses. Clause 38 gives the certification officer the power to require a union to produce relevant documents where he believes there is good reason to do so. If the certification officer has appointed an inspector to investigate, the inspector can also require documents relevant to the investigation. In both cases, “relevant documents” is defined as including a union’s register of members’ names and addresses.

Noble Lords are proposing instead that “relevant documents” should “not normally include” the register. They go on to propose that production of the register may be required by the certification officer only where the High Court has concluded there has been a criminal offence, a breach of human rights, or substantial danger or damage to third parties or to national security. The noble Lords also state that the registers shall not be available to third parties. This represents a significant set of constraints. I fully understand the concerns driving the amendments. Sensitive data on who is a member of a trade union must not be treated lightly, but I hope that I can offer reassurance about the legislative protections already in place, as well as those included in the Bill.

In the first place, however, I need to be clear that access to the register by the certification officer or his inspector is an essential requirement of providing assurance. Establishing compliance with the legislation would be impossible without either the certification officer or the inspector being able to exercise a right to access the register itself. Without this, they are wholly reliant on what the union tells them. This is inadequate in circumstances where there is reason to believe there is a problem. Access to union membership data by third parties is something that already occurs. Both the certification officer and independent scrutineers, who are responsible for ensuring the propriety of ballot processes, often need access to membership data, but there is no suggestion this has led to any misuse.

Let me explain what protections are in place. The certification officer is an independent officeholder. He is also under a duty to exercise his powers consistent with rights conferred by the European Convention on Human Rights, including the rights to privacy and freedom of association. The certification officer is well placed to deal with sensitive data and there have been no problems in the history of the office of which we are aware. The Data Protection Act also applies to the certification officer and his inspectors so that they will be required to use any personal data, including data on union members, consistently with the protections it contains. The Information Commissioner has powers to enforce the data protection principles and can impose substantial fines for some breaches.

Amendments 147 and 150 would specifically allow the certification officer or his inspector to require names, dates of birth and national insurance numbers held by the employer to allow for cross-referencing to complete an investigation. It is not clear why the certification officer would need to request this information or why the inspector would require it. None of the comments we received during our targeted consultation over the summer suggested that this information was necessary. In practice, the duties under Section 24 of the 1992 Act do not require the union to keep members’ dates of birth or, indeed, national insurance numbers. More importantly, this could have the unintended consequence of widening the scope of sensitive information handled by the certification officer and the inspector for no particular reason. There is no reason why they should automatically have access to dates of birth and national insurance numbers during an investigation. Nor is there any reason why they should be able to require it from an employer.

Amendments 151 and 153 share a common goal of ensuring that there are appropriate protections to ensure that the inspector handles sensitive membership data properly. I will therefore speak to them together. I would like to reassure noble Lords that there are already strong safeguards in place to ensure that union membership data will not be compromised by an inspector’s investigation. The certification officer will use his discretion to appoint an inspector—as he does at the moment for inspectors appointed to investigate a union’s financial affairs. It will be for the certification officer to ensure that he appoints someone capable of fulfilling their responsibilities. The inspector will owe a duty of confidentiality to the certification officer. Extending that duty of confidentiality to the trade union could have the unintended consequence of interfering with the independence of the investigation.

Should the inspector breach the duty of confidentiality owed to the certification officer, it will be for the certification officer to decide how to deal with this. The officer will want to consider the circumstances and severity of the breach to decide what is appropriate. For example, if the inspector is a member of the certification officer’s staff—as they could be—the certification officer will have a range of options, from retraining to dismissal.

A third party appointed as an inspector is likely to be someone in a professional firm. It would seem unnecessarily restrictive to require that the certification officer could never appoint that firm again, no matter what happened to the individual concerned.

19:30

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

Will the Minister respond to what many on this side have been driving at? Both in the retail sector and the construction industry there is widespread use of casual and agency workers. Obviously, the employer knows who the workers are. Unions, in recruiting members to represent them, have great difficulty in getting data on who is employed, who is on sick leave and so on, so the word “reasonable”, which we understand to be used for the new union audits, should be constructed on the premise that there must be a level playing field.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I assume that that was a specific question relating to contractors. I hope I have got that right. If the noble Lord’s question was broader than that, I pledge to write to him to clarify the position.

It would seem unnecessarily restrictive to require that the certification officer could never appoint that firm again, no matter what happened to the individual concerned.

In addition, if the appointed inspector—or any other individual, for that matter—has breached data protection rules by mishandling personal data, the union may apply to the Information Commissioner, who enforces the Data Protection Act. The Information Commissioner has a range of powers at his disposal, including imposing a fine of up to £500,000. I therefore believe that the amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment 152 would change Clause 38 so that the inspector appointed by the certification officer to investigate discrepancies would also have to take “all steps necessary” to protect a member’s name and address, instead of “all reasonable steps”. I find it difficult to see what the amendment achieves in practice. The assumption appears to be that there are steps that might be necessary but are in practice unreasonable. I consider “all reasonable steps” to be sufficient.

I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Monks]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate. As the Minister gave his assurances about how seriously the Government take blacklisting, which has been so interestingly revealed recently, not least by my noble friend Lord McAvoy, I was minded that we might have found an actual role for an assurer. That is an assurer whose job it is to try to make sure that people in the construction industry are not blacklisted. Despite the increase in fines, the issue is finding out what people are doing. Somebody who went in to have a look at payrolls, private e-mails, and so on, could probably find that out.

That is a problem that the Minister acknowledges exists. We have not got a problem in the area of union membership and union membership records—or not one that is easy to do very much about, particularly in industries that are casualised. I will just say that the nature of the assurer in the union context is almost, “I’ve got to be reassured that your systems are okay”. That will be a rather adversarial position; not a consensual one, as the Minister is presenting it. It will be adversarial, especially when people are not exactly sure what will happen to the information. Why do they need that information if there is no trouble and no complaints?

The Minister’s point is that the certification officer and the scrutineer have access, so why not an assurer? The difference is in the nature of the relationship. The assurer would have a much more adversarial position than the one that those two have. Essentially, the assurer is saying, “I don’t really trust your records until I have had a very good look”. That is our major problem with it.

I will withdraw the amendment, but we will no doubt return to the matter later in our proceedings.

Amendment 144 withdrawn.

Amendments 145 to 153 not moved.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.36 pm.

New Psychoactive Substances: EUC Report

Monday 11th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

19:36

Moved by

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on the Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on new psychoactive substances (COM(2013)619, Council Document 13857/13) and on the Commission proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25 October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking, as regards the definition of drug (COM(2013)618, Council Document 13865/13) (6th Report, HL Paper 73).

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, in moving the Motion in my name, I invite the House to endorse the proposal of the European Union Select Committee that a reasoned opinion should be issued concerning the European Union Commission’s proposals to regulate new psychoactive substances.

Those proposals were considered in depth by the EU Sub-Committee on Home Affairs, Health and Education, which I have the honour to chair, during October this year. We took evidence from the Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr Norman Baker, on 16 October. We have concluded that the proposals do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity.

New psychoactive substances are natural or synthetic substances that act on the central nervous system and modifying mental functions in similar ways to illicit drugs such as cocaine and amphetamines. They are often referred to as “legal highs”. As many Members noted in the debate in this House on 17 October in the name of my noble friend Lady Meacher, when we debated wider issues of drugs policy, new psychoactive substances have the potential to pose serious risks to public health and safety. Despite often being marketed as legal alternatives to illegal substances, users can have no certainty as to the health risks that can arise from using them, nor the legal status of those substances.

Our report does not comment on the merits of policies to ban, regulate or permit the new psychoactive substances. We have not dealt with that wider issue. Debates about that are going on in many countries around the world and around Europe, and will continue to do so as the ingenuity of scientists leads to the production of new substances. In this debate, and in this Motion, we are concerned with who should have the power to ban those substances and why. On 20 September, the European Commission published proposals for a directive and a regulation with the stated aim of improving the functioning of the internal market regarding the legal use of new psychoactive substances. It argues that many new psychoactive substances that are used recreationally have, or could have, various uses in industry which are hindered by market restrictions. The Commission considers that member states alone cannot reduce the problems caused to the internal market, given their divergent responses to new psychoactive substances. It also argues that EU-level action is necessary to ensure that potentially harmful new psychoactive substances can be identified, assessed and, if necessary, withdrawn quickly from the market across all member states.

The committee shares the Commission’s concerns about the risks of harm posed by these substances to the health and safety of EU citizens. In our 2012 report, The EU Drugs Strategy, we concluded that the EU has an important role to play in strengthening and adding value to the actions of member states in tackling the negative effects of these substances. However, we concluded then, as we do now, that action to deal with them is best taken in the first instance by member states. We part company from the Commission when it proposes to take that responsibility for taking such decisions away from member states, and transfer it to the Commission itself. In our view, the two proposals include some provisions which are best left to member state action, and so are not consistent with the principle of subsidiarity.

The proliferation of new psychoactive substances is influenced by regional, national and international forces. These manifest themselves quite differently in different member states, depending on the speed at which the substances become available and the severity of their impact on public health. In any case, member states have different systems for dealing with harmful drugs in general, and for addressing new psychoactive substances. They require flexibility to respond rapidly to local situations. Therefore, member states are best placed to decide how to respond to the proliferation of these substances in the manner that best fits the circumstances in their jurisdictions.

This would not—and I underline this point—preclude EU-wide action being taken by the Council with respect to a particular substance or group of substances, if the Council felt that such general measures were needed across the European Union. We support those parts of the proposals that would strengthen the roles of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and of Europol in the process of analysing and dealing with the risks from new psychoactive substances.

I should add that we received evidence from the Government that leads us to conclude that the legal trade in psychoactive substances—which is the reason given by the Commission for basing these proposals on single market provisions—is not in fact large enough to justify the Commission’s view that its proposals are needed to protect the single market. We therefore concluded that, in addition to our concerns about subsidiarity, the measure was in any case disproportionate, although there is no formal reference to that point in the reasoned opinion, which is of course about subsidiarity alone. The House of Lords EU Committee therefore does not agree that these matters justify transferring member states’ decision-making power in respect of new psychoactive substances to the Commission. I beg to move.

19:45

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, as it is to serve under his chairmanship on your Lordships’ EU Sub-Committee F, which produced the report which forms the basis for this debate. New psychoactive substances, or so-called legal highs, continue to be a serious concern. Not only are many of these substances very dangerous, but more of them are invented and marketed throughout the world every year, which of course includes within the EU. The number of new psychoactive substances detected tripled between 2009 and 2012. The EU Commission reported in September that so far in 2013, more than one new substance has been reported every week.

This is a matter for urgent concern and urgent action, because many of these new substances may well turn out to be very dangerous. Every week, the UK news media report tragic stories involving the use of these substances. Three weeks ago, the Daily Mail reported the case of a 20 year-old boy from Gravesend who died within hours of taking a legal high. He was found next to a plastic bag from the legal high shop, UK Skunkworks. A teenager in Southampton died in August after taking alpha-methyltryptamine. There are many similar stories. These drugs are generally easy to get hold of, both on the net and on the high street. The Sunday People reported last month that UK Skunkworks, a retailer of legal highs, now has 21 shops in the UK, including one in Maidstone which is situated next to a drug rehab charity.

The problem of legal highs is of particular concern here in the UK. Britain accounts for nearly a quarter of Europe’s entire legal high market, compared to France at 14% and Germany at 12%. There are drugs which are common here in the UK that are rare elsewhere in the EU, and vice versa. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, in general the market for these drugs is characterised across the EU by rapid innovation locally, and by differing levels of the presence of different drugs in different member states.

The EU already has in place a mechanism for dealing with and banning new psychoactive substances, but this mechanism is widely acknowledged to be cumbersome, slow and not especially effective. The new regulation proposed by the EU is intended to replace this with an improved version, but we already have an improved version in operation in the UK. Here, Ministers are able to issue temporary class drug orders, which ban a drug for 12 months to allow the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to report on whether a permanent ban should be put in place.

We already use this mechanism to react very quickly to the appearance of new, worrying legal highs. In the past 12 months we have used this power to ban substances called NBOMe and Benzo Fury. We also now control mephedrone, naphyrone, BZP, GBL and synthetic cannabinoids. These were all previously legal highs. All of this is driven by the Home Office forensic early-warning system, which has the job of identifying early new psychoactive substances which are potential threats. In fact, in the past year the forensic early-warning system identified 10 new psychoactive substances not previously seen in the UK and, importantly, not present elsewhere in Europe. Of course, here in Britain we also have an extensive education programme aimed at alerting people to the dangers of the drugs that are found here. The Government deserve particular praise for their 10 year-old “Frank” programme, which has a new advertising campaign beginning in January.

The question we are addressing this evening is whether we should give up control of our system of policing and controlling new psychoactive substances, which works well, and hand it over to the EU. There is no compelling evidence to suggest that this would be a good or even a sensible idea. The new EU regulation proposes a power to impose a temporary measure, restricting new psychoactive substance sales for a year, to be introduced within weeks of an alert. We already do this, and we can do it when the problem is not present elsewhere in the EU. The new EU regulation proposes permanent measures that can be introduced within 10 months to restrict the sale of new psychoactive substances to consumers. We can already do this, too. Again, we can do this for substances that may not yet be present in the rest of the EU.

The new regulation simplifies the existing EU procedure, but the new procedure will still be relatively slow and complex. According to the EU’s own description of the procedure, a substance must raise concerns across the Union before EMCDDA and Europol draft a report on the substance. On the basis of this joint report, the Commission then decides whether there are grounds to require a fully fledged risk assessment. This is too slow, too complex and too coarse-grained, and it is not necessary here. We already do better than this. This would certainly not help, and would in fact be a retrograde step. Giving competence to the EU, as in the proposed regulation, would add nothing at all. The proposal fails the test of subsidiarity, which is why I strongly support the Motion to issue a reasoned opinion to that effect.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the Motion to Take Note concerning the proposed directive and EU regulation on new psychoactive substances. The European Commission’s head of unit on anti-drug policy, Dana Spinant, sent me the draft regulation for comments some weeks ago and I want to put on record that views that I expressed to her.

The interest of this regulation for the APPG for drug policy reform, which I chair, follows our one-year inquiry into the supply, demand and risks associated with new psychoactive substances in the UK. In the course of that inquiry we received evidence from the Home Office, the UK Border Agency, ACPO, the ACMD, experts and front-line specialists on the subject. What was surprising was the degree of consensus about the challenge of new psychoactive substances to our country, and the fact that our current drug laws are not fit for purpose to deal effectively with these new drugs. Our report, Towards a Safer Drug Policy, sets out our conclusions, which resonate well with key points in the draft regulation. I feel bound to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, who said that our laws are working well. The reality is that all those experts, whether they were from the Home Office, ACMD or the UK Border Agency, were clear that our laws are not working well and are not fit for purpose. They were not designed for this kind of problem at all, so we have to take that on board.

I welcome the comments of my noble friend Lord Hannay that the aims of the proposed directive and regulation are laudable. I also welcome his recognition that the EU has an important role to play in helping to tackle the problems presented by new psychoactive substances—or NPS, if I may call them that. The fact is that we cannot deal effectively with these drugs at a national level. I note that the EU committee does not support acceptance of the regulation on the grounds that flexibility will be important, but I would like to put on record reasons why the thrust of the regulation should be supported even if the proposed status of regulation might be rejected. I will comment on just three issues: first, the consultation undertaken before producing the draft regulation; secondly, the role of the EU in assessing new psychoactive substances; and, thirdly, the focus on the supply side of the market.

The Commission has undertaken an incredibly widespread consultation, as we did in our inquiry, to ensure that the draft regulation reflected people’s views— that is, experts’, doctors’ and scientists’ views. Large numbers of member states view the lack of alternatives to control and criminal penalties in the current instrument as inadequate and suggest that a wider range of options should be considered, backed by the administrative law. Obviously, that is for the lower-level substances. This is something that the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform agrees with most strongly. The fact is that bans and criminal sanctions are not effectively stemming the flow of new psychoactive substances into Europe, nor indeed into the UK. Of course, the UK has a problem with NPS twice the average for the European Union. We are the leaders in this field. This is where the drugs come from China and India before flowing across Europe.

The Commission’s impact assessment concluded that,

“a more graduated and better targeted set of restriction measures on new psychoactive substances”,

would be preferred. Its rationale is that if low-harm, properly labelled substances were available for young people to take and if it was clear what those substances were, with their risks and so on, those people might be more likely to avoid the much more dangerous substances, which would need to be banned. Some warned that blanket restrictions on entire groups of substances could have adverse effects and that restriction measures should be proportionate to a better determined level of risk of substances. All the evidence presented to our APPG on Drug Policy Reform’s inquiry supported these views from the EU. All the experts were saying that we need a proportionate response and a risk-based policy.

The main adverse effects of punitive measures are familiar to us. First, there is the displacement of one set of drugs by new substances that are possibly even more harmful. Indeed, they are more harmful because they are even less known. When something just arrives from China, you have no idea what it is. As we ban one, along comes another, or maybe another two. Secondly, rendering such substances inaccessible for research and legal commercial activities presents major problems.

I turn to information gathering and exchange, and the assessment of risks of new psychoactive substances. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction was established by regulation in 2006 and has done an excellent job in generating information about drugs and drug use across the EU. The proposal for a regulation on NPS makes it clear that the EMCDDA should have a central role in the exchange of information on NPS and in the assessment of the health, social and safety risks that they pose.

The APPG’s inquiry panel was very concerned that our Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has the resources to undertake risk analyses on only two NPS per year. With about 70 new substances due to come into this country in 2013, clearly we are completely losing the battle. If all EU countries contributed to resourcing the EMCDDA—which to an extent they do already, but clearly it needs more support—it could then co-ordinate this work on behalf of all, avoiding duplication. More substances would be analysed and sensible policy decisions could then be made based on the risk analyses that might be undertaken, two per country, across the EU. We would then be beginning to tackle the problem. As the European Commission proposal makes clear:

“Any Union action on new psychoactive substances should be based on scientific evidence”.

That has to be the fundamental principle behind our policy but while we have no resources to provide the scientific evidence, we cannot have a scientific or an evidence-based policy.

My third point is on the focus of the regulation upon the supply side of the market. The proposal for the regulation refers to the fact that restrictive measures vary significantly in different member states. This is a major problem for legitimate economic interests. In the case of the same NPS, they have to comply with different requirements such as pre-export notifications, export authorisation or import and export licences. All this hinders the functioning of the legitimate internal market for particular products which happen to have one NPS as an ingredient. New psychoactive substances should be able to move freely within the Union when intended for genuine commercial purposes, as well as for scientific research. The research professors who gave evidence to us were certainly worried about the control of these substances happening in a thoughtless way that was not based on evidence. At the same time, NPS that pose a medium or severe health, social or safety risk should be addressed at the Union level by controlling the supply appropriately and fairly across the EU. I support the EU regulation for two reasons: it concentrates upon the supply side and it highlights the importance of proportionality of the response.

I end by congratulating the Government on the effective decriminalisation of the possession and use of new psychoactive substances for a 12-month period under the temporary class drug orders, which focus on the supply side. If the UK adopted the EU regulation or the ideas within it, the 12-month limit to drug orders should no longer apply. This would be a positive step forward. According to the evidence, decriminalisation of the possession and use of drugs does not lead to an increase in drug use and can lead to a reduction in drug dependence. It also has the benefit of enabling resources to be transferred from criminal justice to treatment, thus raising the prospects of people recovering and getting back to employment.

In conclusion, I respect the recommendation of my noble friend Lord Hannay that the proposed draft regulation be rejected. However, I hope that the valuable proposals in it will not be lost and will inform decisions about how the UK and the rest of Europe move forward to deal with the very real problems presented by new psychoactive substances.

20:00

[Viscount Bridgeman (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for his excellent exposition of this report. My noble friend Lord Sharkey has given the background in some detail. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has given more qualified support.

As a relatively new member of this committee I am struck that this is a classic case of subsidiarity: where there is a clash of joint competences between the Commission and a member state, the member state should prevail. I hope that I do not put that too simply. It is also an example of proportionality. We found that the Commission’s concern about legal transmission of these substances was disproportionate. Insufficient data were produced. We therefore disagreed with the Commission on that point. My third point is that this report makes it clear, if our views are taken into account, that the member states will be dependent on the two central bodies referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and other back-up services from the Commission.

I conclude by reminding your Lordships that my honourable friend Norman Baker, my Liberal Democrat colleague in the Commons, was fully supportive of the view at which the committee has arrived.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I extend our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and his committee for their report. It contains a clear recommendation that there should be a reasoned opinion concluding that the proposed regulation and directive do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity.

As has been said, psychoactive substances are natural or synthetic substances that affect the central nervous system, and induce a stimulating or depressing effect in the same way that illicit drugs such as cocaine or ecstasy do. They are often marketed as legal alternatives to illicit drugs, which is why they are called “legal highs”. Like illicit drugs they can cause considerable harm to those who use them, including severe physical or psychological harm, or even death.

Many new psychoactive substances have or could have other uses in, for example, the medical, chemical or high-tech industries. Around a fifth of the substances notified through the EU-level mechanism of exchange of information have some other legitimate uses. New psychoactive substances are not, however, subjected to control measures under the UN conventions on drugs and are not therefore covered by a Council framework decision of 2004 on the approach to the fight against illicit drug trafficking.

However, the number of new psychoactive substances emerging and spreading increasingly quickly in the European Union is rising fast, and more than 300 new substances have been detected in Europe since 1997, with the number of substances identified between 2009 and 2012 tripling from 24 to 73 a year. The rise in the availability of such substances has led to an increase in consumption across the EU, and 80% of new psychoactive substances are reported in more than one member state.

As we have heard, the European Commission considers that the current EU instrument of 2005 on the information exchange, risk assessment and control of new psychoactive substances is unable to provide an adequate response to this growing challenge, because it does not enable harmful substances to be withdrawn from the market quickly enough, or provide a response proportionate to the level of risk involved. The Commission’s new proposals that are the subject of this report seek to establish rules for restrictions to the free movement of new psychoactive substances, and are also intended to enable quicker and more proportionate measures to be taken on such substances.

The measures proposed would be introduced within weeks in case of an immediate risk and would restrict the sale of new psychoactive substances to consumers across the EU for one year. Alternatively, they could be introduced within 10 months and would restrict the sale of a substance to consumers across the EU and, in cases of severe risk, even their use in industry. They would be directly applicable in the member states and would not need to be transposed into national law. According to the Commission, under the current system the entry into force of restriction measures takes up to 24 months.

The Commission proposal also seeks to provide for the most harmful new psychoactive substances to be covered by the same criminal law provisions as substances controlled by the UN conventions. The proposed regulation is also intended to improve the functioning of the internal market in respect of legal uses of new psychoactive substances by reducing obstacles to trade and increasing legal certainty to economic operators.

Under the Commission’s proposals the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction—the EMCDDA—would be advising the Commission to take no further action in respect of a substance assessed as low risk. We would have concerns about this, because it is not clear by which means or form of testing the EMCDDA would come to this conclusion, and how it would assess long-term and psychological harms. We do not agree with ceding to the EU powers to classify drugs, but we certainly agree with EU-wide co-operation on a laboratory with power to give advice and information, as has been pressed for by the United Kingdom Drug Policy Commission and others.

The Commission considers that its proposal is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, because member states alone cannot reduce the problems caused to the internal market due to their divergent responses to the new psychoactive substances, and because EU-level action is necessary to ensure that potentially harmful new substances can be identified, assessed and, if necessary, withdrawn quickly from the market across all member states. The EU committee report disagrees with the Commission’s assessment that its proposal satisfies the principle of subsidiarity, which provides that in policy areas that do not fall within the exclusive competence of the EU, but where competence is shared with the member states, the European Union can act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states.

The EU committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has set out, has given its reasons for believing that it is actually the member states that are best placed to decide how to respond to the proliferation of these substances in a manner that best fits the circumstances in their jurisdictions, and that it is of the utmost importance that member states retain their ability to decide what action should be taken in their jurisdictions regarding new psychoactive substances. On improving the functioning of the internal market in respect of their legal trade, the EU committee says, as once again the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has said, that the UK Government’s evidence indicates that the legal trade in such substances is not sufficiently extensive to warrant the Commission’s proposed action that the committee thus regards as a disproportionate response.

We share the committee’s view, in respect of new psychoactive substances, that the case has not been made to justify transferring member states’ decision-making power to the Commission, and that the proposed regulation and directive do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. But I have a couple of points to raise with the Minister.

The United Kingdom appears to have Europe’s largest legal highs market. At present it is not that far short of 100 new psychoactive substances arriving on the UK market per year. Yet the Government’s temporary banning order has been used just some three or four times. There appear to be two reasons. The first stage of the process is, I believe, a letter from a Minister to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs—the ACMD—but with the letter seeming to take some time to be sent. The second reason is the resource capability of the ACMD that apparently can assess only two or three new substances a year. Perhaps the Minister could comment on this situation and give us his view of the reasons for it.

The EMCDDA produces lists of new psychoactive substances. Despite requests, no explanation has been offered to date as to why there are substances on its list that have not made it on to any Home Office list. Perhaps the Minister could provide this explanation. As things stand, it seems that we will never be able to keep up with the number of new such drugs on the market, despite the apparent universal concern, including from the EU committee, about the risk of harm to the health and safety of citizens across Europe posed by the creation, availability and use of these new psychoactive substances.

In conclusion, I reiterate that we support the recommendation in the EU committee’s report.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for tabling this debate and through him, as chairman, thank the other members of the committee. The EU proposals published on 17 September on new psychoactive substances raise many issues around the principle of subsidiarity, and I think that warrants the attention of this House.

My noble friend pointed out that the Minister for Crime Prevention, Mr Norman Baker, gave evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee on 16 October. The reason for the debate today is to consider how the House wishes to respond and whether it wishes to issue a reasoned opinion to the EU institutions.

The European Commission’s draft regulation and directive aim to strengthen the European Union’s ability to respond to new psychoactive substances. The new regulation will replace the existing EU instrument, council decision 2005/387/JHA. The directive is a consequential instrument for member states to enforce the regulation through appropriate criminal penalties for new psychoactive substances categorised as severe risk.

In recent years, new psychoactive substances—NPS or, as already referred to in this debate, legal highs—have rapidly changed the nature of the global drugs market. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made this point very well. Substances that are not under international control but mimic the effects of controlled substances are now widely available. They have the potential to pose serious risks to public health and safety. My noble friend Lord Sharkey highlighted recent cases and the tragic responses. The speed at which the market has developed, the wide availability and accessibility of NPS legal highs and the concern about their increasing use makes this a significant issue that is not just national or European but global in nature and requires collective action at all levels. We have a comprehensive and well recognised response to new psychoactive substances that covers early warning, legislation, demand reduction and treatment, as well as galvanising international co-operation and activity. I will come to that in a moment.

In our legislative approach, we have deployed generic definitions whereby entire families of drugs are brought under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. This approach has continued to place the UK in a much stronger and more durable position. Temporary class drug orders enable us to ban NPS in weeks rather than months where there is an immediate concern. Through these mechanisms, we have controlled the majority of NPS seen in the EU since 2005. Since 2010, we have controlled in excess of 200 new psychoactive substances including 15 currently under temporary control. That point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.

While the EU-wide NPS identification and monitoring component has been very useful to us in complementing our own drug early warnings systems, it is harder to see the benefit of the risk assessment and banning process. To date, the requirement for member states to ban certain NPS has had little impact for the UK. Just 13 risk assessments have been conducted, and only nine NPS have been subject to this requirement, of which eight had already been controlled in the UK, including mephedrone.

As my noble friend Lord Bridgeman pointed out, the principle of subsidiarity is that decisions should be taken as close as possible to the citizen. As such, the EU should act only where it would add value. The Government are concerned that, as drafted, Article 4 of the regulation would fetter our discretion to respond flexibly to national issues with NPS as they arise. All noble Lords have made this point. The proposals are currently drafted under the Article 114 legal base, which is about internal markets and makes this a harmonisation measure, rather than setting out minimum standards under Title V.

Given that only 13 risk assessments have been conducted under the existing NPS instrument since 2005, it is difficult to see how, without significant additional resources in the early warning and risk assessment processes, the proposals will impact in any notable way on the NPS market. With many member states over the past four or so years bringing in extensive domestic measures to control such substances, the value of the potential control measures under the new proposals is unclear.

Beyond the concept that there is a legitimate trade in NPS that needs to be accepted and, indeed, protected, the fact that the UK has placed restrictions on the majority of NPS seen in the EU undermines the suggestion that the proposals would add value to the UK’s current approach. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed this out.

20:15

The Commission’s argument is that one in five NPS has a legitimate purpose, for example, in industry. However, the UK’s experience is that such substances are the exception rather than the rule. In fact, out of more than 300 substances, we can identify only a handful: two as industrial cleaners and a few others, called piperazines, used in the preparation of medicines. Our current legislation has the flexibility to accommodate these substances by enabling their legitimate use in industry to continue while restricting wider availability. We are looking to challenge the Commission’s evidence base to understand how it came to its conclusion that there is a substantial legal use for NPS.

Given the lack of evidence for a legal trade in NPS, the Government believe there are strong arguments that the regulation, as well as the directive, should cite a JHA legal base. We also take the view that both of the proposals build on the police and judicial co-operation elements of the Schengen acquis and that our opt-out therefore applies. That said, it is important for me to emphasise that this does not necessarily mean we will opt out. We will need to look at the proposals on their merits. Key factors will be points about subsidiarity and the proportionality of the proposed measures.

I should like to pick up on one or two points made during this debate. As my noble friend Lord Sharkey pointed out, the UK has a strong position in dealing with these issues of NPS. For example, the Misuse of Drugs Act provides a flexible legislative framework to tackle immediate or potential health risks. Of the three main groups, more than 80% are banned in the UK. The latest annual report of the European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction said that in 2011, there were 49 new drugs, but only 17 were reported more than once in the UK, out of which 14 were already controlled. In 2012, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, there were 73 new drugs, but only 18 were seen in the UK, all already controlled.

There are a couple of other measures. From 2011, the Home Office set up a response to legal highs, known as the forensic early-warning system. It detects new drugs in the UK through test purchasing and forensic work. It also informs the considerations of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and our wider responses. We also have the drugs early-warning system.

[Baroness Meacher]

Will the Minister accept that the UK Border Agency, leading ACPO officers and many other officials and experts in the field will say that even if a new psychoactive substance is banned, that does not mean that children and young people all over the country are not getting it? They are. The UK Border Agency, for example, talked about its great big warehouse with mountains of little packages; it has no idea what is in those packages—just lots and lots of white powders. Those packages are seized from the post, but the UKBA says that it is a drop in the ocean: it is not touching it or scraping at the edge of the thing at all. Will the Minister accept that we do not and cannot control these new psychoactive substances because they are purchased on the web and delivered direct to children’s and young people’s homes? Therefore, we need a more sophisticated approach to this, which is why the European Union has come to the conclusion that we need to think about the low-risk substances—to differentiate, have a proportionate response and so on. It is just not good enough to say, “We have a system; it works”. The fact is that it does not; the Government’s people recognise that it is not working.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention and, of course, for the excellent work she does in her chairmanship of the APPG. I do not for a moment suggest—nor do the Government take this position—that everything can be controlled through such measures. She pointed to the internet: internet purchasing of NPS is quite low. I understand it is at the rate of about 2%. That said, there has to be an acceptance that, of course, banning something does not mean that a substance or a derivative of one will not get through. After all, these are derivatives of what already exists in the market and, as all noble Lords acknowledge, this is unfortunately a dynamic market and you can never control what new substances are coming. It is only possible when something is identified. However, currently we take account of the different representations made by different agencies and we work with EU partners in sharing information and good practice. That is something that the Government subscribe to. However, as the noble Baroness herself acknowledged in her contributions, the UK is far ahead of others in identifying and dealing with some of these matters. Of course, we ultimately need to ensure that we try to stop as quickly as possible these drugs that are coming on to our markets and streets and appearing in people’s homes. There is no doubt that challenges remain and we need to address them as they arise.

Finally, as I already said in acknowledging some of the noble Baroness’s remarks, the Government retain our position that the European Union has a role to play in tackling new psychoactive substances, but we are not convinced that the current measures will add value to the work that the UK is already doing and leading in this area.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

In winding up this debate, I should like to thank all those who participated, particularly the two members of my sub-committee, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for their contributions. It is always a source of pleasure to find that the two Front Benches are in agreement with a cross-party committee such as ours. Therefore, there is clearly very broad support for tabling this reasoned opinion.

I listened with great care to my noble friend Lady Meacher, who is of course a major expert on these matters and who has made some extremely relevant observations about the difficulty of dealing with these psychoactive substances. She must be right when she says that we should not delude ourselves into thinking that because the Commission proposals are in our view not fulfilling subsidiarity and are disproportionate, we therefore have all the answers. We clearly do not have all the answers, and the Minister admitted that. The question that comes up under subsidiarity is: will action at the European Union level add value and be more effective? That is where these proposals fall down: we do not have a perfect system, but the one that is proposed could lead to quite difficult issues arising if, for example, great harm were found in the UK from one of these substances—if people died from it—and we were not able to take action. That would be damaging both to us in Britain and to the European Union.

I hope that when this matter comes to be dealt with in Brussels—whether or not we reach the threshold for the yellow card, as it is called, which is perhaps not certain— the Commission will take a very careful look. It will need to reply to this reasoned opinion we are making, whether it achieves the yellow card threshold or not. I hope that it takes a very careful look again at the decision-making processes that it proposes. There are elements in the proposal that are excellent; clearly the EMCDDA has a bigger role to play in these substances and I hope that it will be given more resources as the new budget arrangements come into effect from the beginning of next year. It would be a good thing if that happened, because it does excellent work and could greatly help member states with the action that they have to take in this field. Europol devotes quite a lot of its resources to drugs and clearly has a major role to play in breaking up the trafficking of these products and so on. However, we take issue with the decision-making process; that is the basis for the reasoned opinion and the basis on which I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

New Psychoactive Substances: Reasoned Opinion

Monday 11th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Resolve

20:25

Moved by

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

To resolve that this House considers that the Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on new psychoactive substances (COM(2013)619, Council Document 13857/13) and the Commission proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25 October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking, as regards the definition of drug (COM(2013)618, Council Document 13865/13) do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, for the reasons set out in the 6th Report of the European Union Committee, (HL Paper 73); and, in accordance with article 6 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the Parliaments to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European institutions.

Motion agreed.

20:25

Sitting suspended.

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

Monday 11th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Committee (2nd Day)(Continued)

20:36

Amendment 154

Moved by

[Lord Monks]

154: Clause 38, page 45, line 25, at end insert—
“( ) to offer ACAS conciliation between complainant and respondent before making an enforcement order”

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 154 is designed to provide for ACAS to be able to intervene when there is a dispute about a register. ACAS has a very high reputation for intervening in difficult situations and finding its way through them. We think that there could be some difficult situations if the assurer gets going in a number of circumstances. With the agreement of the parties and the certification officer, it would be useful for ACAS to be deployed before an enforcement order is issued. I beg to move.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

I shall speak briefly to the amendment. As the Committee will know, I was chair of ACAS from 2000 to 2007. To that extent, I suppose I have an interest in attracting work to my former organisation. If the Minister is correct in saying that the Government are not looking for confrontation in Part 3 of the Bill—some of us still need convincing of that—they will be looking for ways of avoiding the ultimate sanctions that are contained in Part 3. I think this offers a way out of an impasse. It might help the parties, particularly if there are difficulties in agreeing factual statements, if ACAS were to be invited to intervene. The Minister will know that, if this is not specified, ACAS will not be able to intervene. There needs to be a statutory requirement before it can become involved. It is important that this is written into the Bill. I support my noble friend Lord Monks on this amendment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)]

My Lords, it is not entirely clear why this amendment is being proposed. I imagine that there could be concerns in relation to vexatious allegations or allegations by an employer seeking to undermine a trade union’s ability to take industrial action. In practice, where an inspector conducts an investigation, there is no complainant or respondent with respect to that investigation. It is not clear why ACAS conciliation between a union under investigation and a potential witness would ever be appropriate in the context of an investigation to establish whether a union was in breach of its duties under Section 24. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Monks]

I am well beyond the hat-trick stage of getting disappointing replies this evening. I think that an opportunity is being missed here. ACAS could help to smooth the introduction of these measures, and I am sorry that the Government are not a bit more interested in this subject. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 154 withdrawn.

Clause 38 agreed.

Clause 39: Enforcement

Amendment 155

Moved by

[Lord Monks]

155: Clause 39, page 46, line 21, at end insert—
“( ) must specify to the unions the provisions with which he or she considers the trade union may have failed to comply and give preliminary written reasons for that view which are sufficient to enable the trade union to know the case it has to meet and to enable it to make representations to him or her;( ) must disclose to the union any inspector’s report under section 24ZI in sufficient time for it to address that report in any written representations”

[Lord Monks]

My Lords, Amendments 155 and 156 stress the need to give unions adequate opportunity to make representations before enforcement action is taken. It gives them the chance to see what is in an inspector’s report before the certification officer is called upon to declare that a union has failed to comply with its duties. In other words, they are given a chance to put things right before being arraigned before the registrar of trade unions, who is the certification officer. Providing a chance to put things right before things become public and perhaps more entrenched seems to us to be a matter of good procedure in this kind of case. I think it is a useful suggestion and I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about it. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, during the break I had a look back over the points that we have been making to the Government. A bit like my noble friend Lord Monks, I am slightly surprised that the Government have taken such an aggressive line towards what we are saying. If the Minister recalls my contribution to the debate on the group before this, I was saying—I thought in as conciliatory a manner as possible—that we were trying to offer a series of improvements to what we think is a bad Bill. However, not a single one of them was taken up.

In our opening two debates, I asked a total of, I think, 14 questions. I have not had answers to any of them and I am under pressure from my colleagues here to keep pushing the Minister to come back with at least some general responses if he cannot give detailed ones. However, I can hope—because I know that he is an honourable and decent person—that I will get a letter at a later date that perhaps covers them. I hope that that will be the case.

On the ACAS amendment, which was meant in the spirit of support—there was no particular difference of principle here—all we got was, “I can’t really understand why the Opposition would bother putting up this amendment”. When some of these amendments were put forward in the other place, we at least had a decent reply from the Minister. Although he did not accept all of them, he did accept one or two points, and at least there was a sense of dialogue and debate. I am very disappointed at the way that this session has gone today. I hope very much that, when he comes to reply, the Minister will make a considered response to the points raised by my noble friend.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

Perhaps I may attempt to lower the temperature slightly. There was certainly no intention of being peremptory, particularly with the short response that I gave on the previous group of amendments. I can only say that, if it would be helpful, I would be more than happy to write to the noble Lord and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Monks, with some further details on that reply, which I took as read as being rather short. There was absolutely no intention of dismissing it, if that was implicit in the noble Lord’s reply.

As for the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has raised during the debate today, which I much enjoyed, I have already pledged to write to him to answer any questions that he has raised. Indeed, he has raised quite a few, so I hope he will accept the fact that I write letters and like to get into the detail. The very least I can do is answer the questions clearly and fully, and also address some of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Monks. I hope that that is very clear to the House today.

20:45

I shall now respond to Amendments 155 and 156, which seem intended to make it explicit that before the certification officer may make a declaration that a trade union is not complying with its duties in relation to the membership register, the trade union must know the reasons why. The amendments also require the certification officer to disclose an inspector’s report to the union. This is so that the union can make effective representations on the case against it before the certification officer makes any decision. I am happy to reassure noble Lords that this is already covered by current law and what is in this Bill. A union will have the opportunity to present its case in written representations to the certification officer before a declaration is made. The certification officer may also allow the union to make oral representations.

Unions, like other bodies, are entitled to a fair and public hearing, within a reasonable time, by an independent and impartial tribunal. This is required by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and is met in the Bill’s enforcement provisions. In practice, a union may have several chances to reply to any allegations and put forward a defence. Any inspector appointed is likely to make a series of inquiries, which will include dealing with the union directly, before providing a report to the certification officer. If the inspector’s report suggests that there is evidence of a problem, the union still has a formal opportunity to present its case before any declaration is made. The union would not be able to do this without seeing the evidence, including relevant sections of the inspector’s report. So this is the practical effect of what is already in the Bill.

Finally, the union can appeal decisions of the certification officer to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. I am confident that the current provisions give unions plenty of opportunities to put forward a defence before any declaration is issued, and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Monks]

My Lords, that was a rather legalistic reply. The Government are taking a rigid approach to this. I am sure that the whole thing is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, completely disproportionate to any problems with union administration that may exist in the fertile imagination of noble Lords on the other Benches. Anyway, the Minister has told us straight that he is going to stick to the provisions of the Bill and that he does not find the amendment particularly to his liking. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 155 withdrawn.

Amendment 156 not moved.

Clause 39 agreed.

Amendment 156A

Moved by

[Lord Monks]

156A: After Clause 39, insert the following new Clause—
“Part 3: Commencement
The provisions in this Part shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has placed in the Libraries of both houses a review of the burden of regulatory responsibility that this Part will place on trade unions, including any necessary rule changes and their timeframe.”

[Lord Monks]

My Lords, this is an important amendment on an important topic, on which other amendments have been tabled in the names of my noble friends Lord Whitty and Lord Lea. It is important that union administration processes are taken into account in introducing this legislation, and Amendment 156A suggests that the Act should not come into force until the Secretary of State has placed in the Libraries of both Houses a review of the burden of regulatory responsibility that Part 3 will place on unions, including the need for them to make rule changes and the timescale for doing that.

The purpose is to give unions adequate time to comply in a way that is cost effective, economical and practical from their point of view. It is very much in line with the Regulatory Policy Committee report that we discussed earlier at some length and which drew attention to the lack of reliable information on the increased burden imposed on unions. That was one of its major reasons for giving the Government the red card in its report and on the whole exercise.

It also highlights the fact that unions have these procedures for making changes in their constitution, and it will be necessary, as the Bill recognises, that unions will have to make some changes to the rules. In the union that I was familiar with, a rules revision conference was held every few years. Often the Government of the day were sensitive to the union timetables, and so on, particularly on a matter such as this. It hardly seems a matter of life and death, even to the aficionados on the other side, in terms of the importance that the Government attach to it. We know already that the BIS estimate of around £461,000 is an underestimate. It will cost unions a lot more than that. Before the Bill is enacted we need a better idea of the costs that will be incurred. We need an approach that is reflective of the union’s need to take steps to comply with the law properly and effectively. I mention again the need to keep costs down.

I am sympathetic to the amendments in the name of my noble friends. They seek to specify a time limit, which would be useful. Some unions have longer timescales for making changes. I mentioned one that did it every few years. I hope that we will get sympathetic and sensitive understanding, especially given the complete lack of information in the impact assessment, as pointed out by the Regulatory Reform Committee, on the Government’s figures and the regulatory burden being put on unions. They are shoving a load of red tape on to unions and it is important to give the unions at least a period of digestion that errs on the side of minimising a little bit of that red tape. I beg to move.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords, in the course of thinking about this last week I went to the Public Bill Office. I do not know whether I should mention the clerk’s name, but it was Simon Burton and he is right there. I wrote something down and asked whether we could put 1 January 2116. He said, “2116?”. I said, “Yes”, and he said, “Don’t you mean 2016?”. I said, “Oh, I probably do, but hang about a minute, why not make it 2116?”, but I chickened out.

Anyway, the more this discussion goes on today, the more obvious it is that we are juggling lots of timescales and deficiencies in the procedure so far, such as no pre-legislative scrutiny, no scrutiny by the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords, no discussion of post-legislative scrutiny, and so on. Yet, everybody knows, and the Minister has said it several times, that ostensibly it is because of the difficulties that unions have in getting their membership lists up to date. I wonder why that is not true of electoral rolls, but let us stay with what we are on. This will take some time, so what is the connection between that and commencement dates?

The other point that I want to bring into this discussion concerns the pause. The pause for Part 2 has been for a particular purpose, but the pause in Part 3 is simply a consequence of the pause on Part 2. I do not know why the Minister is looking puzzled, but there is de facto a pause before we have the next discussion at the same time as Report of the Bill. Am I not right? Yes, of course. That is how it is. So, between now and the new year all sorts of people, including the Cross-Benchers and so on, will be thinking about all sorts of ideas.

In the middle of this I happened to read, being an insomniac, a very interesting discussion in the Moses Room led by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, on the importance of commencement dates. Indeed, I noticed that my noble friend Lady Royall took part in that discussion. I was quite amazed that commencement dates are a key part of our constitution, but even Ministers sometimes do not know who takes the decision. Certainly as often as not there is no further parliamentary discussion or decision on them, yet I suppose that we could find, for the anoraks on these matters, some reference to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and so on. Therefore, I think that we could bring into the mix the problems that have been mentioned for our consideration between now and the new year.

This thing is half-baked. One of the reasons it is half-baked is that it should be in the oven for at least an hour but has only been in for 20 minutes. That is one of the reasons it is half-baked. We should take this in the spirit that it is intended—namely, where should commencement dates come in the Bill? Obviously, we are not advocating that we pass legislation that is never implemented. That is, however, not as stupid a comment as one might think because apparently a huge amount of legislation is never implemented. Just read the report of the noble Lord, Lord Norton. He was the chairman of the commission on this very question. That might be nice, as I say, or implemented in 2116.

De facto, I thought somebody might notice that there is a general election coming up between now and 2016. All I would say about that is—and it cuts both ways—in 2016 and those sorts of periods, people will at least not be thinking all the time about how these matters may affect a general election. They are matters that have a serious footprint into the trade union movement, as we demonstrated this evening, including all the different timetables of changing union rules. The Minister may not have tried to deny that, but he did not appreciate that one cannot simply go to the next conference in Blackpool and say, “We’ll put a rules revision on the agenda”. There are rules for the procedures and timings of rules revision conferences.

Therefore, I think at the moment—there is no voting this evening—we would like to link this proposition with the one that my noble friend Lord Monks referred to. We are trying to relate this, with considerable difficulty, to the realities on the ground. If something in this field is to be done, it has got to be done within a timescale that allows for post-legislative scrutiny. I will ask the Minister a specific question about that. Where does post-legislative scrutiny now fit into his conception of where we will be going on this? I look forward to his comments.

21:00

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government would be wise to accept at least some of the spirit of these amendments. The first of the amendments deals with the whole issue of getting a better grip on what the impact really is. We have had a pathetic impact assessment put before us—one that bears no relation to any costs that any of the trade unions, whatever their persuasion on other matters may be, would recognise. We have not managed to assess what the impact would be on the resources and costs of the certification officers. We have a pause now in which the Government could put that right so that the next time we come to debate the issue we will have more robust figures, perhaps some degree of consensus about what it means and at least a range of figures we could sensibly talk about. At the moment we have virtually none of that.

The heaviest comment on it has been the Regulatory Reform Committee’s view that all of this is unsupported in the normal way in which we approach new regulation. The Government have got to get out from under that at some point and they have time to do it. Therefore the requirement in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Monks that more information should be put in the Library before we return to this issue on Report would be sensible from everyone’s point of view, particularly that of the Government.

As to the commencement date, obviously the Government are reluctant to put in a later commencement date than they would like. On the other hand, put at its gentlest, we know that the Bill is a bit of a mess—and not only this part. There is serious criticism of the scope of Part 1 and very serious criticism, concern and widespread apprehension about Part 2. By being gung-ho and requiring that nearly all of the clauses within the Bill should come into effect immediately the Act is passed, the Government do not serve their cause well. They certainly do not serve well the cause of implementing any part of the Bill because they will need to take a large chunk of civic society with them, including in this respect the trade unions and in other respects a wide range of organisations.

It is therefore not sensible for the effect of 90% of the Bill to start on day one. The Government will come back and say that that is not really what it means because from day one they can draw up the secondary legislation, and so in that sense it is the secondary legislation that will have a commencement date. That is all very well but, given that there are controversial issues such as this in all three parts of the Bill and that we have not seen any draft secondary legislation—and will not see any by the time we reach Report, as I understand it—a judgment by ourselves cannot be made and, more importantly, cannot be made by those organisations that are affected by each of the three parts of the Bill. A later commencement date for the whole of the Bill, with proper consultation on the secondary legislation, would be a sensible move.

Of course, there is such a thing as a general election. I hesitate to return to an earlier discussion, provoked by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler—I nearly called him “my noble friend”—that revealed that there was at least some suspicion or understanding that this would affect political funding. However, if that is the case and it is an important motivation for the Bill—and if the Government refuse to go further than the rather Delphic statement that the Minister repeated at least twice, which got us no further down the line—we know that there is not going to be a deal between the parties on political funding this side of the election. However, whatever our backgrounds, we all recognise that there is a possibility at some point we will have to change the rules in relation to political funding generally. The only way we can do that is by consensus. We will not do it before an election but whoever wins the election might be in a position to do it afterwards. That is an important consideration. If, so close to an election, the Government appear to be taking pre-emptive action on this front, affecting one party only, the possibility of a multiparty agreement will become more remote after the election.

In a sense, that is a separate argument. I am trying to look at it in part from the Government’s point of view, as they seek to deliver this with a reasonable amount of support from civic society. In any case, they will need to think of a fairly long timescale for implementation. If they do not, they will be in trouble not only with the trade unions, but with a large chunk of civic society and those who expected this Government to deliver on lobbying in way that actually adds up to something. In that case, the Bill will be seen as a damp squib on the one hand and a provocation on the other. I do not think that this is in the Government’s interests.

I suggest that the Minister should take this back to his colleagues, talk to them and agree that we should have a somewhat later commencement date—probably for all three sections of the Bill but certainly for this one.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, as has been made evident from the speeches that we have heard, this is about ensuring that, should the Bill progress and be brought into law, it will operate with a reasonable chance of success. As we have heard, it puts additional red tape on a number of bodies which are technically independent. They are part of civic society admittedly, but not those which are necessarily controlled by any one group. They are self-governing or self-operating, so it will take time for it to be absorbed.

There are new procedures and assurers—if that is what they are to be called, it is an ugly name—who will need to be nominated on a list to be promulgated. There have to be appointments made, new reporting processes brought in and inspections, and all sorts of procedures relate to that. We have a plethora of activity and burdens on trade unions that need to be bedded in. If the Government were thinking about the effectiveness and efficiency of the operations, it makes sense to give it time to bed in and get the best chance.

We have also heard from those who know—and perhaps they know a lot better than those who are advising Ministers—about the practical difficulties of trying to get changes into all these independent bodies in sufficient time and on an appropriate scale in order that the legislation can be made to work effectively. What does a bit of a delay cost us? We might return to that.

This is also about trying to do legislation properly. I made plain in my earlier remarks that the Minister’s letter-writing needs will prey heavily on his mind over the next week or two, because of all my questions. About seven of them were about the report from the Regulatory Policy Committee on the impact assessment. I will run over one or two of them, because they raise issues that are not susceptible to the timescale to which we are told the Bill is being progressed. In effect, what was called for was a new impact assessment. I asked the Minister whether we will have one, but he did not respond.

Will there be new figures? Will the RPC be able to look at and make comment on them? Will the figures do what the RPC requests of the Government and involve those stakeholders and others who were not properly consulted before? Will there be an opportunity for the Bill to be refined, to answer the question that the RPC asked about how accurate an updated membership register would have to be for a union to be considered compliant with the new recommendations? Unless that is made clear, it is very hard to assess or even guess whether the costs that will be placed on the trade unions are worth the additional assurances available to those who will in time wish to depend on that register.

All this is criticised to a great extent in the impact assessment report and, therefore, we assume a new report will need to be put in. The Minister said that part of the blame for this was because those carrying out the impact assessment did not get sufficient responses from the trade unions. That may be because trying to consult with a body in a four-week period starting at the end of July and finishing before the end of August is not likely to maximise the chances of getting a good response.

There may be other reasons, but it is more that there is a lack of understanding about how independent bodies such as trade unions operate and how to get the information that is available within them for compliance. It does not exactly fill one with confidence to read in the report from the RPC that the impact assessment provides figures in relation to small unions that seem to have been based on one respondent. The Government could do better than that. That will take time and compete with the other issues that we are talking about and, therefore, again plays to a suggestion in the amendment that there should be a delay in commencement until such time as the Secretary of State has placed in the Libraries a review of the burden of regulatory responsibility. That is just one proposal but others that have been discussed by my noble friends suggest a date that would allow sufficient time for the legislation to bed in. I recommend that proposal also because it would provide an alternative approach.

This point regarding commencement will come back, as my noble friend Lord Whitty mentioned. There are other commencement issues regarding Parts 1 and 2. Other amendments in the group technically relate to Part 4 and we will therefore have an opportunity to debate them again. I invite the Minister to give us a considered response, unless he feels that behind all this the “drop dead” date of May 2015 will suffice, and stating anything other than what he previously said would therefore merely be provocation.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, Amendments 178, 179 and 180 would amend Clause 41 to delay Part 3, either in whole or in part, from coming into force. I have assumed that the noble Lords intend the amendments to be applied together to delay implementation to 1 January 2016 at the earliest.

Noble Lords are clearly anxious that trade unions should be given sufficient time to prepare. I entirely share this sentiment. I hope that, to this extent, I can offer a positive and emollient answer to the noble Lords, Lord Monks, Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord Whitty. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that it makes sense to allow time for bedding down or bedding in—I am not sure which but we will go for both for the moment. Unions will be required to amend their rules, which will need agreement from their members. They will also have to identify an eligible assurer and contract with them. Again, agreeing those contractual arrangements will take time. I am sure that noble Lords opposite will agree with me on that.

Moreover, many unions will be part way through a reporting year if the provisions were to come into effect immediately. This would mean deviating from standard legislative practice whereby provisions are not applied retrospectively. That is why the measures in Part 3 will not be applied retrospectively. Unions will be required to submit their certificate for the first full reporting year after the changes become law. Given that unions can have different reporting years, the point at which the changes take effect on each individual union will vary. However, all unions will have up to five months from the end of their reporting year to submit their certificate to the certification officer.

Noble Lords may wish to note that should the provisions in Part 3 come into effect in March 2014, a union whose reporting year ends on 31 March would not need to submit a report for the year ending 31 March 2015 until the end of August 2015. A union that reports every calendar year would have even more time to prepare; it would have to submit its report for the year ending 31 December 2015 by the end of May 2016. Furthermore, even if Parliament granted Royal Assent by March 2014, it is likely that the provisions in Part 3 may come into effect later. The Minister for Employment and Consumer Affairs in the other place has given an assurance to consult on the order for the eligibility of the assurer, which will take time.

I turn to Amendment 156A. A copy of the impact assessment prepared by BIS was placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 11 September. This was mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Monks. It drew on responses to a targeted consultation in the summer when we sought evidence of the impact. We engaged specifically with trade unions on this point at a meeting arranged by the TUC with some of its affiliates and BIS officials. We are continuing to work with the Regulatory Policy Committee to consider how to improve the evidence base. Should unions or anyone else have any further information, we should be pleased to receive it. We will place a revised copy of the impact assessment in the Libraries before the legislation is commenced.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Can the noble Lord repeat that last phrase? Before which date will a copy of the impact assessment be placed in the Libraries?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

Before legislation is commenced.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am being particularly dense and time is moving on but we are in Committee. Are we saying that this impact assessment may not be available to us before we conclude discussion of this part—in other words, that the Bill may have passed through its proceedings in the Lords before the impact assessment is placed in the Libraries? The noble Lord said it was the commencement date.

21:14

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

It is indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, raised the issue of post-legislative scrutiny, which is a fair point to make. It is good practice to evaluate the effect of legislation once it has had time to have an impact. We would expect to do this in due course so I hope that is some reassurance to the noble Lord.

The noble Lords, Lord Monks and Lord Stevenson, raised the issue of a revised impact assessment. I have already touched on the impact assessment in my earlier speech but I emphasise that the impact assessment that has been published is based on the quality of evidence we received. We will be seeking to improve it but to do so will need more data than have so far been provided. We will be working on this and will present a revised impact assessment before the legislation is commenced, which is what Amendment 156A seeks.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raised the issue of having an opportunity to see the draft secondary legislation. The Government have already said that there will be consultation on the order to set out the eligibility criteria for the assurer. We will continue to engage unions and others as we develop the detailed implementation of the provisions to support a smooth transition.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, returned again to the issue of whether the Bill was intended to regulate the way in which unions choose to pay political levies. He mentioned that I had mentioned it once, maybe twice, before. Whether it was once or twice, I now emphasise it a third time to be absolutely clear over our position. There is nothing in Part 3 that is intended to change how unions do this. The Government’s intention is to provide greater assurance about the accuracy of membership registers. There is no wider intention and regulation of union political funds is a different part of the 1992 Act from that amended here. We have offered, as I said earlier, to assist the leader of the Opposition with his planned reforms if he wishes. I cannot be any clearer on re-emphasising this point. I ask the noble Lords to withdraw, or not to move, their amendments.

[Lord Monks]

My Lords, during the Minister’s reply, which I have to concede was a bit more interesting than some of his others, there were one or two chinks of light. There was something of interest in the timetabling and lead dates, although they are well short of where unions need to be to do this in an economical and sensible way. There is still quite a lot of pressure for some unions in particular to get these things done. The view on our side, which has been consistently expressed, is that this is a remedy that is looking for a problem to solve. There is no requirement for it. As the impact assessment says, there is nil effect and nil impact. For a Bill that is so marginal to anything important, it is extremely disappointing to see a department that is committed to economic growth and stirring the British economy to a higher level of performance wasting time addressing a non-problem. We thought the suggestions from this side, about giving us plenty of time to make adjustments and explain it to people, deserved a better fate than the one that you have just given us.

I welcome the BIS talks with the TUC. I hope that the Minister will be in listening mode during those talks. I also welcome that some adjustments have already been made as a result of those talks, and what the Minister said about there being nothing in this Bill that will affect political funds.

I hope the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is not too disappointed because I thought he had rather ambitious hopes for the Bill as the first step towards a new settlement on party funding. I do not think that it is; I do not think that it is that significant. Otherwise, these Benches and his Benches would be absolutely full.

As the Minister says, I am sure that we shall return to the issue about commencement dates at the next opportunity and I now withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 156A withdrawn.

House resumed.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Monday 11th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

21:20

Moved by

[Lord McFall of Alcluith]

To move that this House takes note of the number and complexity of amendments tabled by Her Majesty’s Government at Committee Stage of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, and of the case for measured consideration of the Bill.

[Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)]

My Lords, why does my Motion state, “measured consideration”? If we go back to Second Reading on 21 July, the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, the Commercial Secretary, stated that,

“the Bill is a central part of the Government’s response to the financial crisis of 2007-09”.

In responding for the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said that this is the most significant reform of the finance ever, but he added:

“This Second Reading is being conducted largely in the dark”.—[Official Report, 27/7/13; col. 1343.]

The President of the Supreme Court, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, in a speech last month entitled Justice in an Age of Austerity said:

“Partly because there are so many perceived problems in society, there is a welter of ill-conceived legislation—poor in quality and voluminous in quantity. The result is little more than the illusion of action without much in the way of the reality of achievement, coupled with uncertainty and confusion about the law … it brings the legislature, even the rule of law, into disrepute”.

He could have been talking about this financial services Bill. I have news for the House; indeed he was.

When introduced to the House of Commons in February 2013, the Bill was 20 pages and 25 clauses long. When introduced to the House of Lords in July 2013, it was 35 pages and 21 clauses long. Now, before us, we have 170 pages and 127 clauses.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, continues:

“I mean no criticism of parliamentary drafters or of MPs or Peers. The pressure on them is such that they cannot do their jobs properly, as they themselves have made clear. Let me take a very recent example. Exactly a week ago, the House of Lords considered the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, in what was optimistically described on the Parliamentary website as ‘the first chance for line by line scrutiny, in the Lords’. Lord Turnbull, a cross-bencher, pointed out that the ‘total amendments [run to] 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’.

‘Lord Higgins, a Conservative, said that ‘the way that the Bill is drafted … makes it extremely difficult for the House to work out what is happening from moment to moment on an unbelievably complex matter’. Lord Phillips of Sudbury, a Liberal Democrat, described ‘the complexity of both the Bill and the amendments’ as ‘quite barbaric’, and Lord Barnett, for Labour, said that he had ‘enormous sympathy’ with the view of Lord Turnbull ‘that he has never seen such a shambles presented to any House’. He immediately went on to say:

‘As Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I had the misfortune for five years … 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’”.

As the noble and learned Lord, who is the President of the Supreme Court, said:

“So here we have a Parliamentary debate on a Bill whose importance could scarcely be greater, a debate and a Bill which are condemned from all sides of the political divide as plainly unsatisfactory, and where a former Minister indicates that the problem is not new. Examples abound”.

He adds:

“I appreciate that life gets ever-more complex, but that reinforces, rather than undermines, the need for simplicity in legislation”.

The Government may say that they have put these amendments down in order to respond to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. However, there is universal dismay among the members of that commission at the haste with which the Government are pushing the Report stage to 18 November. I quote from the Times last Thursday, in which the chairman of the commission said,

“a government move this week to ram the Bill through the House of Lords would not leave peers necessary time to consider amendments”.

He continued:

“This legislation is being rushed. It’s hugely complex: amendments piled on amendments piled on amendments. We must get this bill right, and the Lords need more time to do it”.

He adds:

“The bill would be a botched job, were we not to take the time to get it right”.

We have a number of substantial differences with the Government regarding the direction in which they are going. For example, we want a statutory basis for the remuneration code, to better align risk and reward. Leverage ratios have been at the core of all financial crises since the time of the Ark. Mervyn King, the former Governor of the Bank of England, was very clear when he said:

“Leverage is the one issue that matters above all others”.

It is not for politicians to decide, and that is what the Government are doing at this very moment. There are also the issues of electrification of the ring-fence, and of general powers. The chairman of the commission, Andrew Tyrie, said,

“the Government’s amendments would render the specific power of electrification virtually useless”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/7/13; col. 75.]

The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, and I have been interested in the issue of the auditors’ code. We need a basis of communication between auditors and the regulator if we are to ensure that we can make sense of banks’ business models, now and in the future. The noble Lord has been very keen on the issue of prop trading, which the Government have dismissed.

The commissioners accept in principle much which needs to be in secondary legislation. If that could be provided—even in draft—so that we know exactly what the Government have in mind, and we can form our opinion accordingly, it would be a step forward. However, that needs time so that everyone can understand it.

The commission was established in June 2012 to examine both culture and standards in the financial services industry, particularly the banking industry. What did we find? We found a culture which was rotten, and we found standards which were abysmally low. Financial services will not change overnight as a result of even the finest legislation passed here, because fostering a culture of caution, prudence and service to clients is a generational task. That has not been done. However, if we pass legislation without adequate scrutiny, it will be imbued with complexity and will therefore lack both clarity and coherence. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, a seasoned commercial lawyer, was very clear in Committee when he said:

“Everybody will look at what they are required to do and what the consequences are if they do not do it… The Bill should say what it means and mean what it says”. — [Official Report, 24/7/13; col. 1375.]

If the Bill does not do that with sufficient clarity then there will be no individual accountability of bankers, which was at the core of the rottenness of the system. They did not see, they did not tell and they did not hear, so that clarity is really important.

21:30

On the second issue of coherence, we have a Bill, statutory orders and a regulatory authority. As a result, we will have ensuing codes of conduct, memoranda of understanding and banking standards, all of which have to gel. The absence of interrelation is what the bankers, and particularly the lawyers, will look for. If we pass this legislation with its present level of complexity and absence of clarity and coherence, this reform will be next to useless. It will be the lawyers who will win on this; the Minister has heard that from all sides of the House. That is because we have to superimpose the present Bill on at least two other statutes and extract as best we can from that superimposition of a notional, generic Bill for banking reform. So difficult will that be that it will keep the lawyers and accountants in business from here to eternity, while reform of financial services goes by the board.

The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was charged with, “Changing banking for good”. That was very clear and it is on the front of our document, but we will have fallen down on our job and our effort on culture and standards if we rush this. There will be little change in that culture and those standards. In June 2012, 10 of us from across parties in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons came together to use our best collective efforts to deliver a unanimous report. We all had to put a lot of effort into ensuring that that report was unanimous, but those 12 months were worthwhile. If I might quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, again, he said in his lecture:

“We need legislation which is more critically and expertly considered and which is significantly less in quantity … Less and better legislation will not only mean better justice, as the law will be clearer and simpler”.

One of our members, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, played a crucial role in the work of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, not least in the area of culture and ethics. His colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, indicated on Second Reading in July that the most reverend Primate was not,

“in his place but fully intends to be so … in the autumn”,—[Official Report, 24/7/13; col. 1350-51]

when the commission’s work would be further discussed. Sadly, that cannot be the case because of the Government’s decision to rush this legislation since, on Monday 18 November, the most reverend Primate will be at a General Synod of the Church of England. Not only is that decision discourteous to the most reverend Primate and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards; it does not do service to the contribution which he has made and will make to the debates on the Floor of the House.

Criticism of the complexity and opaqueness of these legislative proposals is widespread throughout the House, and profound. The chairman of the committee, Andrew Tyrie, has been hugely conscientious in his deliberations over a year, notwithstanding his efforts as chairman of the Treasury Committee in the House of Commons. He informed me only a few hours ago that we need until the new year if we are to have an Act worthy of our effort and intellectual rigour, as applied over the past 12 months.

I understand the problems that Whips have when they organise business. I have been a Whip in the House of Commons, both in opposition and in government. However, I say to this Chamber that if we are to do justice to the objectives of this House—that is, in being a rigorous, revising Chamber—we really need to abandon this rush to have Report on Monday 18 November and commence it after the Christmas Recess, when we have all had time to study it. That would ensure that we get a better Bill and carry out the remit with which we were charged: to change banking in this country for good.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

I support my noble friend Lord McFall of Alcluith and the Motion that he has moved. The vast number of amendments to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill are extremely complex. Clearly, more time is needed to consider the amendments before Report. As my noble friend has pointed out, the banking commission, which includes the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, is joined by the President of the Supreme Court, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, and the former Governor of the Bank of England in suggesting that that is the best way forward to delay the Report stage of this Bill until after the Christmas Recess.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the Chief Whip, said in our exchange of views on Wednesday that the increased length of the Bill was due to the Government responding positively to the recommendations made by the banking commission. Undoubtedly that played a part, but in a Bill of such importance for the future well-being for our financial system, it is critical that noble Lords have a longer opportunity to look at the Bill as a whole to see how the many amendments to the amendments to the amendments, as my noble friend pointed out, work together to provide a clear, cohesive and coherent system. My noble friend is right to point out that good legislation is critical, and the critique of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, is salutary in this respect. Bad legislation is often complex legislation. In such situations, it is always the lawyers and accountants who win, and our country’s citizens who lose.

The Deputy Chief Whip is aware that my strong preference for business next Monday is to have debates on non-legislative reports. That seems to be a simple solution to the problem that was not, as I acknowledge, of the Government’s making, but the result of the will of the House in relation to the lobbying Bill. As I have explained to noble Lords and others inside and outside this Chamber, it is not possible to have the Second Reading of the Pensions Bill on 18 November, because the opposition spokespersons are not available. I stress that they are not, as some have suggested, on holiday. They have long-standing commitments that cannot be changed, and I respect their diary commitments.

As my noble friend said, we do have a duty to ensure the necessary transformation of our banking system. This requires longer consideration before the Report stage of the banking Bill. However, I recognise that the House is anxious not only to try to ensure that Report is put off until after Christmas, but also to ensure that all Members of your Lordships’ House who are members of the banking commission can participate at Report, including, of course, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I suggest therefore that, even if it were not possible to delay the commencement of Report until after Christmas, there may be other legislative options that could be discussed in relation to business on Monday. I know that my noble friend Lord Bassam is happy to discuss other suggestions with the Deputy Chief Whip. I trust that this can be taken forward outside this Chamber. I am sure that most noble Lords, although clearly they are not in their place this evening, would be anxious to ensure that all members of the banking commission can participate in the Report stage and that proper consideration can be given by all Members of this House with an interest in this most important issue.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, on the substance of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord McFall, as the House knows I am one of the Government’s spokespeople on the Bill, as well as being Deputy Chief Whip.

The Government tabled 155 amendments at Committee stage. By my reckoning, 116 of them were to respond to the report of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and were welcomed by members of the commission. The remainder set up the payments systems regulator, and were equally welcomed across the House. All but one of the amendments were tabled more than a week ahead of the Committee stage debate, and with an open letter of explanation addressed to the participants. I believe that this was a classic example of good practice.

Off the Floor, my noble friend Lord Deighton and I and other Treasury Ministers have had highly constructive and productive discussions with those interested in the Bill, and we continue to do so. Committee stage finished on 23 October. Usual practice would have been to have Report stage start a fortnight later on 6 November; instead, it will be on 18 November. That is a degree of measured consideration.

That is the substance of the matter. I will address two further issues. The first is that of the Chief Whip adjusting our future business in response to events. The Chief Whip had to rearrange our provisional forward business but, as she made clear last week at the Dispatch Box, she did so only because of the pressure in the House to delay Part 2 of the lobbying Bill—a position not initiated by the Government. In order to have a proper pipeline of parliamentary debate and proper progress of government business, it is necessary to have legislative business next week. The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill was waiting for Report. It was well beyond the necessary minimum interval between stages, and the Opposition Chief Whip made no alternative proposal. I think the Chief Whip not only did the best she could in the circumstances but acted entirely properly and reasonably.

I cannot but regret that the Motion we find ourselves debating was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McFall, not only minutes before House up on Friday afternoon, but without first agreeing a slot for the debate with the Chief Whip, or even consulting her. I realise that in theory every Lord has equal access to the Order Paper. Of course they do in theory, but that is not how we work in practice.

[Lord McFall of Alcluith]

Let me correct the Deputy Chief Whip. As a member of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, I was left in the dark regarding the Chief Whip’s negotiations with the usual channels. I was informed on Friday of the situation. I got on to the Table Office at about 1.30 pm and one of the first things I said was, “Contact the Government Whips so that they know this is going on on Monday”. I would have not needed to have done that if there had been proper channels of procedure between the Whips’ department and our department, and also the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards under the chairmanship of Andrew Tyrie, who has expressed deep regret at this situation. This Bill is different from all other Bills. The Government set up the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. This is not government legislation; this is legislation that the Government are implementing as a result of a year-long inquiry that they set up. It is unique and different from all other aspects.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, my understanding—and I have not been a Whip as long as a number of noble Lords in their places at the moment—is that if a noble Lord wishes to bring a Motion of this sort, the normal practice is to discuss it with the usual channels before laying it. That did not happen in this case, and I greatly regret it. It is for the good order of the House that that is how we do our business. That is not the substance of our debate this evening, although we have to look to at how we do our procedure.

There are a number of outstanding issues between the Government and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. It is proposed that the relevant Treasury Ministers should meet representatives of the commission within the next 24 hours. That offer has been made. Having looked at the outstanding issues, I believe that it will be possible to make progress on most of them, but not necessarily on every last one. That can be done within the next 48 hours. The number of issues between the Government and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards is relatively small because we have dealt with so many of them already. I strongly urge members of the commission to go ahead with that process in the confident expectation that we will be able to reach an agreement on many of the outstanding issues in the very near future.

21:45

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I should like to respond to two or three points raised by the Deputy Chief Whip. On consultation, I note what he said, but I suggest that it is not the case that there is consultation beforehand every time a Member of this House lays the sort of Motion that my noble friend has. My noble friend Lady Hayter was told of the dates when the Committee stage of the transparency of lobbying Bill would recommence in December. She was not asked when it would be done; she was told. There is room for further consultation on many issues in this House.

In the brief exchange we had on this issue last Wednesday, I concluded my remarks by saying that my door was always open, but nobody has crossed the threshold of my office to try to find alternative legislation that could be taken on Monday. While I note what the Minister is saying—it is his view and that of the Government that we do not need to wait until the new year for the Report stage of the banking Bill—it would be to the benefit of all Members of this House if all members of the banking commission were present for the first day of Report. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will be able to take up my suggestion that he have a conversation with my noble friend Lord Bassam following this exchange, to try to find some other legislation that could be taken in this House on Monday so that the banking Bill could start a few days later.

[Lord Newby]

As my noble friend the Chief Whip said last week, she was willing to hear alternative proposals from the Opposition Chief Whip about legislation for next Monday. As far as I understand, no proposals came forth. If the Opposition Chief Whip has some new proposals that he wants to make, obviously my noble friend’s door is always open. However, it is now very late and potentially unfair to people whose legislation might be coming next week to suggest changing the business for next Monday now.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bassam of Brighton) (Lab)]

Would the noble Lord be prepared to consider some changes at this late stage, because I am sure we could have some further discussion on this?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the usual channels are always open.

[Lord McFall of Alcluith]

My Lords, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards has been very open with the Government in everything we have done, and courteous in all our exchanges with them. In light of the heavyweight presence on that commission, in light of the reception it has received in the country and in the knowledge that if anything will change cultural standards in the UK’s financial services, it will be the recommendations of this commission, I should like the Government to reflect on the situation. The Minister should take it back to the Chief Whip and come back and say, “This commission has the best interests of Parliament and the country at heart. It wants time to look at it in a measured way and it is as simple a request as that”. It would be done courteously, and if it needs me to go to the Chief Whip and supplicate, I will be quite happy.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 9.49 pm.